RESERVED JUDGMENT

Southland Times, Issue 20111, 23 February 1927, Page 8

RESERVED JUDGMENT

A GORE CASE. INFORMATION DISMISSED. At a sitting of the Gore Magistrate’s Court yesterday afternoon Mr H. J. Dixon, S.M., gave his reserved decision in the case, Police v. Allan, in which Allan was charged with recklessly driving a motor car on the Gore-Kn’apdale road on December 8. Judgment was as follows — “Defendant is charged with recklessly driving a motor car on the Knapdale-Gore road on December 8, 1926. “The facts show that defendant’s car and a car driven by D. McGregor collided on the intersection of the Gore-Otama and the Mandeville-Pukerau roads on December 8, 1926, beiijg Show Day in Gore. , “Before going into the facts of the accident I must say that the evidence does not show that Allan was drunk. He had had some drink, but the witnesses for the prosecution do not go so far as to say he was drunk. The police themselves hardly go further than to say he was muddled when they saw him. “The prosecution relies on the evidence of the occupants of McGregor’s car as to how the accident happened. They stated with the exception of McGregor that their car was proceeding at a reasonable speed across the intersection when the defendant’s car without warning and at a high speed came at right angles and crashed into them. Several of these passengers have made claims for damages against Allan. “McGregor, the driver, is not so severe on the defendant. He stated in his evidence, ‘I did not sound my horn or slacken speed oh approaching the corner. Allan was capable of driving a car—he was not drunk. I thought I would be across the road before the defendant came along. I don’t think the defendant accelerated just before the accident. If I had sounded my horn I would not have expected to meet any one at the corner. If defendant sounded his horn he would not expect to meet anyone at the corner. If Allan put his brakes on when he saw me I could not expect him to do more. It would not be fair to expect a driver of a light car with a heavy load on to put on his brakes and swerve too.’’ “The police admitted that the occupants of McGregor’s car would not be able to tell the speed of Allan’s car at all accurately, and their estimate of the speed of McGregor's car is made on the time they* took to go out from Gore. The defendant gave evidence to the effect that on approaching the corner he was going about 18 miles per hour and sounded his horn repeatedly. When McGregor came into view he put on his foot brake and shut the petrol off. And that McGregor going very fast did not do anything at all but dashed straight on to get across the road in front of defendant, and that McGregor only swerved at the last minute. In this McGregor’s evidence supports Allan’s except as to the speed he was travelling at. Mr Kelly and his son were driving in a car along the same road as McGregor and following him. They could not overtake him. They stated their car just before the accident was travelling 30 to 35 miles per hour and that McGregor was consequently going at the same speed or faster. Mrs McDonald about that time heard a horn like Allan’s being repeatedly sounded and as McGregor did not sound his it was probably Allan’s that she heard. “Her husband examined the tracks on the road next morning and stated that he saw Allan’s tracks and that the tracks showed that he had had the brakes on for some little distance before the accident.

“The nature of the damage to McGregor’s car and to defendant’s car shows that the defendant’s car was not travelling at a high rate of speed when the collision took place. “If the evidence of the only independent witnesses—the two Kellys—« correct, then it would seem that Allan must have been on the intersection first and that McGregor came along at a high speed and cut in front of him. Kelly’s car had a speedometer on it and they were able to accurately state the speed of their own and McGregor’s car.

“The expert evidence—and McGregor’s supports this—is to the effect that Allan could not do more than he claims to have done. It would be dangerous to put the brakes on and swerve as well.

“The fact that Allan had had liquor makes it essential to examine his story with great care, but it does not necessarily follow that he would be driving recklessly although it would possibly tend in that direction. “His story here is supported by outside evidence and to some extent by McGregor, and I find that the prosecution has failed to prove he was recklessly driving. “It is a pity the marks on the road were not examined by the police that night, but for reasons given by them they were unable to do so.” The case was dismissed. Mr Bannerman appeared for the defendant.