MOTOR-CAR COLLISION

Taranaki Daily News, 29 November 1934, Page 13

MOTOR-CAR COLLISION

SMASH NEAR CENOTAPH ALLEGATION OF INTOXICATION. NEW PLYMOUTH MAN IN COURT. Arising out of a collision that occurred near the Terminus Hotel on Wednesdayevening of last week, Frederick Wilson Whitaker, driver of one of the cars concerned, was charged on remand in the New Plymouth Court yesterday, with baing in a state of intoxication in a public place while in charge of a motorcar. Mr. W. H. Woodward, S.M., was on the bench. Defendant, who was represented by Mr. F. S. Grayling, pleaded not guilty. After nine out of ten witnesses for the prosecution had been heard, the case was adjourned until next Monday.

On the application of Sergeant Clist, who prosecuted, all witnesses were ordered out of court.

Dr. G. H. Thomson said at 7.30 p.m. he examined defendant at the police station. Whitaker was quite composed. His breath smelt of alcohol and he stated that he had had three whiskies after 5.50 p.m. that day. He said he had had nothing else and no food since a light lunch. He had been doing fairly heavy work for the Public Works Department at the East Road, near Stratford. He also said he took alcohol daily and was used to it. Dr. Thomson described tests he had made. Witness considered that' Whitaker had good mental clarity and good reaction in his special senses, but had lost control of some of his physical co-ordination. He had “gone in the legs.” Dr. Thomson thought Whitaker’s condition was solely due to taking alcohol on an empty stomach after a heavy day’s work in the hot sun. Dr. Thomson considered him unfit to drive a car. Cross-examined, Dr. Thomson said he knew Dr. Blackley had previously examined defendant but did not know that Dr. Blackley considered him quite capable of driving a car. He considered that defendant reacted quite well to the majority of the tests. The stairs at the police station were very steep but witness considered the test a fair one. Witness recognised that defendant had given attention to all the tests. The case had certainly caused witness considerable thought, but he had never had any doubt about his conclusions on the matter. He agreed that the case was somewhat out of the ordinary and he had stated in fairness to defendant that it was a case of the effects of alcohol on an empty stomach after a heavy day’s work.

Mr. Grayling: After a motor smash you would expect to find a man somewhat perturbed? SOBERING TENDENCY. Dr. Thomson replied that in the case of a man used to alcohol the motor smash and subsequent arrest would have a sobering up tendency. He admitted that defendant might be somewhat perturbed. Mrs. Elsie Lillian Peters, Atiawa Street, Fitzroy, said that at about 6.40 p.m. she was driving her car from the breakwater towards town at the slow pace of 20 miles per hour. She had been driving for five years, and had ’never had an accident. Near the Terminus Hotel she saw a car coming up from the station way on its wrong side. The car did not turn to its right side, so she put on her brakes and turned a little to the left. The other motor-car, which was travelling at about 40 miles per hour, swerved a little to the right. Witness had, just turned her car in an endeavour to avoid a head-on collision when she was hit. Whitaker’s car took her right front mudguard off and the running board, also hitting the back mudguard. The right front wheel was pushed, under. Witness received a shock but at once got out of her car. Defendant was just stepping on the running board of his car. Mrs. Peters said: “You brute, to drive like that. You must be drunk.” Whitaker staggered and looked at her with a silly drunken grin on his face. Mrs. Peters said: “Why can’t you keep on your right side of the road?” Whitaker did not reply or offer any assistance. He staggered and went into the back of the hotel. About ten minutes or a quarter of an hour later Mrs. Peters saw Whitaker leaning up against the Terminus Hotel. She asked a constable to see if defendant were drunk. She did not go near enough to smell defendant’s breath, as she was frightened of drunken men. Whitaker had not complained about the sun in his eyes. Cross-examined, Mrs. Peters said she first saw defendant’s motor-car when it was near the station. She had no chance of pulling out of the way as the approaching car was travelling so fast. Her passenger commented on the pace and the fact that the car was on its wrong side. Mrs. Peters told Mr. Woodward that Whitaker must have heard witness as she shouted at him three or four times. IMPRESSION OF INTOXICATION. Margaret Francis Eva Baker, who was with Mrs. Peters in the car, gave evidence similar to Mrs. Peters as to the collision and the subsequent remarks of Mrs. Peters, which were said loud enough for anyone to hear. Whitaker certainly staggered and witness gained the impression that he was intoxicated. Constable L. Mitchell said that on his arrival Mrs. Peters asked him to have a look at the driver of the other car as he was intoxicated. Witness saw Whitaker, who was then leaning slightly against the Terminus Hotel. Mrs. Peters’ car was facing towards the cenotaph and Whitaker’s towards the hotel. From the left-hand front bumper of Mrs. Peters’ car the distance to the kerb was 15ft. and from the left hand near bumper Bft. The right hand front bumper of defendant’s car was sft. from the kerb and the right rear bumper 14ft. from the kerb. From the right-hand rear bumper of Mrs. Peters’ car to the right hand rear bumper of defendant’s car was a distance of 18ft. 9in. The point of impact was 17ft from the kerb at a point 16ft. back from the eastern line of the hotel and 30ft 6in from the right kerb. The road at that place is 47ft 3in wide and from the left hand tram rail to the left hand kerb was 22ft lOin. Before it started to widen the road was 33ft 9in and the distance from the left hand tram rail to the kerb was 14ft 4in. The actual skid marks made by Whitaker’s car opposite the point of impact were a broadsiding skid mark of 4ft 3in and a jump of three feet followed by a skid mark of 28ft 4in. The end of that skid mark was Ift over the left hand tram rail coming to town. The drum of the right hand wheel, which had broken, made a deep mark in the road for 6in. There was then a blank of 4ft. and another mark on the road of 13ft 6in, ending 6ft 6in from the kerb at the Terminus Hotel. From the point of impact there was a tyre skid for a distance of two feet, more or less a broadside. That appeared to be the skid mark made by Mrs. Peters’ right hand wheel, consistent with the marks made by a tyre that had been pushed when the brakes were hard on. Judging by the damage to the cars he thought the skid mark had occurred at the point of impact. Sergeant Clist then came on the scene and the constable took him to defendant, whom he heard inform the sergeant that he had had two drinks and had driven his friend home towards Fitzroy. The constable saw defendant lurch twice while walking with Sergeant

