FATAL MOTOR ACCIDENT

Taranaki Daily News, 12 November 1929, Page 7

FATAL MOTOR ACCIDENT

TWO DRIVERS SENT TO TRIAL .• SUMMARY: DISMISSALS REFUSED. (WAS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF DEATH? EACH MAN PLEADS “NOT GUILTY" ■ Both Douglas Lobb and Sydney George Bellringer, New Plymouth, were committed to the Supreme Court for trial yesterday after pleading not guilty to charges of negligently driving cars on the Mangaone Hill, Devon Road, thereby causing the death of Lawrence Jordan, aged 12. Each was admitted ,to bail in his;-own recognisance of . £lOO. • The cases arose, out of a fatality on Devon Road, near the.'show grounds, on Saturday, October 5. A'number of aeroplanes were at the Bell Block aerodrome that day, and' the accident occurred :When motorists arid pedestrians were returning ■to New Plymouth late in the afternoon; , / .

• On the application' of Mr; R. 11. Quilliam, who appeared for Bellringer, the charges were heard separately, that against Lobb, who was represented by Mr. L. M. Moss, being taken first. . Cecil Ernest Jordan, father of the boy, said his son went to the Bell Block aerodrome early in the morning. When next he saw him in hospital that night he was dead. He was. in Standard 5, and was an intelligent boy for his age, and his hearing and sight were good. Royce Hagen, aged 11, said he was Criming home from the aerodrome about , 4.30 p.m. with his brother and Jordan. They were walking on the left side of the road, and. were, on the grass, They were abreast of one another.- Jordan was on the right side, and witness was in the centre. He ..looked round; and saw ; a car coining. “Look, out, Niger!” he called, but the car struck Jordan. There were three cars. It was Lobbs’ car that struck his friend, but he could not say what position. it was in in relation to the other. This car was on the asphalt when it struck Jordan. He was told to: tfun away after the accident. >; To Mr, Moss: Lobb was in an open car. He did »ot notice any cyclists. He glanced around only, and saw one car trying to pass three others. / . Albert Thomas Moore said , he drove down the hill about 4.50 p.m. He saw a number of stationary cars, and around them were one or two people bending over, the boy, who was lying about six feet from the edge of, the asphalt on the loose metal. After Dr. Mecredy had dressed the boy’s wounds he went away to telephone the hospital. He noticed a short skid mark running on to the loose metal, and ending six or seven feet from where the boy was lying. . To Mr. Moss: The boy had probably been carried from the loose metal to the grass, about four feet from where he was lying when the accident occurred. DOCTOR ON THE SCENE. Dr. R. J. R. Mecredy, medical officer of health for Taranaki, said he was driving up the hill towards Bell Block about 4.50. When he got round the bend he saw three cars approaching him down the hill. They were overlapping one another in his view. The first car was to the left of .the'centre-of the road, and was travelling between 30 and 35 miles an hour. He saw three boys six to 10 feet from the edge of the tar-seal. The next thing he saw was a boy lying, unconscious on the side of the road, about six feet from the tar-seal. It seemed that he had received a fracture of the skull,- as a result of his head striking the road metal. There was a skid mark from the asphalt to the loose metal. After extending three or four feet on .the metal, there were indications that the wheels had returned to the asphalt at a point from, six to 10 feet, below where the boy was lying, From the skid marks, he judged the brakes had been applied. . After drawing a plan of the position of the cars when he saw them overlapping, the doctor told Mr. Moss he did not actually see one car pass another. The first car apparently made no attempt to pull up. Courtenay Kenny, Government Surveyor, deposed that he had taken the measurements from which the draughtsman had prepared the produced plan of the locality. Cross-examined, he said the constable had pointed out to him where the boy had been lying, and the skid mark delineated. Mr. Moss said that if the case went further, he would object to the plan going before a jury, showing, as it did, the skid and car marks as reported by the constable. Such a plan should show nothing but the natural features, as was the custom in civil cases. The police should have a fresh plan made. The Magistrate concurred in this view. Cleata Maud Pratt said she was sitting in the front seat of Bellringer’s car, which was travelling down the hill at 20 to 25 miles an hour. Bellringer blew his horn as a warning of his intention to pass the two cars in front. He had passed one. car when she noticed a small car coming towards them up the hill. Bellringer, on noticing this, pulled over slightly behind the car still in front of him; this was separated from Lobb’s car by about 30 feet. Bellringer stopped his car some distance further on, alighted, and went back. Lobb gave them plenty of room to pass, ljut she could not say whether he had swerved over. . DEATH IN HOSPITAL. Dr. C. R. Burns, medical superintendent of the New Plymouth Public Hospital, said that when Jordan was admitted to the hospital at 5.10 p.m. he was unconscious, had a scalp wound behind the left ear, and was bleeding from the nose. There were no other serious body injuries. He died a few minutes later, the cause probably being cerebral haemorrhage brought on by a fracture of the base of the skull. Mrs. Elizabeth Lobb, mother of Douglas Lobb, said she was in the front seat with her son. They appeared to be travelling down the hill at about 20 miles an hour. They followed another car for a considerable distance. As they approached the show grounds another car behind them sounded its horn and came alongside. It scratched their car as it passed them; it seemed to pass them slowly. Then she felt another bump on the left side of their car. She did not know a boy had been knocked down till she alighted. She considered l*er son’s car was separated by about 15 feet from the car in front of Bellringer’s; this was the position when the accident actually occurred.

