INTOXICATED DRIVER

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 79, Issue 7147, 19 December 1949, Page 6

INTOXICATED DRIVER

THIRD IN ONE MONTH

FINED AND LICENSE CANCELLED

The third case within a month of a driver being brought before the Court on a charge of being intoxicated in charge of a motor vehicle was heard last Friday in the Te Awamutu Courthouse before Messrs T. Grant and John Sterritt, Justices of the Peace, when C.aude Albert Gleason, farm manager, of Pirongia, was convicted anti fined ITO and ordered to pay £2 2s police and medical expenses and his driver’s license was cancelled for 12 months. Gleason was also disqualified from holding a license within that period. Mr A. R. Hili appeared for the defendant who pleaded not guilty.

Dr P. C. Calvert was called to give evidence for the prosecution which I was conducted by Sergeant Bisset of the Te Awamutu Police- Dr Calvert gave evidence of having examined the fendant at 4.50 p.m. last Thursday. He had found the defendant was intoxicated and he certified that Gleason had taken enough alcohol to impair his judgement. The certificate was presented to the Court. Examined by Mr Hill who said that from a layman’s point of view many of the tests carrie dout on the defendant were favourable, Dr Calvert stated that the manner in which Gleason had conducted himself during his examination of him had caused him to form the opinion that he was intoxicated. Gleason had laughed all i the time and had treated the tests in a jocular fashion. He seemed incapable of concentration on any of the tests which any normal person would have tried to do had he been trying to clear himself of such a serious charge. He had a flushed face and an elevated pulse rate of 126 which was unusual His pulse should not have been more than 80. The pupils of his eyes had failed to contract fully when subjected to light, indicating lack of co-ordination. His speech was thick and slurred and was what one would expect of a man who had partaken of large quantities of alcohol. Asked what he thought of the test as was laid down by the Transport Department, Dr Calvert said that it was desirable to have some uniform method of conducting tests. Taken individually many of the tests required to be conducted by the Department would not indicate intoxication but collectively they could prove that a man lacked co-ord-ination if he was intoxicated. Sergeant Bisset stated that the major question was whether the man had taken sufficient liquor to impair his judgement. Dr Ca.vert said that he had. From the Bench, Mr Grant asked Dr Calvert whether he would have been willing to travel as a passenger in the defendant’s car at the time of the examination. Dr Calvert stated that he most decidedly would not. Mr D. T. Somerville, Traffic Officer, stated that he had seen the defendant staggering along the footpath at about 4.25 p.m. last Thursday afternoon. He was going in the direction of Teasdale Street from the Post Office. He could see that the man was well under the influence of liquor. From the intersection of Teasdale and Alexandra Streets he saw defendant get into the driving seat of a car that was parked opposite to the County Council Office. As he saw the car start to back out from the curb he ran for his own car, which was parked near the Police Station in Roche Street, with the intention of following the defendant. Gleason made a left hand turn into Teasdale Street, swinging over to his wrong side of the road as he did so. Driving up Teasdale Street past the Te Awamutu Primary School, Gleason travelled in the centre of the road, veering to the right and back to the centre again as he went. His speed was clocked at 20 miles per hour. After passing the school the defendant had made a right hand turn into College Street, cutting the corner as he did so and making no signal that he intended to make the turn. He was overhauled and stopped in College Street and when the Officerapproached the car he smelled liquorfumes coming from the driver and noticed a white foam coming from the corner of his lips. The ignition key was taken from the lock and given to the defendant to put back, which after two fumbling attempts he managed to do. Asked to g’et out of his car, the defendant did so. He walked unsteadily and was argumentive. Told that he was being taken to the Police Station under arrest forcing intoxicated in charge of a car, defendant stated that the officer had nothing on him, and refused to go. Told that he would have to go to the Police Station so that he could be examined by a Doctor, Gleason consented to getting into the officer’s car. On the way to the Station he swayed back and forth in his seat. Observing the speedometer on the dash board, which was disconnected, Gleason told the Officer that he was doing 40 miles per hour and that he was a “nark.” The speedometer which the Officer used was mounted on the steering wheel and was covered with a shield. It was in such a position that Gleason could not see it from where he was sitting. When told that he was doing 40 m.p.h, the officer looked at his

.-1 .-eedometer and it was registering 30 m p.h- Asked at the Police Station how many drinks he had by Sergeant Bisset, the officer overheard Gieason say ten, and that he had been drinking beer. Asked by Sergeant Bisset if he thought the driver was sufficiently intoxicated to be incapable of properly controlling the car, the officer replied that he thought that he was. Mr Hill asked the officer if he thought that he was doing his duty by allowing a man whom he thought was intoxicated to get into a car and drive off. The officer replied that G'eason was too far away, in his opinion, for him to have stopped him before he drove away and for that reason he went for his own car. Asked why he had not followed the defendant to his car when he saw him in the street, the officer replied that he had watched the defendant but had not followed him because he thought that he was just walking home. , Sergeant Bisset testified that he had seen the defendant in the Police Station after he had been brought there by the traffic officer and he was wel Idrunk and bordering on a state where he could have been arrested

