THREE MONTHS' JAIL.

Pahiatua Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 13176, 7 February 1936, Page 3

THREE MONTHS' JAIL.

NEGLIGENT DRIVING CHARGE. SEQUEL TO ACCIDENT. Declaring that, generally speaking, drivers under the influence of liquor who placed innocent lives in peril must expect to lose their liberty for a time, Mr Justice Smith, in the Wellington Supreme Court on Wednesday, sentenced Robert Hunter Service, a bank audit inspector, to three months’ imprisonment on a charge of negligent driving, thereby causing bodily injury. His Honour said he would request the Minister of Justice to arrange for Service to be kept apart from the ordinary p risonors. His license was cancelled and he was prohibited /from taking out another for two years. THE PUBLIC SAFETY. “It is very distressing indeed for a court to have to deal with a case such as yours/ I '' said his Honour, addressing prisoner. “You are a man of good character, you have had an excellent reputation hitherto, you have no doubt suffered severely as a result of this occurrence, and you have also done everything you could, according to the evidence/ to repair the damage so far as monetary compensation can go in favour of these injured people. On the other hand 1 have to balance your individual circumstances against the requirements of the public safety. I must strip this matter of its essentials and consider what should he done, having regard to your individual character and reputation on the one hand and the requirements of the public safety on the other. ‘You were driving a car home from the races and you had reached Lower Mutt—a thickly-populated area. The day was October li(> and the time was a quarter past six in the evening. It would be daylight ami there, would be no lack of visibility. !t is said there was not much traffic at that particular part of the road, and although there is evidence that there was some rain, there is nothing to show there was any real difficulty in managing a motor-car. “You approached a motor-car containing the driver—Mr Carmichael—his wife and child. This car was on its correct side, its right-hand wheels only being on the bitumen. The visibility was so good that he you a quarter of a mile away. You were driving a small car and driving at what must be regarded us an excessive speed. It is estimated by two witnesses, one of them a taxi-proprietor, at 50 miles an hour. Although visibility was quite good your car started to zig-zag and swerved right across the road into the other car. pushed it along the road, capsized it and made it a complete wreck. The occupants suffered severe injuries.

DRINKS ON WAY HOME. ‘‘After the impact you were able to stand steadily on your feet, although you had had a knock on the head and were no doubt suffering from shock. Shortly after the accident you wore questioned by two i constables and you said you did not : remember anything about it. lho i doctor’s certificate, which was read to-day, goes to show that the fact that you were concussed would be to prevent you ‘from remembering , and also, I think, perhaps to get ' rid of the effect of the alcohol which i you had taken. The constables’ evi- ! deuce is that your breath smelt ot i alcoholic liquor although your speech was normal. You admitted you had fouc or five stouts at the races that afternoon. Then there was this significant fact. On the way in you stopped at the Taita Hotel and had two stouts. In my opinion the inevitable conclusion is that your drinking must have affected your I ■driving. I think you were driving j partly under the influence of liquor. “In these circumstances,’* added his Honour, “1 have to consider liow' the public should be protected against driving of this kind. Taking into account all the favourable circumstances set forth by your counsel, and he has put your case very well indeed, it seems to me 1 cannot escape the conclusion that the punishment must be deterrent.”