MOTOR COLLISION SEQUEL

Taranaki Daily News, 7 June 1934, Page 10

MOTOR COLLISION SEQUEL

AVENUE ROAD ACCIDENT 17-YEARS-OLD CAR INVOLVED. ALLEGATIONS REGARDING LIQUOR. There were allegations and counterallegations concerning liquor when Albert Henry Inteman (Mr. L. E. Sowry), fisherman, Moturoa, was charged at the Magistrate’s Court at New Plymouth yesterday with driving a motor-van on Avenue Road in a negligent manner on the evening of Easter Monday, April 4. The driver of another car with which Inteman’s van collided was Bruce Herbert Chapman, auctioneer, who was in Avenue Road in the vicinity of the Boys’ High School, where’ he was about to attend a dance. Inteman pleaded not guilty. Sergeant S. G. Clist prosecuted. Inteman’s van was a seventeen-year-old vehicle. After a hearing occupying four and a-half hours Mr. W- H. Woodward, S.M., said he would inspect the scene of the accident last evening and give his decision to-day.

POLICE STATEMENT OF FACTS. Sergeant S. G. Clist said that at 8.30 p.m. Chapman was driving up Avenue Road to attend a dance at the Boys’ High School. Immediately in front of him was a car driven by Handley Brown, who .turned around to the right and parked his car on the correct side of the road facing the sea. Chapman following intended to do as Brown had done. After Brown turned, however, Chapman noticed a car coming down Avenue Road towards New Plymouth and in consequence he did, not have time to turn. Chapman pulled up on his correct side to allow the oncoming car, driven by Inteman, to pass. . Inteman’s vehicle came on and crashed into Chapman’s car. Bruce Herbert Chapman, auctioneer, Newton King Ltd., said he had attended a sale of trotting stock and later a race meeting at Hawera. At New Plymouth before attending the dance he had dinner with friends at a hotel. Sergeant’Clist: There may be a question as to your state. Did you • have any drink? —I had two drinks with my dinner. You were sober?—'Perfectly sober. Proceeding, Chapman said he had driven up behind a car driven by Handley Brown, one of his party, and had intended to park ae Brown had done. However, he was unable to do this and stopped parallel to the kerb on the correct side six feet out. He had stopped for the express purpose of allowing Inteman to pass. After Inteman’s van had struck hijg car it went on and struck n car parked further on, knocking a wheel off. After the collision Inteman had said he did not see where his (Chapman’s) car came from, and then that Chapman’s lights dazzled him and that ’he thought Chapman was turning. Inteman began to “ride the high horse,” and he told Inteman he would take the enatter up in another quarter. Chapman replied to Sergeant Clist that <by Inteman’s actions and movements and <his breath he could swear- that Inteman had had liquor during the. day, but he was not incapable of driving a car. Inteman had said to Brown that Brown had been in similar accidents ■under similar circumstances and could not say much. DINNER PARTY AT HOTEL. Cross-examined by Mr. Sowry, Chapman said Brown had been one of the dinner party of six at the hotel. He had had two whiskies. You know Brown has had a prohibition order against him?—No. " You know he has been convicted of negligent driving?—l have heard something of it. Did you have any liquor on your person or in the car at the time of the accident? Chapman appealed to the magistrate that the suggestions being put forward by Mr. Sowry were unfounded. The magistrate told Mr. Sowry he would have to show what bearing on the accident liquor on Chapman’s person or in his car would have. Mr. Sowry said this was what he intended to do. He, wanted to show that the party was “primed up” for the dance. The magistrate: After all a man is not “primed up” with liquor which he has not had. Chapman has said he had liquor at the dinner and that is as far, as you can go. You are trying to show he had liquor after the accident. I think ( Shat is going too far. ■ To Chapman: You had not any liquor on your person or in your car at the time of the accident?—l did not, sir. Did you call on Hobbs, a storekeeper at Moturoa, two days afterwards and tell him that unless you received a certain sum from Inteman you would place the matter in the hands of the police? —I may have said something of the kind. Can you explain why it was that it was a month before Inteman was seen by the police?—l cannot answer as to how the police prosecute their inquiries. THREE DRINKS OF BEER. Handley W. Brown, a member of the hotel dinner party, said he had two or ■three drinks of beer with his dinner. He had turned his car round and when alighting from it he heard the crash of the collision. The lights were still burning on Chapman’s car after the impact. Mr. Sowry: You have been prohibited? Brown asked the magistrate if this ■was a fair question. Mr. Sowry said it had something to do with credit. The magistrate: How? Mr. Sowry said Brown and Chapman had gone off together io a dance and they probably had a pleasant evening together, starting off with a dinner party at a hotel and finishing the evening at Chapman's home. The magistrate to Mr. Sowry: I do not think the question has any bearing on whether a man is telling the truth or not. Many people who drink a little too much are quite honest Mr. Sowry submitted he was entitled to ask the question. The magistrate: If the imputation is out of proportion to the value of the evidence it is sought to discredit, then it. is not allowed. Mr. Sowry: If I ask witness if he has been twice convicted of negligent driving would that be relevant? The magistrate: It does not affect his powers of observation. To the witness: Have you any objection to answering the questions? Brown: I thought I was asked to court to tell what I knew about the collision. The magistrate to Mr. Sowry: I do not allow the .question about the prohibition order. Brown, replying to the. second question, said he had been convicted of negligent driving once, not twice as counsel had said in “trying to rub it in a bit.” “A DINNER NOT A PARTY.” John Kenneth Clark, bank clerk, another member of the dinner party along with Chapman, Brown and their wives, gave corroborative evidence. Mr. Sowry: You were one of the hotel par ty?_lt was a dinner, not a hotel party. Brian Gredig, Taranaki Automobile

