FARMER FINED £20

Southland Times, Issue 23826, 25 May 1939, Page 7

FARMER FINED £20

Intoxicated In Charge

Of Cai-

CANCELLATION OF LICENCE

“These cases show just what a man will do in such a condition. He gets a few ‘drinks in and thinks he is the safest driver in the world, but actually he becomes a menace as soon as he steps into his car,” commented the Magistrate (Mr R. C. Abernethy) yesterday when fining William Albert Hayes, a farmer, of Waikawa, £2O, in default 14 days imprisonment, for being in a state of intoxication while in charge of a motor-car. “There are too many of these cases and the Court has got to do something to stop them; otherwise your children may be run down by such a motorist as you instead of you running down other children.” The accused’s licence to drive was cancelled and he was disqualified from obtaining another for two years He was ordered to pay doctor’s expenses 12/6.

Mr G. C. Cruickshank appeared on behalf of the accused. Senior Sergeant Kelly said that just before 6 o’clock on the evening of May 22 Constable H. R. Lapwood, who was on duty in Esk street, saw a man and a woman in a stationary car outside a dining room. They appeared to be arguing and the woman was holding the man, apparently trying to steady him. Constable Lapwood heard the man, who was the accused, say that he was going to drive away in the car. He went across the street and saw the accused behind the wheel; the woman was sitting next to him The constable smelt liquor on the accused. He got him out of the car and saw that he was unsteady on his feet and in a state of intoxication. The accused was taken to the police station where he was 'examined by Dr Barclay, who certified 'hat the man was unfit to drive a car. Mr Cruickshank said that in such ■nses it was difficult to put forward a ->lea which might influence the Court. The accused had been attended by his doctor for three weeks and on that day had visited Invercargill to obtain a discharge. He was not accustomed to taking liouor, but that day he had three drinks. He went to a dining room in Esk street and apparently the warm atmosphere of the room had suddenly affected him. His wife tried to restrain him from driving his car. It was perhaps fortunate for him that he was stopped from doing so. Counsel would emnhasize the fact that the accused was not driving at the time he was apprehended. He was a bush farmer and the cancellation of his licence would be a severe punishment in itself. He had a wife and three young children. It was not a case of a man driving recklessly along the street, added counsel, who thought it was one where a fine would meet the position. “There is nothing I can tell you about this business that you do not know as

well as I do,” said the Magistrate to the accused. “It was lucky for you that you were not driving the car. Your wife may have been trying to stop you. It is with diffidence that I give you the benefit of a doubt.” The accused was convicted and fined as stated.