TARUHERU MOTOR CASE.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 14667, 26 July 1918, Page 6

TARUHERU MOTOR CASE.

ACCUSED COMMITTED FOR TRIAL At the Magistrate's Court this afternoon, the hearing was continued of the charge against Harold Mace Thompson m connection with the Taruheru motor accident, alleging that accused caused such .bodily harm to Florence Lilian Jackson as would have been tantamount to manslaughter if her death had ensued. The prosecution was proceeded with as follows : — Detective McLeod,. giving evidence, said that at 7 p.m. on June 29th last, he received instructions to proceed to the public hospital. On arrival there he saw accused and two other men. He told accused he wished to see him at . the police station, and he returned to the police station with Constable Leckie m a car. Accused there signed a statement (produced). On June 30, he (witness) went to the scene of the accident. The boy Oswald Jackson | pointed out the spot where his • sister had been knocked over, and where he considered he was standing -when the car rah over the girl. Some days later Mr. Synott made a plan with distances marked. There was a distinct mark about two feet long as though a person's heel had been dragged at considerable pressure across the sand. At the placei where the car hit the girl and where she was subsequently picked up, there were marks as of a body having lain m the sand, and footprints such as would have been occasioned by anyone picking her up. At the spot where the car pulled up after the accident there were distinct marks as of a car having been quickly pulled up. At intervals marks could 'be plainly seen. While witness and Mr Wilkinson were examining the spot, accused came along m his car, and he (witness) said to accused: "This is where you stopped." Accused replied that he did not think he had gone so far. At' the place the' road measured 66f t_ from fence to fence. The metalled portion of the road was about 27ft. On either side the metal there was w grass with a ditch on either side of the road. Cross-examined by Mr Burnard, Detective McLeod said accused made the statement a* the station. He did not notice there was no tail light on accused's car. Witness came m a car behind accused's car, and the headlights were therefore on the back of accused's car. James Alexander Jackson, re-called, and re-examined by Mr Burnard. raid he was over the ditch by the fence, when the car passed. He could not say what would be the distance between his sister and him when she was struck ; but he thought it would be about five or six feet from the ditch when she was picked up. Mr Burnard pointed out the difference between civil and criminal linbility. The. question was m this case. was accused guilty of criminal neglieence or not? There. ,was a distinction between the degrees ofNnegligenee which would enable a man to be convicted of manslaughter or civil liability merely. He pointed. out that accused's conduct on the ocension was that of a lawful traveller. The statements of witnesses as to speed at which i accused was travelling would, he contended, bear out accused's own statement that he v*as travelling at 15 miles an hour. The various estimated speeds, when averaged, would be about 15 miles an l.c-ur. Counßel emphasised the conduct of accused m taking the girl to the hospital, and putting himself thereby under the observation of the law. He referred to the question of liquor, which he inferred was intended to imply that accused was not m a fit condition to drive the car. Mr Burnard pointed out that the accused drove his car up the hospital hill, which was m itself a test, and again he drove the police to the station. He contended, then, that accused was m a fit condition to be. m charge of ,the car. He referred *o the likelihood of the matter being discussed m the home of the girl. , He submitted it was unlikely that the girl, the first of the file, would follow the younger boy, who was last m the line. Aj> she was lying six feet from the ditch, and the car would .certainly have knocked her three feet from where she was walking, and the width of the v car would have been. 4ft 6ni, it was reasonable to suppose she would have been walking 14ft 6in from the .ditch. With three people walking along a road, where there was no footpath or place of safety it wpuld be a likely thing for each to run the way impulse prompted each one. In this case, he contended, it would be folly on accused's part to sound his horn, for such an act would have occasioned them to run all over the road. In considering 'the evidence of the boys, too much importance could not be attached to the form of their evidence. .He pointed out that both boys, brothers of the girl, used a phrase, purely a law phrase, m their evidence. One boy said he had not discussed the "facts of the case," and the other said he had spoken of "only the facts." He submitted that no body of men would commit accused of criminal negligence. Regarding the accused's statement as to visits to several hotels, he said that accused might not, m all the time, have had one good whisky. Accused was committeu to the Supreme Court, and reserved his defence. Bail was allowed as formerly.