DANGEROUS DRIVING

Pahiatua Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 9979, 9 July 1925, Page 5

DANGEROUS DRIVING

CAR UPSETS MOTOR LORRY “ON THE WRONG Si PE.” Arising oat of a oar accident which occurred on the main road some few weeks back, the police proceeded against AY . Daube, motor mechanic, Eketahuna, on a charge of driving at a speed dangerous to tlie public. The case was heard in rhe Pauiatua Magistrate’s Court yesterday •before Mr ;S. L. P. Eree, S.M. Defendant wa s represent A by Mr H. AleSberry. Constable F. Burrell conducted the case on behalf of the police. Constable Burrell stated that J • O. Sunnex. a wood merchant, was aiding to town from Konini in his lorry, driven by his son, two other workmen being on top of. rhe load of wood, when a car collided with the lorry near Mr M. Alpass’ house on the ilia in road. The accident occurred one evening about 5.30 p.m.. both vehicles having lights on. Tlie police allege that Daube’s car was travelling at an excessive speed, dangerous to passing traffic when it struck the lorry and overturned it John Oliver Sunnex, wood merchant, Pahiaf.ua, said lie was the owner of a Ford one-ton truck On June 16th. lie met with an a-'-.dciit at Konini, his lorry colliding with a car driven by l>au». Witness had been sitting on the floor of the cab at the lime, his son Alexander driving, while two of his employees, Turf"ey and Bowse, were riding on top of the e nd of wood. The lorry was trn.oil.ng on it.- proper side of the road, at a speed of about 7 miles per hour, when Sunnex saw Daube’s car aon oacliing from I’ntpatua some 300 yards distant. The lorry had travelled no more than 50 yards further when the car struck it. Witness had told his son to keep well off the road, as he thought the oar was coming at an excessive speed, and as it crossed Warren’s bridge and rounded the bend was coming on its wrong side of the road. The right wheel of the car struck the lorry under the right front splashboard, twisting the wheel round and capsizing the lorry on its side. All the occupants were tipped out, but the driver, none being hurt, however. The car had had plenty of room to pass, witness averred, as the road was over 15 feet wide. There was room for three vehicles to pass there. He had judged the speed of the approaching, car at 45 miles per hour. The damage to the lorry consisted of a broken splashboard, broken front spring, and broken steering-rod, as well as a -dented radiator. In reply to Constable Burrell, •witness said he could smell liquor on Daube at the time of the accident, and be appeared flurried, but lie may have been excited more than drunk. Constable Burrell: “Were your lights dazzling?'” Witness: “Ford lights are never dazzling at that speed.” He added that defendant’s lights were fairly dazzling. Cross-examined, witness maintained that he had never previously been in a motor accident. He admitted that going on his calculations. and the speed of his own lorry, the estimted speed of Daube’s car was 35 and not 45 miles per hour.

J. Alexander Sunnex, a son of the previous witness, said he was driving his father’s lorry at the time of the accident at a rate of about 5 miles per hour. His evidence was on the lines of that of his father. He said that after the accident Daube appeared excited, was not sober, and smelt of liquor. Defendant's wife and child were in the car, but did not get out at all. The hood and side-curtains were up on Daube’s car. Frederick Edward Bowse, labourer. Makomako, gave evidence that lie had been in the employ or J. 4) Sunnex. cutting wood, and on the evening of Tuesday, June 16th, was coming into town on top of the lorry. He had noticed the car m question approaching, at far too. excessive a pace to be meeting another vehicle. Coming off the bridge the car was on its correct side, but gradually bore over Witness had noticed after that Daube smelt of liquor, and defendant had remarked at the time that tlie dazzling lights of the lorry had “drawn him Frederick Burrell dencsed that in consequence of a report from -J. O. Sunnex. concerning the accident, he went to Konini on the following morning. He round the lorry on its wheels absolutely disabled. On measuring tlie road, he found the metalled portion to be 15 feet 4 inches wide, from the scene of the accident to where it would be first possible to see ano tlier car coming into view, the distance was 310 yards. The. lorry was considerably damaged, with three tyres flat. Daube’s car was a Stude-