Sergeant McGregor said he arrived on the scene of the accident about 9 p.m. in Lobb’s car. Lobb pointed out where he considered' the boy was lying. There was a .skid mark 33 feet long. He examined Lobb’s car, and was satisfied it was not his tyres that had made the mark, nor was there anything to indicate his car had collided with anything. The brakes passed a satisfactory test. Constable Palmer put'in a statement from Lobb. ... In this Lobb said he was about - 15 feet behind a car, travelling towards town, when Bellringer’s car came up behind and started to pass him. As Bellringer did so, another car appeared travelling in the opposite direction, and Bellringer pulled between Lobb’s car and the one in front. Lobb was forced to pull over to the left-hand side, and struck the boy with the front mudguard, knocking him-about four feet ahead. He was travelling about 15 miles an hour. PLEA FOR DISMISSAL.

In asking that the case should be dismissed, Mr. -Moss said the Magistrate’s duty was to find whether there was a prima facie case for trial. He submitted there was no prima facie case showing that Lobb was guilty of negligence, causing the death of Jordan. It was known that the car. struck the boy, and that that caused death, but the question was whether Lobb had driven negligently. ■ . Lobb had said he was driving at 15 miles an hour. Dr. Mecredy said he thought the cars were moving at from 30 to 35 miles an hour. Even so, that did not prove prima facie negligence against Lobb. Lobb’s statement taken with Dr. Mccredy’s evidence did not even commence to establish anything in the nature of negligent driving.. There was not an element of speed, recklessness through drink, or any of the other factors so often found in such cases. Mr. Tate said his function was not to decide whe aer there was negligence or not, but to decide whether there was a prima facie case for the jury to consider. If he decided there was no case, it would not constitute an acquittal, and proceedings could be begun again if necessary. An acquittal could only come from a jury. Mr. Moss said his point was that the police must show negligence. After reiterating, that he had only to decide whether there was a case for a higher Court, the Magistrate said there were several aspects that might be argued, but it was not his duty to consider .them. . ■ ■ '

Mr. Moss: I have made my submission, and I shall not stress it. My submission was that there is no evidence of negligence. . Mr. Tate said there, might be something in it, but it was not for him to decide, and the proper course was for him to commit Lobb for trial so that a jury might decide. Mr. Moss contended there was an onus on the police in th’at Court, as in a higher Court. They must establish a prima facie case of negligence, and the Magistrate had a wide discretion in. the matter. If there were not a prima facie case established, Lobb was. entitled to be saved the expense and worry of a trial.

The Magistrate said that might be so, but there were many things that required some answer. For instance, why was the boy not seen before the accident? He could not’agree there was no prima facie case, but he felt strongly that Lobb was entitled to have his case considered by a jury, and he would commit him for trial. MrfMoss: Well, I shall face the jury very The Magistrate:* That is so. SAME CHARGE PREFERRED BELLRINGER PLEADS NOT GUILTY. REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL REFUSED.

