INTOXICATED MOTORISTS

Taranaki Daily News, 16 August 1929, Page 11

INTOXICATED MOTORISTS

CANCELLATION OF LICENSES OFFENDERS RECEIVE PROBATION. BROWN AND McASEY CONVICTED. The seriousness of the intoxication of motor-car drhers and the fact that the offence was becoming intolerable were emphasised by Mr. K. W. Tate, S.M., in tho New Plymouth Magistrate’s Court yesterday when giving judgment on the charges against Handley Win, Brown, whoso case was heard three weeks but whose name was suppressed, and William Michael McAsey, whose case was heard on Wednesday. Brown was convicted and admitted to probation for two years and McAsey for one year, and both offenders had their licenses cancelled and were instructed to take out prohibition orders during the period of their probation. In making a plea for leniency on behalf of Brown, Mr. A. A. Bennett, wiio had also appeared for McAsey previously, said that as a result of his own interest in sport he had been personally in close contact with Brown for a considerable time and he had always found liis conduct and behaviour to bo exemplary. He was only a young man and his record in both summer and winter sports was one of which any young New Zealander might well be proud. He had also attained a measure of success in his business career.

Till now Brown’s record had been clean and honourable, continued Mr Bennett, and he was pained that a hitherto bright record should have been smeared by such an offence. There were some aspects of tae case, however, in defendant’s favour. When he had the drinks after the football match at Stratford he was not in charge of a car at all; he was with a party of men and he had no reason to think that the drinks he took were to have any connection whatever with motoring. Witnesses had said he had had no drink between the hours of 6 o’clock and 10 o’clock on the night of the accident, and it was reasonable to suppose he was not unfit to driive a tear. That Brown was honestly of that opinion was supported to some extent by the evidence of apparently honest and intelligent people who had been with him at the time of the accident and who had given their opinion as to his condition.

Mr. Tate: Those opinions went to the issue in tho case and I have gone into them thoroughly. Ho was not dealing with the evidence, said Mr. Bennett, but with the honesty of the opinions of Brown’s friends. The cancellation of his license would have serious consequences for him, for his business took him all over Taranaki. Tho car was an absolute necessity and if he had had an idea he was jeopardising his driving license he would ‘ n o t have used the car. Considering these facts, Mr. Bennett asked for what leniency tho court could extend. In both cases, said the magistrate, the same plea had been put forward—that a car was a necessity to the offender and that tho loss of tho license would be serious. But it must be realised that these offences were becoming intolerable. Hero was a case of a man who seldom took liquor and of another who was accustomed to it, and yet both of them were found drunk in charge of a car. The community looked to the courts to provide a deterrent, and theie.weie punishments of three sorts, continued the magistrate. Probation did not mean that an offender was let oft, but amounted to a deferment of a prison sentence, a breach rendering a man liable to three months’ gaol. A fine was the least effective punishment, and he wished to avoid sending anyone to prison if any other method were effective, so that he proposed probation wherever possible. The time was coining, however, when, if the offence did not lessen, prison, would bo the only punishment’. Prohibition from liquor and cancellation of the license must be a condition of probation in most cases.

He proposed, concluded the magistrate, to inflict no fines but to admit both to probation on such terms. The fact that it was inconvenient to them could not be allowed to weigh against the public good. McAsey was ordered to pay costs totalling 19s and Brown costs amounting to 15s.