CHARGE AGAINST MOTORIST

Southland Times, Issue 23650, 27 October 1938, Page 7

CHARGE AGAINST MOTORIST

CASE dismissed by MAGISTRATE DRIVER GIVEN BENEFIT . OF DOUBT A charge against Ronald George Day of being intoxicated in charge of a motor-car was dismissed in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday by the Magistrate (Mr R. C. Abernethy, S.M.). Senior Sergeant W. Kelly prosecuted and Mr S. M. Macalister acted for the accused and entered a plea of not guilty. Constable D. Baxter said that at 12.30 a.m. yesterday he saw a car parked on the south, side of the tram sheds in Leven street. He went over to the vehicle, opened the door and found the driver asleep. There was a strong smell of liquor. He tried to waken him, but without success. Then he lifted him out on to the roadway and had to shake the man for a considerable time before he woke. The first thing the man said was: “What is the time and where am I?” The witness told him that it was 12.30 a.m. and that he was in Leven street. The man then said: “You are the most interfering — I have ever met. Those were the last words that, he said. He did not answer any questions at all The witness then took the driver to the . police station where he was examined by Doctor W.._ J. Barclay. When walking to the. station the man was unsteady on his feet and he bumped into witness at times. When asked how much liquor he had had the accused gave no answer. MEDICAL EVIDENCE Dr Barclay said the accused told him that he left his home in Fox street about 7 o’clock in the evening. He had met some friends in town and as far as witness could gather he had had two or three drinks in the street. The witness came to the conclusion that the accused had had some liquor, but that he had not had sufficient to make it unsafe for him to drive. He walked reasonably well and also performed co-ordination tests quite well. In answer to a question by the Magis- ■ trate if the half-hour that elapsed between the time the accused was arrested and examined would have had any sobering effect, Dr Barclay said that it would tend to sober the man. “I feel fully justified in asking that the case be dismissed on the evidence of the prosecution,” said Mr Macalister. He did-not think that there was sufficient proof. The doctor had said that the accused had had liquor, but not enough to make it unsafe for him to drive. He submitted that the Court should assume that the man did the right thing by. getting into a back street and sleeping off the effects. The Magistrate: If the man was actually intoxicated and went to sleep intoxicated he would still be intoxi-, cated in charge of a car. There have been many of those cases. “Yes, but it is difficult to see what else the man could have done,” said Mr Macalister.' The doubt was not a big one, the Magistrate stated. However, there was a doubt and he was going to give the benefit of it to the accused, who should know that the Courts were treating such cases seriously. Referring to the evidence of the doctor the Magistrate said that the accused was examined half-an-hour after he was arrested and during that time he may have be-‘ come sober. However, the man was entitled to .the -benefit .'of any doubt there might be.