A DRUNKEN MOTORIST.

Otago Witness, Issue 3831, 16 August 1927, Page 53

A DRUNKEN MOTORIST.

PROHIBITED FROM DRIVING. “The public must be protected,” said Mr H. W. Bundle, S.DL, in the Police Court on Friday morning, in fining Henry Maxwell £lO and prohibiting him from driving for 18 months for driving a motor car while in a state of intoxication. The defendant, for whom Dir C. J. L. White appeared, pleaded guilty. Sub-inspector Fahey said that on Thursday evening at 6 o’clock, when driving his car north along King street, tho defendant ran into the back of a fullylighted car. He continued for a chain and a-quarter. It was found that he was drunk—not intoxicated, but drunk. It was a serious matter for the defendant, said Mr White. He was a married man, 29 years of age, with one child. He motored right through New Zealand twice a year, and he had never been in trouble before. On Thursday night ho was going to see some relatives when he met some friends whom he had not seen for some time, and he went into the Captain Cook Hotel with them and had five drinks. After he drove off again he> saw a cyclist who was on his wrong side, and in swerving to avoid him the defendant ran into the motor ear, which was unlighted. The defendant had to keep his aged mother. Mr White asked the magistrate not to make the defendant take out a prohibition order, as he had to visit hotels in connection with his work. He could be prevented from taking liquor, however, as had been done in a recent case.

Arthur Albert Paape said that he had known the defendant intimately for six years, and he had never seen him in a state which suggested that he had had too much drink.

Sub-inspector Fahey said that the car which had been struck had been damaged to the extent of £23.

“It is a very serious offence for a man to be drunk in charge of a- car,” said the Dlagistrate, “and one cannot look at it from the individual point of view. Where a man uses a car in earning his livelihood he must be extremely careful. In these cases I always have this fact in mind: that a man in not having to answer a more serious charge.” He would be failing in duty, Dlr Bundle concluded, if he did not cancel the defendant’s license.