UNIQUE MOTOR CASE

Taranaki Daily News, 20 June 1931, Page 9

UNIQUE MOTOR CASE

LICENSE OF A DIRIVER ACTION FOR SUSPENSION. THIRD PARTY RISK ISSUE. Christchurch, June 18. A case-of great importance to motorists and the public of New Zealand was heard before Mr. E. D. Mosley, S.M., to-day, when the Southern Union General Insurance'Company asked for an order suspending the driving license of William Millner,, a contractor, on the grounds that he was a danger to the public. The application was made under section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Act, 1928, and was the first of the kind to come before the courts in New Zealand. Mr. W. F. Tracey appeared for the company, and Mr. A. C. Hanlon, K.C., of Dunedin, and Mr. M. W. Simes, represented Millner. In its statement the company said the application was made on the grounds that the safety of the public was being unduly endangered by Millner. The company also applied for an order disqualifying Millner from obtaining another license for such period as the court might think fit. Millner was also charged on the information of the company with driving in a manner dangerous to the public on March 23. He pleaded not guilty. DOCTOR'S PURSUIT OF A CAR. Evidence was' given about the accident on the date named, when accused’s car, it was alleged, collided with another car at a crossing while travelling at <3O miles an hour. It was stated that after the collision accused drove away swiftly in his car. Dr. W. M. Cotter gave evidence about pursuing the car involved in the collision. and taking its number, which, he said, was the number of accused’s car. But, witness admitted to Mr. Hanlon that he was not prepared to swear that the car the number of which he took was the one that had been involved in the accident, because it was just, possible that he might have become confused, as he did not have the fugitive car in sight all the time. James Leonard Davis, insurance adjuster, said Millner had admitted liability concerning the collision, saying he felt a slight bump while going over the crossing. To Mr. Hanlon witness said the company, in spite of Millner’s acceptance of liability, had paid part of the claim. Millner had admitted feeling a bump, but had not admitted hitting another car. . 1 STATEMENT BY tn regard to the application for the suspensiaon of Millner’s driving license Mr. Tracey said the Act under which it was made was intended to provide for the covering of the third-party risks of all motor-drviers in New Zealand. Cover was given by private companies, but as soon as a license Was taken out the company had no option but to accept the risk.

Under Section 14 of the Act,, however, a company could bring to the notice of the court any special or undue risk undertaken under compulsion by the company, On October 15, 1929, continued counsel, Millner had been convicted, of being intoxicated while in charge of a car. On that occasion he had collided in his car with a Post and Telegraph Department truck and had bolted off.

On April 15, 1931, he r had- been convicted of’ negligent driving, and’ falling to report an accident. He had knocked down a motor-cyclist and there was a claim against him now for £2500. OTHER SIDE OF THE CASE. Mr. Hanlon stated that though the Act had been in force since 1929, and since then there had been thousands of claims all over New Zealand, the Southern Union had been the first company to take these, proceedings. He would prove that Millner had taken his other insurances . away from the Southern Union Company and that the company, seeing that it-was left with the risks of his third-party . risk and had lost his £6O or £7O of premiuriis, had decided to come to the magistrate to get his license taken away. 1 “There was nothing before you to-day that was' not before you before except an attempt to prove this accident in which Millner was alleged to have been involved—h .thing they have utterly failed to. do,” Mr. Hanlon concluded. Defendant *was then called as a witness by Mr.. Hanlon. “This is the first case of its kind that has ever cropped up, to my knowledge, in New Zealand,” said the magistrate, “and I think it deserves a little consideration. Judgment is reserved on both points.”