Association service officer, said he believed Inteman and his passenger had had liquor, but they were not drunk. Mr. Sowry: You smelt no liquor on Chapman?—No. You did not have a cold that night?— No. , • , • Chapman has said he had two whiskies within an hour -of the accident and you could not smell it? —No.

Yet you smelt it on Inteman. You must have a most extraordinary nose. This concluded the police case.

Called to the scene of the accident with the breakdown waggon and crane, Newton John Derby said Inteman and his passenger were quite sober. Inteman had expressed the opinion that Chapman’s car had commenced to make a turn and then been pulled back on to its correct side. Details of the repairs were consistent with Inteman s theory of the accident. The loss of a front wheel by Inteman’s car would account for the way in which it had struck the second car. Reginald Day, borough inspector, said a speed test of Inteman’s car by an independent driver carried out under his supervision disclosed a maximum speed of 26 miles an hour. Mervyn Dineen, acting garage foreman and driver in the test, gave corroborative evidence. HAD HAD NO LIQUOR. He had had no liquor that day, said Inteman in the witness box. After the accident he heard Meams argue with Chapman about his lights. Meams said, “Where are your lights? Where did you come from?” Chapman had replied, “I was stationary—l was stopping.” To him Chapman said he was looking around watching Brown’s car turning and had then looked ahead, seen Inteman s car and tried to avoid it. Chapman had called him from across the road next morning and said, “That job will cost £l6—lf you don’t pay it I will put it in the hands of the police.” Chapman “stank of whisky” then, Inteman alleged. What Gredig said about his breath and his stating that Chapman's car was on the incorrect side of .the road was incorrect, said Inteman. Sergeant Clist: Why did you not see Chapman’s car?—lt had no lights. If he did I must have seen it I was watching in front of me, not at the back as Chapman said he was. - Francis Femside Hogg, storekeeper, Moturoa, gave evidence of character. Inteman’s passenger, Henry Mearas, watersider, gave corroborative evidence of Inteman’s movements during the day, the circumstances of the collision and

the statements attributed to Chapman by Inteman. He had had three drinks at Hawera while Inteman was absent.

You have drink?—l do when my pocket can afford it. You have been before the court?—l do not think that has anything to do with the case. If you want to know about that I can open up.

The magistrate disallowed the question, stating that the imputation was out of proportion. Those who said. Chapman’s car had lights when the accident occurred were incorrect, said Meams to Sergeant Clist. The. hearing concluded at 5.30 p.m.