for being a common drunk. The Sergeant stated that he had 39 years experience of such eases and he was definitely of the opinion that the defendant was not in a fit state to be in charge of a car. Constable Williamson also gave evidence that he was in the Station when Gleason was! brought there by the traffic officer. He stated that he had received the impression that the defendant was well and truly drunk. Had he seen him in the street he would have probably arrested him for being so intoxicated as to be a menace to himself and to others. Mr Hill submitted that it was truly difficult to set up a defence in the face of the Police evidence, but the Doctor’s certificate only gave (four adverse answers to 16 tests. If the defendant had been as bad as the Police evidence would suggest, then he was of the opinion that there would have been considerably more adverse answers. He proposed to call Dr Hiskens who had attended the defendant over a period of years and had also examined the defendant in the Police Station at 5.30 p.m. Doctor Hiskens had given a certificate which stated that the man was sober. That combined with the many favourable answers to tests on Dr Calvert’s went to show that the defendant could not | have been as bad as the Police evidence, which had been given with some enthusiasm, seemed to show. Dr Hiskens stated that he had attended the defendant over a longperiod. He was suffering from the effects of having been gassed in World War I which would tend to make his face flushed and his eyes appear to be strange at times than would be normally usual. Questioned by Mr Hill on various aspects of Dr Calvert’s certificate, Dr Hiskens stated that defendant would normally have a furred tongue as he was an excessively heavy smoker. The fact that his eyes had failed to converge fully when subjected to light tests could be attributed to the effects of liquor and also to otherreasons. The defendant was at all times an exuberant temperament and was a talkative man, more so when he was under adversity. The Dr stated that he had seen the defendant when he was suffering severe physical adversity with broken ribs and pneumonia and he was particularly exuberant. Even under normal circumstances the defendant was of such a temperament that he would appear to be drunk when he actually had not had one drink. His speech at normal times was not concise but tended to be slurred owing to a slight defect in his throat.

Questioned further by Mr Hill, the Doctor stated that he would not have expected the defendant to have been as sober as he was when he had examined him if he had been as drunk as other- witnesses had stated that he was. He would have been willing to let him drive his car at the time when he examined the defendant, said Dr Hiskens. Sergeant Bisset queried that as a result of having been gassed in the First World War the defendant would have his health affected, to which the doctor stated the defendant’s health was affected. Questioned further by the Sergeant, Dr Hiskens stated it would depend on the circumstances of whether the defendant was used to liquor or not as to whether 10 beers would affec his judgement. He agreed that at the time he examined the defendant he could tell that he had consumed liquorMr Grant asked that, if with 40 minutes in between the times of the two doctors’ examinations, a man could sober up to any great degree. Dr Hiskens stated that a man could sober up to a degree but not to the extent that the evidence suggested. The defendant’s manner had been exuberant when he examined him. Dr Calvert had stated that the defendant had taken enough liquor to impair his judgement while driving, but as Dr Hiskens was not there when the defendant was examined the first time he could not say that the defendant’s judgement was not impaired. He stated that Dr Calvert’s certificate was purely a matter of personal opinion and even a test of the blood alcohol content could not prove that a man was unfit to drive a ear. Knowing the defendant he would not think that he was drunk. Placed in the witness box, Gleason detailed his movements on the day of the offence. He had gone to the hotel at about 1 p.m. and stayed there for a short while before leaving and returning again at 2 p.m. He had stayed in the hotel until 3.30 or 4 n.m. He had drunk about 10 medium shandies. He was used to partakitog pjf alcohol and did not remember staggering down the street as the traffic officer had stated. He had seen the traffic officer watch him go to his carHe had seen the officer run to his own car near the Police Station. He did not think that the officer could see him go around the corner into Teasdale Street as he had stated, nor did he think that he had driven in the manner stated. When he had been accosted by the officer he had not been argumentive but had wanted, to know what he had done wrong which warranted his being stopped. Mrs E. May, of Pirongia, who was a passenger in the defendant’s car, stated that she had met Gleason at the Post Office at about 4 p.m. He was behaving all right and was not staggering around the street as had been stated. She would not have walked up the street with him otherwise. He had not made any comment +n the traffic officer in her hearing. His driving was all right otherwise she would not have trusted him to drive her and her daughter home. He was normally a careful driver and on the occasion when he was stopped by the officer he had been driving in a capable manner. Gleason was never serious at any time and when anything went wrong he was always much more cheerful than ever. Witness stated that the car- was parked in Bank Street and from where it was parked they could see the Police Station They had seen the officer run up to the Station to his car but she was certain that he could not have seen them turn the corner into Teasdale Street and not in the manner it was alleged. *

The Justices adjourned for a short period only to return and ask Dr Calvert if he wanted to qualify his certificate after hearing and seeing the defendant when he was sober. Dr Ca’vert said that he did not want to qualify his certificate in any way. Mr Hill asked the Doctor to consider that if he had known defendant better and had the same knowledge as Dr Hiskens had, would he have drawn a different conclusion at the time he had examined defendant. Dr Calvert replied that he was certain that he would, not have drawn any other conclusion from his examination of the defendant, He had no