COLLISION SEQUEL

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19136, 3 October 1936, Page 2

COLLISION SEQUEL

OFFENCE ADMITTED UOUNSET SEB.A l ISsION *;DTD ALL" ITT-' COULD”. a' Police Court ease which was •'>' joUr'hed ivorn yesterday afternoon atiei theitaking of a considerable amount ol evidence, and which was called bonne Ah;; E. I- Walton, S.M.. again this morning, came io an abrupt conclusion when counsel tor the. defendant. -b • AL: :.R. Maude, intimated that he <' l( l not pfonose to call any further evidence. lUEwoiild ask the cojyji,4h ,ca\isid.cr the defendant’s claim that he had done an lie'Coutd in the circumstances to avoid the; collision which had given rise to the-aetiori against him. . 'flic case was one in winch .1 erciyai Frederick Rnt,4er—ivws- charged „ -With negligent,lv driving' a motor car, the charge having been laid ns the. result of “fin accident in which llntlev s car collided 1 with 'it phaeton near tne W i I'ere Memorial. ft ■l^u l sc qnav on the evening of September !2. Called on Yesterday afternoon before Mr. Walton, the'-case proeeeded through the hearing of evidence for the prosecution, and ot one-witness for the defence. Early witnesses in the hearing were John AlcKa} , sen Thomas Barber, his son-in-law, at,a" John McKay, jun„ his grandson. ocJnpants of the phaeton, who desenbed ]mw the car driven -by defendant had approached their vehicle when the latter "was turning out of Lowe street into Bead's- gitny7- *™l. -had inflicted injuries ou'.'their horse which had necessitated jts destruction. POSITIONS OF "VEHICLES

Replying to Air. Maude, John McKay, jun'., said lie considered the- buggy was well on the left side of the road, lie had seen only the flash of the car’s lights before the impact. Constable AlcCurra'ch described tie positions of the gig, the horse, and the motor-car when he arrived on the scene after the accident. The defendant, lie said: was not* under the influence ot liquor, and though witness detected the smell of liquor, on him, he was not m a condition in which his judgment would be Tmpaired. . Cross-examined, the witness was- unable to say definitely that the buggy hud been moved -from the horse, but he presumed that that had been;. done .He presumed also from the position of the horse that -the hdcTjTfeeii on its right side of the road when, the collision occurred. Constable • Doherty stated -that at * p.nl. op the same day, he had; taken a statement from the defendant,, .. in the presence of Mr. Maude, his solicitor. In this, statement, the defendant said that he was driving slowly when the horse and 'buggv appeared on the wrong! side of the road. He had swerved to tne right; to avoid a collision, but had been unable to do so. Air. Maude had dictated the statement- in. effeqt, Defendant had been •vcrv-excited.r and witness considered that--he-'.was.-not in. a satisfactory’state to "be driving a. car. Cross-examined, the constable said he first-saw the defendant about 7 p.rn., and that "he came back later in company with Mr. Maude. Defendant had not suggested to him that a doctor should he brpnght. to test his sobriety. Mr. Maude stated that there was not much variation between the versions of the informant and of the defendant, with regard, to . the accident. „ JAcfenduvif elaiiped, however:; That- tho^bngg^/liad -been-well on the wrong-side-of the toad, *and that he was.forced, tp,'tjtrn. Id the right-to try and avoid without Avail. • ~ * ;- - His: Worship.: Was the buggy moving at, more than a walking pace? Mr- Alaude: The defendant is unable to say, . . ... Hifw-Worship : The- question defendant has to answer, then, is: Why did he not stop? ; Air. Maude : .The baggy„ towards him. and' defendant says that he tnrned-Ho--avoifl'the buggy driving into him!"*'Cobhkel 'explained that' the defendant had hall little time to make a decision. His Worship remarked that defendant would have hail the hiiggv in view for 45yds. Assuming the luiggy was cutting across the road, the defendant still could have stopped and avoided the accident. Counsel declared that defendant had acted to the best of his judgment at the time.-' Thei,magistrate’ replied that defendant apparently had 3'sec. in whicii to choose his course. If he could not decide in 3sec*. then it was obvious that lie had had too much beer. EVIDENCE FOR. DEFENCE After further, discussion, counsel agreed to proceed with the tendering of evidence for the defence. Daniel Quinn, an employee of the Gisborne .Wine and Spirit Company. Limited, said that ho had heard the crash of the collision, and. had walked to the scene from the Peel street bridge. TTo gave , details' of his observations relative to the'jsgg.itions of the buggy, the horse and the*car. Tie saw neither .of the vehicles moved afterwards. To Senior-Sergeant Mncnamnra, witness said ho'did not know wliat effect the collision would have •on a four-wheeled-buggy. Tile horse, and the buggy were-separated at that time. At this stage the hearing was adjourned until this morning. When the; hearing was resumed to-day, Air. Maude intimated (o His Worship that he. had discussed the charge with his client, and the latter, while maintaining that lie had done all in Ins power. In tli'e 'circumstances to avert the accident, had decided not to proceed with his defence.

The magistrate convicted the defendant and fined him £2, with eosts and witnesses’ expenses.