BENEFIT OF DOUBT

Taranaki Daily News, 21 March 1935, Page 7

BENEFIT OF DOUBT

NEGLIGENT DRIVING ALLEGED. CAR AND LORRY ON A BRIDGE. On a charge of'negligent driving arising out of a collision between a motorlorry- and a small s coupe car on the Maunganui bridge near Midhirst, Douglas Mathieson Clarke, a dairy factory engineer, appeared before Mr. W. H. Woodward, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court, Stratford, yesterday. Clarke, who pleaded not guilty, was represented' by Mr. N. H. Moss. Sergeant S. G. Clist prosecuted. The charge Was dismissed. The facts of the case as outlined by Sergeant Clist were that on January 31 at 12.45 p.m. Clarke was proceeding from Midhirst towards Inglewood when, on the Maunganui bridge, he collided with a heavy • lorry laden with pine logs, driven by James Thomas Hogan. Constable G. H. Graham,’ Inglewood, who arrived on the scene soon after the accident, gave evidence of measurements taken. The car was practically in the centre of the road, he said. The impact took place about three inches on the Stratford side of the bridge in his opinion. There were skid marks from that point extending back seven feet to the front wheels of the car. Apparently they were caused through the car being pushed backwards. It was a perfectly fine day. When he had seen Clarke after the accident he had complained that the brakes of the lorry were ineffective, said Constable Graham, but when the brakes were tested immediately afterwards they were found to be satisfactory. To Mr. Moss the constable said that he had looked for skid marks on the decking of the bridge. He did not agree with Mr. Moss’ suggestion that no marks would show on the wooden decking; he had found other skid marks on the decking. As he was nearing the bridge, said Hogan, he could see the car approaching on the other side. On entering the bridge he saw the car had failed to give way from the other end. He was travelling at about 18 miles per hour, and he estimated the speed of the car at between 20 to 25 miles per hour. In ‘his opinion the impact occurred just off the bridge, on the Stratford side. Cross-examined, Hogan said he estimated he could pull up his lorry within two lengths when travelling at 20 miles an hour. The lorry was about 22 feet long. He applied his brakes when about half-way across the bridge. While he (was standing with Clarke Blackburn arrived and asked what had happened. “If Clarke says that Blackburn had not arrived when he left to ring up, will you say he is deliberately lying?” asked Mr. Moss.—Hogan: Yes. Ivan Ernest Blackburn, a farmer on Norfolk Road, gave evidence for the police. On the day of the accident, he said, he was travelling home from Stratford and was following a three-seater car. He saw a lorry approaching the other side of the bridge. The lorry was nearer the bridge than the car and was on the bridge first. The collision occurred on the Stratford end of the bridge. Witness stopped and walked up to Clarke and Hogan, saying “What are you fellows up to?” Clarke turned to him and said, “Whose fault is it? Isn’t it this fellow’s?” To Mr- Moss: Blackburn admitted that he and Hogan were neighbours and friends. Although he was a friend of Hogan’s, he did not take any special interest in the affair. There were no serious features about the case, said Mr. Moss, and it was difficult to understand why such a serious charge was brought. Clarke’s story was that he had actually got on to the bridge and had pulled up when to his amazement Hogan continued to come on. For that reason he doubted the efficiency of Hogan’s brakes. Clarke vzas employed at the dairy factory not a quarter of a mile from the bridge, and he was very familiar with the bridge. In the witness box, Clarke said he saw the lorry coming, but at the time he was the nearer and the bridge was his by right. The lorry continued on to the bridge and he stopped immediately. The lorry struck his car and swept it off the bridge. His theory was that Hogan got

on to the bridge and could not stop in time. When he saw Hogan afterwards Hogan said that he had not seen him. He had never seen Blackburn before he saw him in court. He was an experienced engineer and mechanic, and in his opinion it was impossible for a lorry with such a load on to pull up within twice its length. ’ . It would not be possible for Blackburn to be there without his seeing him, said Clarke to Sergeant Clist. He was certainly not flurried at the time of the accident. The magistrate said that when he heard the evidence of Hogan and Blackburn he thought Clarke had committed an error of judgment and he could not say that he disagreed with them now that the case was concluded. He was puzzled over Clarke having stopped on the middle of the bridge because he could not imagine a man ‘ doing that and waiting for an impact that he believed would occur. In most cases of the kind the parties edged over to their respective sides. It was a particularly puzzling case and there was some doubt whether Clarke was guilty of negligence. He would give Clarke the benefit of the doubt.