DRIVER FINED

Southland Times, Issue 20662, 18 April 1929, Page 9

DRIVER FINED

CHARGE OF INTOXICATION. PENALTY OF £lO IMPOSED. Following on an accident in which a car ran into a hedge in Gala street on March 8, William McGill Strathearn appeared before Mr J. G. L. Hewitt, S.M., in the Police Court yesterday charged with driving a car while in a state of intoxication and driving in a manner dangerous to the public. A plea of not guilty was at first entered on both charges, but later Mr A. F. Hogg, who represented defendant, altered the plea to guilty on the second charge. Senior-Sergeant Fox stated that the facts of the case to be proved were that accused was travelling along ‘ Kelvin street south, but at the Gala street corner he attempted to turn into Gala street at a speed of from 30 to 35 miles an hour. The speed was too great to turn at and the car ran into a hedge on the other side of the road. A young girl on a bicycle escaped being run over only by jumping off her bicycle. The Town Engineer, Mr F. Corkill, came on the scene and did a public service by taking the names of witnesses. His opinion was that accused was in a state of intoxication. Accused’s statement was that he had been proceeding up Gala street and had had to swerve to avoid the girl who was on her wrong side and was travelling west. The girl, however, said she was travelling east.

Francis Malcolm Corkill, Town Engineer, said that on Friday evening, March 8, he was travelling west along Gala street. He had just turned into Gala street when he saw a car coming at a high speed from Kelvin street, turning into Gala street. 1110 car swung right across to the ■ wrong side and came to rest against a hedge. The driver of the car got out and tried to crank up the car, although one wheel was broken and the other cracked. His speech was thick and he was thoroughly intoxicated. After the accident, he addressed foolish remarks to witness and walked along the footpath in a zigzag manner. To Mr Hogg: He would be about eight chains from the corner and four chains from the accident when he saw the accident. The car had gone through clay in which the tracks were six inches deep and then mounted an 8-inch kerbing. After hitting the hedge, he slid along it for half a chain. The accused’s breath smelt of liquor. Charles John Blomfield, salesman at Mackerras and Hazlett, gave evidence of seeing the accident. He would say the car came round the corner at from 30 to 35 miles an hour. He saw the driver, the present defendant, get out of the car and start, the car. The side of the car with the broken wheels was buried in the hedge. The car seemed to reduce speed a little after getting into Gala street. To Mr Hogg: Defendant had not passed the side with the broken wheels to start the car. He saw defendant light a cigarette after starting the car. He would say that defendant was sober. Everything he did to start the car, he did naturally. .To the Magistrate: No suggestion that defendant was under the influence of liquor had occurred to him at the time. Defendant should have been able to see the broken wheel from where he was cranking the car. To Senior-Sergeant Fox: In his statement to the police constable, he had stated that he could not give an opinion on the sobriety or not of defendant. A statement was read from Mr C. J. Brodrick who could not be present, in which it was stated that defendant appeared to be slightly unsteady on his feet, and his breath seemed to smell slightly of drink.

Nola Scandrctt began to give evidence, but was unable to continue. Her mother said that after the accident her nerves had not been good. At this stage Mr Hogg stated that his client wished to withdraw his plea of not guilty on the negligent driving charge. Constable Brydone gave evidence of being called to the scene of the accident. Although not drunk in the ordinary sense of the word, his manner and facial appearance gave witness the impression that he had been drinking. To Mr Hogg: He would not have charged defendant at the time of his appearance in the Police Station twenty-five minutes after the accident. He did not notice any smell of liquor. Constable Dunlop gave evidence of taking a statement from defendant. The Defence. Mr Hogg said that so far as the charge of drunkenness was concerned, there was not sufficient evidence to warrant a conviction. The evidence of the constable was of more value than that of Mr Corkill. A man could hardly pull himself together in such a short time. William McGill Strathearn, a canvasser, said that on March 8 he had had half a bottle of beer at about 4.0 p.m. He had then biked to Clifton and back, and left his bicycle at Grieve’s Garage where he picked up his car, backing out of a crowded garage without mishap. His car was a 1915 model. He then drove up to Mumford's service station and came down Kelvin street at a fairly fast pace. In turning the corner, the steering gear locked. When he made the statement to the police that he had not come along Kelvin road, he overlooked the fact that he had been to the service station because it was usually his practice to come straight up Gala street. He had had the car in the garage for two separate days that week for repairs to the steering gear. He had only had the half bottle of beer that day.

To the Senior-Sergeant: A man could always recollect things that he had previously forgotten for the moment. The girl he saw had nothing to do with his running off the road. He could not dispute the statement of the foreman of the garage that the steering wheel was in perfect order. He knew' the front wheel was off, but it was possible for a car to back off the footpath with only three wheels. He did not know a back wheel was broken.

William Thomas Sutherland, caretaker at Grieve’s Garage, said defendant’s gait had always been rolling after an injury to his hip sustained during the war. He gave evidence of defendants shifting the car out of the garage without any accident although it was a difficult job. He smelt of drink, but his speech and manner were quite all right. To the Senior-Sergeant: Witness did not consider that defendant’s car was capable of doing the speed claimed. The position was that witness considered that defendant had had drink, but was not under the influence of liquor. The Magistrate: You seem to be fencing with your conscience. Did you form the impression in your mind that he ivas under the influence of drink to some extent'! Witness: No. A man could not manoeuvre a ear as he did if he wAs under the influence of liquor. The Magistrate, summing up, said that it was all very well to give a man the benefit of the doubt, but there was really no doubt in his mind that the defendant was under the influence of liquor. Although the constable had said he was not drunk, a man could, pull himself up when the occasion required. It was a question whether he had had enough liquor to affect his driving. Personally, he was not one to think that a man should not have a glass of something before entering a car, but the defendant was, in his opinion, intoxicated in the meaning of the motor regulations. Defendant would be fined £25, and his license cancelled tor 12 months.

Mr Hogg said that defendant had six children and was out of work.

Senior-Sergeant Fox said that the man was really in straitened circumstances. The fine was reduced to £lO, the Magistrate remarking that a fine of £lO to the defendant was as great, as £lOO to a richer man. The second charge was withdrawn.