JUDGE’S RULING

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 19883, 9 March 1939, Page 10

JUDGE’S RULING

“IN CHARGE OF A CAR”

DRUNKEN MOTORISTS

DRIVING OR INTENT

APPEAL DISMISSED

(Por Pi*oss Association.) AUCKLAND, this day

A request for an interpretation of the phrase “in change of a car” in its application to intoxication charges against motorists, was made to Mr. Justice Fair in the Supreme Court yesterday. Counsel stated that until there was a Supreme Court determination upon the precise meaning of these words, there would be innumerable cases where uncertainty would exist whether a man, who was not actually driving his car, was in charge. The request was made during an appeal brought by Edward Watson, a motor emchanic, for whom Mr. Hall Skelton appeared, against a sentence imposed by Mr. C. R. Orr Walker,

S.M., of 14 days’ hard labour and suspension of his license for the balance of the term and an order that no further license be issued to him for 12 months on a charge of being' intoxicated in charge of a car in Wellesley street. Mr. G. S. R. Meredith opposed the appeal. In his judgment, the magistrate said that Watson and a companion were seen by a constable arguing with a porter at the door of an. hotel. The accused was in a state of intoxication. " The constable asked him if he intended to drive the car. The companion said he would do the driving and look after the accused. Pair Change Seats The constable had said that the two men went to the car and the defendant got into the driver’s seat with his companion alongside him. The constable then walked toward them and they immediately got out of the car and changed seats, Prior to the constable seeing them, Watson had asked his companion to go for a drive. He drove a certain distance and then requested his companion to drive for him. They then drove to Wellesley street, where they parked the car and went to an hotel. The appeal was brought on the question of law only. Mr. Hall Skelton submitting that the man driving the car was de facto in control of it, even if the other man had the ownership of the vehicle. The whole object of the legislation was to prevent people from driving their cars when intoxicated. The appellant had relinquished control of his car and was not in charge of it. Intent to Drive His Honour dealt with the two grounds on which the magistrate had based his decision, the first being the intention of the appellant to drive the car when he and his companion got into it in Wellesley street, and the second being when the appellant was driven by his companion to Wellesley street.

On the ground of Watson’s intention to drive tire car when the constable saw the two men getting into the vehicle, His Honour said he had no doubt at all. It was quite clear that there was enough evidence to justify the magistrate in finding that this was the intention of the appellant and in holding that lie was then in charge of the car.

His Honour said: “In charge of a. motor vehicle” was a phrase which involved a wider meaning than did the word “drives.” Before a person could be held liable, he should be actually driving the vehicle or be in it with the intention of driving. To carry the meaning beyond that might be extending the words beyond their natural meaning, with the' exception tiiat where the owner exercised active control over the driver so that the driver was the agent of the owner. The appeal was dismissed. His Honour said he did not have power to i evise the sentence under an appeal on law.