MOTORIST’S LIABILITY
ONLY ONE HEADLIGHT (Per Proas Association.) NEW PLYMOUTH, this day. Whether it was necessary to establish mens rea for it guilty mind) to justify conviction for having only one headlight Imniiiig on a ear was the point discussed in the New Plymouth court yesterday. The fads were that defendant, when, driving discovered that one light had failed suddenly, lie endeavored to stop at once, hut before the car had stopped it was struck by a motor cycle. Counsel contended that this was a case in which the motorist should receive consideration, lie was not prepared to offer his client as a sacrifice to a test case on appeal. The magistrate. Air. R. W. Tate, said that it was a pity that some wealthy man did not take the ease to appeal for elarilical ion. He had always held that -the Motor Regulations threw absolute responsibility on the motorist and (hat. it was not necessarv to establish mens rea in the ease before the court. A small flue was inflected.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/PBH19300410.2.120
Bibliographic details
Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LV, Issue 17231, 10 April 1930, Page 7
Word Count
171MOTORIST’S LIABILITY Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LV, Issue 17231, 10 April 1930, Page 7
Using This Item
The Gisborne Herald Company is the copyright owner for the Poverty Bay Herald. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of the Gisborne Herald Company. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.