The evidence given against Lobb was resworn by the witnesses in connection with the charge against Bellringer. In answer to Mr. Quilliam, Moore said that within a very short time of his arrival there was a large number of cars in the vicinity,-drawn up on both sides of the road. / . 7 Under cross examination, Miss Pratt said that at ’ no time • on the journey down the hill had she experienced any fear of an accident. There was no question of the speed being excessive. . To Mr. Quilliam, Sergeant McGregor said that two or three days after the aciedent he examined Bellringer’s tyres, and was satisfied that they had not caused the skid marks referred to by him. STATEMENT BY BELLRINGER. . Constable Wilson said Bellringer made a statement to him about 9 p.m. on the day of the accident. Bellringer said there were two cars in front of him. He blew his horn and pulled out to pass the first car. Then he saw another car approaching in the opposite direction and, believing he would not have time to pass Lobb’s and the car in front he pulled in between them. He proceeded on in this way, about five feet behind the’front car,* until he saw in his reflector that Lobb was beckoning to him. He stopped and went back io where Jordan was lying. Lobb said he did not see the boy. Bellringer had added that his speed when passing would have been about 25 miles an hour. Senior-Sergeant McCrorie said he examined Bellringer’s car on the day following the accident. It was in good order, without marks or scratches. A similar model measured about 16ft from front to back bumper; Doug’ass Lobb in evidence admitted having made the statement given to the police, and sale it was correct. He had had to keep as close as possible to the front car in order to avoid two boys on cycles. As the front car turned to the right again to regain the roadway proper, Jordan came into v<ew. Bellringer’s car was travelling about 30 miles an hour when it passed him. He was certain that when it pulled over in front of him he was only abo.it 15 feet from the front car. The speed of 15 miles an hour mcntiuie-l in the statement was the speed at the time of impact. Answering the senior-sergeant, Lobb said Bellringer had no option but to pull in between the cars when he saw the other car approaching up the hill. To Mr. Quilliam: He had Deen running behind Bellringer for nor more than three car lengths- before he hit Jordan. He did not remember saying at the inquest that he did net vigorously apply his brakes. He admitted that the fact that he was caused difficulty by the two boys on bicycles was not in the written statement to the police signed by him. SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL. In announcing his intention to submit that Bellringer should not be called

upon to stand his trial, Mr. Quilliam said that in his opinion it was not the duty of the court to commit a man unless there was a reasonable expectation that the jury would convict. In a matter of this kind one should fake particular pains not to lose one’s sense of proportion. The fatality was a shocking thing and one might have sympathy with the relatives, but that did not concern the law, and they should not be led to think that because someone should be killed someone else must be punished, even if it was only to make him stand his trial. Dr. Mecredy, continued counsel, had been perfectly frank when he said that he could not be certain in estimating speeds under the circumstances, and the magistrate would know from his experience in other cases that estimates of speeds were not reliable when the person concerned was estimating the speed of a car approaching him. In this case the difficulty had been increased by the fact that the cars were coming down a hill. After all, of the 12 witnesses the evidence of 11 . either actively assisted his client’s case or was of no value in these proceedings. So far as Lobb was concerned, he had made it clear at the inquest that, whatever might be in the magistrate’s mind about the conduct of a driver who passed another motorist on a hill, in actual fact Bellringer’s passing had nothing to do with the accident. Lobb had said that for one and a-half car lengths Bellringer was occupied in passing him and then the cars followed one another some distance. Counsel could not understand the suggestion that Bellringer was responsible under the circumstances. He could understand it being alleged that Bellringer’s action in passing in front of a car on a hill might constitute negligence, but he could not unde-rstand, in this instance, how that could be said to have been the negligence that caused death.

“I say that Bellringer’s conduct was perfectly reasonable and proper, and that it had nothing whatever to do with the death of this boy,” concluded Mr. Quilliam. “Counsel says wo must preserve a sense of proportion, and I entirely agree with him,” said the magistrate. “Wo must not adopt th© attitude that because a boy has been killed a victim must be produced.” He said they must remember the nature of these proceedings. The court dealt with negligent driving every day, and it was a similar negligence that was being alleged in this case. The only question was whether thia man drove in a reasonable manner to avoid an accident. “The fact that a boy was killed does not enter into it,” said Mr. Tate. His function, however, was not to decide whether Bellringer was guilty of such want, of care as to cause death, but to ascertain whether there was anything for him to answer to a jury. He did not agree that he had to decide whether a person was likely to be convicted, but it was for the jury to consider whether negligence had caused death.

“Did this man drive with such want of care that he caused death?” That was a question for the jury to answer. “I have to decide whether the jury has to answer it, and I say it has," concluded the magistrate. “I shall commit him for trial." .

A summary charge against Bellringer of overtaking another vehicle and moving into its line of passage with less than 18- feet clearance was adjourned sine die.