Clist to the latter’s car. The constable had no doubt in his own mind that defendant was intoxicated.

Cross-examined, Constable Mitchell said the defendant bore a good character. Mrs. Peters was fairly composed when he arrived on the scene, though a little more excited than when giving evidence. He could only find one skid mark of Mrs. Peters’ car.

Arthur Noel Williams, an engineer of New Plymouth, said he was mending a gate at his home opposite the Terminus Hotel in St. Aubyn Street. He first saw a car containing two women travelling not very fast towards town on its correct side. A little later he saw a car travelling much faster from town on its wrong side of the road. He could see that there was going to be an accident, as the car coming from town swerved slightly towards the right and if the other car had not been there would have gone very close to the kerb. He saw it hit the other car and he at once ran over to the scene. He gave evidence similar to the women as to the remarks made to Whitaker, who was near enough to have heard what was said. As far as witness knew Whitaker made no remark. Cross-examined, Williams said he noticed that the sun was rather strong that night. The corner in question was a bad. one for the sun at that time of night. He was a car driver and, though he only guessed the speed, he was generally fairly correct. He told the magistrate that his only grounds for assuming that Whitaker was .intoxicated was his walk and general appearance. Forbes McDonald Black, motor garage proprietor, said he saw the car driven by Whitaker pass his garage opposite the railway station at about 40 miles an hour. Near the Terminus Hotel it pulled on to its wrong side and had it continued in that course would have run into the Terminus Hotel. The sun was shining strongly that night into the face of anyone driving to the breakwater- but 40 miles would, he considered, be a safe speed if the driver kept to the right side of the road. Witness did not notice anything peculiar about defendant, who did not appear to be under the influence of liquor, as he was standing all right. Except for the speed, Black replied to Mr. Grayling, the car appeared to be driven normally. The car coming from the breakwater appeared to be on its correct side of the road. Re-examined, Black said that, with the sun troublesome, it should have been the duty of defendant to have driven more carefully and on his correct side of the road. APPEARANCE OF WHITAKER. H. H. Moller, garage proprietor, said that on the same evening when passing Black’s garage he had to slow up owing to the sun. Reaching the Terminus Hotel he saw that there had been a collision. The marks that defendant’s car had been on the wrong side, whilst the other car was on the right side. By defendant’s manner and appearance witness thought that he was under the influence of drink. He did not appear to be taking any interest in the collision, and gave the impression that he was a bit bewildered. According to the skid marks, the damage to the other car and the fact that it had carried on, he considered the speed of Whitaker’s car was 40 to 45 miles per hour, and on that particular night, owing to the sun, it would not be safe to travel at that speed. Sergeant Clist said that in fairness to the two last witnesses he must state that they had not come forward to the police with their evidence, but had been interviewed by the police. Sergeant Clist gave evidence of interviewing Whitaker at the scene of the accident after Constable Mitchell had informed defendant who the sergeant was. Defendant stated that he had been to Stratford that afternoon, but had returned at 5.45 p.m. He had just driven a friend home, he said, and the accident had occurred while he was returning. He stated that he had had two whiskies in a New Plymouth hotel about six o’clock. Whitaker staggered as he turned to walk to the car. Entering the car, Whitaker made a decided lurch. On touching the verandah he staggered. Informed that he would be charged with being intoxicated while in charge of a car, Whitaker protested and asked that Dr. Blackley be called. Dr. Blackley arrived at 7.22 and put defendant through a slight test. Whitaker was stood on one leg. Dr. Blackley looked into his eyes, waited a few seconds and had another look into his eyes. The doctor then said Whitaker was quite fit to drive a motor-car. Whitaker made no mention of the sun troubling him. He said he might have had five drinks that day, but no more.

Cross-examined, Sergeant Clist said Dr. Blackley was firmly of opinion that defendant was in a fit condition to drive a car. In fact, he said that he would willingly drive with defendant. It was three-quarters of an hour after the accident and shock sobered up a man. Sergeant Clist said he made up his mind to arrest Whitaker as soon as he saw him. Whitaker was certainly able to answer all questions clearly. Sergeant Clist did not wish to imply that defendant was what was known as paralytic drunk. Another witness for the prosecution, who was absent at Stratford, will be called when the case is resumed on Monday.