Alr 11 M<Slierrv said the evidence •inneared very contradictory. No rei onco ho maintained, that Daube s ‘ar bad been travelling at a furious pace could be placed on * he f l a( T t that the lorry was damaged a lot He had first to be found guilty of the offence of negligent driving. The evidence of J. O. Sunnex and his

son. needed to be looked at very critically for they had a very direct personal interest in the case. In offences under this Act, the whole of the circumstances had to be taken into consideration, the time of the night, state of the road, etc. Rowse. in his evidence, had said Daube’s car was on the correct side at first, but went to the middle and then over to the wrong side nearing the lorry, while the two Sunnex’s maintained the car approached all the way on the wrong side. Daube, continued counsel, was a motor mechanic and known as a, careful driver. He had been accompanied by his wife, and two children that night, and was perfectly sober. His evidence would go to show that through the lorry taking a slight, turn out to the right the impact had been brought about. W. Daube, motor mechanic and taxi-driver, Eketahuna, said! he was an experienced driver, and had been. 22 or 23 years in the trade. He came to Paliiatua on June 16th., with his wife and two. children, to see a doctor. He had only two drinks while in the town, returning about 5 p.m. Approaching Konini. he saw the lights of a lorry as he came onto Warren’s bridge, and slowed his car practically to a standstill when nearing the' vehicle. lie was not travelling at an excessive speed, and when nearly opposite the lorry that vehicle swerved across, and liic the front axle of witness’ car. AVitness had had his lights on, and was travelling at about 10 miles an hour. After the accident, with assistance, the lorry was lifted off the road to the side clear of traffic. Defendant denied being drunk at the time. His wife had not got out of the car after the accident, because one of the children commenced to cry. The front axle of witnesss’ car had been bent, mudguard torn, and windscreen broken, but lie averred it would not take much of an impact to do that.. Zeita M. Daube, wife of defendant, said it was a dark, rainy night and the windscreen was blurred. She maintained that their car was on tlie correct side when it struck t.lie lorry. Cyril Leslie Brackley deputed to. have driven defendants’ ear. Once, with, a .load of 6 passengers he had cause to “let her out,” but could only do 30 miles an hour and it was not in a condition to do more. Thomas M. Page, solicitor, Eketaliuna, testified to knowing Daube well, having hired and driven hundreds of miles with him. He had always found him a Very steady driver, regularly steading-up passing other vehicles, and frequently stopping altogether to let a car pass. AVitness had never known defendant to he drunk while driving.

In summing up, the Magistrate said to his mind the case hinged, on one question—whether the lorry as seen by the police the morning after was in the same position as when it struck the car. Defendant had said the lorry was bodily moved, over to tlie side of the. road, when lighted, but he was the only witness who said so. The Magistrate said he was unable to find the statement true. It seemed to him that if the parties had taken the trouble to move it at all, they would live lifted it right on to the grass, and not iust to the edge. The fact that the lorry then was on its extreme left at the time of the accident practically decided the case. The road being 15ft 4m wide, it left defendant practically 10 feet to clear the lorry and lie failed to do so, the reason why being difficult to ascertain. The wet windscreen etc. might have caused miscalculation on Daube’s part, eleven the small quantity of liquor he had had may have influenced him to some extent. Tlie evidence showed at any rate he was clnvino- in a dangerous manner. I here was a suggestion that the extent of the damage was no indication ot excessive speed ; well, if anyone had the misfortune for a gate to swing closed before their car they would find the gate would be badly smashed and the car practically not hurt at all. . , _ , ~ Defendant Was convicted* and lined £2, 15s court costs, £1 6s Jd witness’ expenses.