ALLEGED NEGLIGENT DRIVING

Stratford Evening Post, Volume I, Issue 89, 24 March 1931, Page 7

ALLEGED NEGLIGENT DRIVING

CASE AGAINST MURPHY

In the Magistrate's Court at Stratford yesterday, evidence was continued in the police case against J. J. Murphy for negligent driving, intoxication while in charge of a car, and indecent language.

Sergeant Power prosecuted, and Mr A. Coleman appeared for the defend ant.

Robert Hinds, continuing, said in cioss-examination that the cars were locked together when he first, saw the accident. He was not present all the hour at the scene.

August Harraell, the third man in Edgecombe's car, said he was picked 113) at Stratford and taken, with them, sitting in the back seat of the car. He noticed Murphy's car about a chain away on its correct side, and it gradually swerved into Edgecombe';* car. Murphy was the worse of drink and used language no), fit to repeat •:-i Court, before ladies. Murphy could not take the spare wheel off the car and had to be assisted by two others.

In cross-examination, witness said he never talked the case over with the others. Although he was working with Bullman he never mentioned the case. He admitted he was "merry" on the journey. At VVbangamomona he had tea and a couple of drinks. He could see what was happening at the time of the accident. The car was travelling about 10 to 14 miles an hour just before it slowed down before the accident. The Defence Mr. Coleman, outlining the defence, said that defendant left Tangarakau ten or fifteen minutes before the collision. Tangarakau was three and a half to four miles from Tahora. He said the time was a-quarter or a-half an hour later than the other witnesses had stated, being nearly eight o'clock, and dark at the time of the collision. Going along the straight, he thought he was approaching a motor-cycle, as ho saw only one light. Very possibly, said Mr. Cole man, the motor bike obscured one of the lights. When he passed the motor bike he found the vehicle was a car, but he was right, on it. li he had known it was a car he would have given more room. The car hit Edgecombe's car, coming to a stop, and the blow shifted it to where it was found, on the edge of the bank. The defendant, giving evidence, said he was a tunneller at Tangarakau. He drove a Buick, nearly two tons in weight. He was frightened of striking the fence and did not. keep far away from Edgecombe's car. He had just passed over a culvert of ten feet wide and it was impossible to keep to the side any more until he was over the culvert. It was necessary to put two wheels off the metal to pass. Edgecombe was driving about two feet from the centre of the road. He blew his horn and only saw one light, until a motorist passed him. His speed would be 15 to 2u miles an hour, but. he could not estimate the speed of Edgecombe's car. He was excited when he got out. and asked Edgecombe why he did not take notice of the horn, and he said: "Why should I take notice of your horn?" lie did not back the car, as there was no occasion to do so. Witness was not under the influence of liquor, lis had left an order with Schwieters, the si orekeeper, for &cods to be sent "over the tig" next day. He drove home after the' accident. He had been driving for live years and never had an accident.

To the Sergeant: lie passed a motor bike and the car. There wan no trouble at Tangarakan before he left. He would swear en oath that he was not told not to drive the car. He admitted the swore, but not before the Indies. Mrs. Edgecombe came out o£ the car and went away iu afiolhcsr car. It was not true that he was staggering, and was under the Influence of liquor. They must all have got. their heads together. There was a man named Thomas in his car, and he was the man who was drunk. Witness did not know where he got the liquor. The only time he was out of witness' company was for half an hour, when witness was in the store. About three drinks would make ThOnias drunk, especially gin, which he 'was drinking. Thomas had no liquor at witness' house. Harwell kept saying: "It was Murphy's fault!" That made witness excited. To the Magistrate: He lived In Tahora and he was coming from Tangarakan, where he worked. He had no liquor at all that day. Mr. Tate: Then these witnesses who said you were under the influence of liquor were telling an untruth? —i'es. f admit I was excited. Take the language, is it not the language of a man under liquor?—lt is common language, sir.

Would you use it when you are sober? —When at work, and something goes wrong, one uses it sometimes. Mr. Colt-man said the evidenec of the prosecution should be taken with a grain of salt. It was a long shot on the part of the defence that Harniell was drunk, and it had been proved to be the case. "It is an extraordinary thing," stated Mr. Coleman, "that the police should call as a witness one whom their own witnesses admitted was under the influence." The Sergeant: We are quite openminded in the matter.

The Magistrate: Perhaps they would have pot a letter from headquarters If they had not. done so.

The Judgment

hi giving - judgment, the Magistrate said defendant would be convicted. The evidence of the police was very clear. The men witnesses described defendant's condition, and while their evidence was not very full or very it was very terse. One said that even a child could tell that the man win drunk. This is a serious offence, said Mr. Tate. The roads must be kept clear of people who take liquor when they are driving cars. If it were true that Schwietera was with defendant a little while before the accident, it would not be hard to call him to prove that defendant was :,ober; but it seemed to him that Schwietcis did not. want'to come to Court. "The offences,'" he said, "are negligent driving, being in charge of a car while under the influence of liquor, and indecent language, two of

which are imprisonable offences and liable to a line of £IOO, and for indecent language the penalty is the same. The only way to control drivers who become intoxicated while on the roads is to make the penalties so great that it will not be worth while. Pines do not seem to be any good. Defendant will be admitted to pretention for one year and he will have to make reports to the probation oflicer, as considered advisable, and do exactly the same in this way as a man convicted of theft. His license to drive will be cancelled for a year. I consider this is heavy punishment. For (he other charges he will be convicted and discharged. He will have to pay the costs of the prosecution, which amounted to £9 4s 2d.