MOTOR DRIVER CHARGED

Taranaki Daily News, 25 July 1929, Page 14

MOTOR DRIVER CHARGED

ALLEGEDLY DRUNK IN CAR CASE ARISES OUT OF COLLISION. MAGISTRATE RESERVES DECISION. A charge of being in a state of intoxication while in charge of a motor-car was preferred against a young New Plymouth man, whose name was suppressed, at the Police Court yesterday before Mr. R. W. Tate, S.M. Defendant pleaded not guilty, and after conflicting evidence had been given for both sides the Magistrate reserved his decision. Constable Butler said he heard the sound of a crash near the post office at 10.10 p.m. and immediately went up Devon Street, arriving at the scene of the accident about a minute later. He found that a motor-car lad run into the Westown tram standing opposite the' post office. The right-hand bumper and mudguard were damaged and a tyre had burst. The right-hand corner of the tram, had been struck by the car. The driver started the car and drove down Queen Street and into King Street. He followed and asked defendant how he met with the accident, but received the reply, “I had no accident.”- Defendant denied he ran into the tram but stated it bumped him. Defendant smelt strongly of liquor, staggered slightly and was muddled and thick in speech. He took a spanner and tried to take the spare wheel off the back of the car but could not do so. Witness took him to the police station as he considered he was intoxicated and on the way defendant asked him to keep him out of trouble and not make a case of it. He examined him again and in his opinion he was drunk and incapable of driving a car with any degree of safety. ASKED TO SEE DOCTOR.

Defendant attempted to pick up a packet of cigarettes off the counter and lunged forward, staggering badly. Once he nearly fell over. When told he would he charged he asked to see Dr. Brown, who was sent for and examined him at the station. Defendant missed his step once when he tried to walk a straight line. The rest of the examination was was conducted in private.

To Mr. A. A. Bennett the constable said Dr. Brown was telephoned immediately he was asked for and arrived about half an hour later. Defendant in his opinion was still intoxicated, though he had sobered considerably. He thought when the doctor left defendant was still in a state of intoxication. Constable Mills was on watch-house duty when defendant was brought into the station. He knew him well, he said, and as soon as he was brought in he could see he was not normal. Defendant said he was going along the street when the tramcar hit him. To Mr.. Bennett witness affirmed defendant was still intoxicated when the doctor left, though he had sobered considerably. He nearly fell over going out to the cells.

Constable Mitchell gave evidence on the same lines as the previous witnesses. . Herbert George Koster, who heard the

crash just after he had crossed the street in front of the stationary tram, said he saw the car against the tram. The right-hand front wheel was under the tram, from which bystanders helped to free it before the driver started the car and backed it away. He followed the car down King Street and saw the constable taking the driver away. He could not say anything about the condition of the driver as he was not close enough. Someone else was trying to take the spare wheel oft the car but he had to help him and finally took the car to the police station. The other passenger in the car was not very sober. CASE FOR THE DEFENCE. Opening the case for the defence, Mr. Bennett said he did not doubt the sincerity of the constables in their opinions, but police officers were not infallible and were not always correct in their observations and deductions. The evidence would raise grave doubts as to whether this was not the case. Defendant’s movements could be accounted for from 6 o’clock to 10 o’clock and it would be proved that he had had no liquor. The evidence of Dr. Brown must throw some doubt on the reliability of the prosecution's evidence. The defendant said he went into a hotel bar in Stratford about 5.30 o’clock on the day of the accident and had five or six shandies and some counter lunch. He was quite used to drinking after playing football and was in the bar until closing time. He arrived back at New Plymouth at about 8 o’clock, walked to the White Hart Hotel corner with three others, Luxton, Bennett and Hooker. He left Bennett further down to go to his lodging where he went up to see a man named Archer, who had been confined to bed with influenza. He was with him until he left his lodgings again after 10 p.m. to go down to the post office to meet a friend named Luxton, whom he was to take home- to Oinata. Luxton was intoxicated when he met him.

Approaching Queen Street he saw a tram and left the turn into Queen Street too late and struck the tram, which he thought was moving off. He gave the riiotorman his name, reversed the car and went down into King Street to change the tyre. When the constable asked him to go back with him he thought it was merely to go back to the post office to give some statement or other. After six he had had no liquor whatever and his condition when he found himself under arrest was due to excitement and agitation. He had been driving five months and had had no previous experience in dealing with tyre trouble. Ho admitted asking the police not to make a case against him and he had said to Constable Butler that there had been no accident because the car was very little damaged and he thought nothing would come of it. To the senior-sergeant defendant said Archer had no liquor in his room. He made no protest to the police at the station when they said he was intoxicated. ONLY SHANDIES. His drinks at Stratford were only shandies, to which he was well accustomed, said defendant to Mr. Tate. Mr. Tate: It’s very strange that in these cases where it is a question of intoxication the drinks are always shandies. Gordon Hooker, who travelled back in the same bus as defendant, corroborated the evidence given as to what happened before 8 o’clock. Defendant was perfectly sober when he left witness. Frederick Claude Archer, who lodged

in the same house as defendant, corroborated defendant’s statements as to his actions between 8 and 10 o’clock. He could detect that he had had liquor when he came in but he considered that when he left he was not intoxicated and was capable of driving : car. Arthur Clark, motorman of the tramcar concerned, said he was waiting for the theatre crowd, when the collision occurred. The traincar was. very little damaged. He spoke to defendant, whom he did not once consider to be under the influence of liquor, either from his speech and conduct or the manner in which he drove away. It would have been his duty to report any suggestion of intoxication in anyone concerned in an accident.

Dr. D. E. Brown said he knew he was called to examine a supposedly intoxicated man and he conducted the necessary tests. He found defendant excited and the first impression, combined with the smell of liquor and the fact that defendant had run into a car, was that he was intoxicated. But as a result of his investigations he was unable to certify that defendant was in a state of intoxication and came to the conclusion that he was not unfit to drive a car. He had to bear in mind that sometimes an accident would make a man totally irrational, but he could not draw any conclusions of defendant’s state half-an-hour before. The mis-step that defendant made when told to walk a straight line was caused through a loose piece of leather on his boot. It would be easy tor anyone to be led to believe through defendant’s condition that he was intoxicated. RECOGNISED TESTS. To the senior-sergeant witness said he tested defendant’s balance and coordination by recognised tests. He relied more on his questions and observations than on tests alone. Senior-Sergeant McCrorie: Why did you conduct the tests in private? Witness: I would not have done so had the police objected. Senior-Sergeant: Would excitement alone have caused him to stumble? — Nu.

Asked to define what he considered an unfit state to drive a car, witness said he judged by whether he would trust himself to a* driver or not. He could smell liquor on defendant. When he stated ho would not certify defendant was intoxicated he did so because from the evidence he had already heard that day he had had to exclude the possibility that defendant’s condition was caused by his being intoxicated and being rapidly sobered by the accident. The evidence gave no indication that defendant had been intoxicated.

Senior-Sergeant: Why base your opinion on the evidence, doctor? Why not on what you saw yourself? Witness: When I examined defendant I could not at the time express an opinion as to what condition he had been in before the accident. Did you not express doubt and a desire to call another doctor? —Yes. I was biassed at first from what I had heard from the police. _ , Senior-Sergeant: I have had 35 years experience in the police force and I Jia\e never had any difficulty in deciding whether a mau was drunk or excited. Witness: I am not so infallible as that. . . To the Magistrate Dr. Brown said he would not go so far as to say that defendant was not in a state of intoxication or that he was not unfit to drive a car.