DAMAGE TO POLE

Taranaki Daily News, 20 August 1935, Page 4

DAMAGE TO POLE

MOUNTAIN ROAD ACCIDENT. DRIVER GUILTY OF NEGLIGENCE. “There are several improbabilities in Telford’s story and I find him guilty of negligent driving,” said Mr. W. H. Woodward, S.M., in the New Plymouth Magistrate’s Court yesterday when finding William Frank Daniel Telford, Oakura, £2, costs 15s, for being the driver of a car causing injury to a telegraph post and lines on Mountain Road on July 21. An order for payment of repair costs totalling £3 3s 3d was also made. Senior-Sergeant E. T. C. Turner appeared for the police and Mr. R. J. Brokenshire for Telford. Telford stated that he had been driving from Lepperton at 1.30 a.m. Approaching the corner, a motorcyclist, allegedly on the wrong side, came round and to avoid him Telford turned to his right on to the grass, striking the' pole a glancing blow. Harry Heatley, senior mechanician at the New Plymouth telegraph office, said he found the post broken two feet above the ground level. The pole was 20 feet high and carried eight wires of the telephone circuit between Waitara and Inglewood, putting it out of order. The position was not reported to the faultmen and the police department had to be informed. The pole was 13 feet off the road, and was on a bend. Ordinary precautions would have obviated the accident. Heatley refused to discuss with Mr. Brokenshire whether the road at the bend was good or not. The car had travelled 90 feet, he said, before hitting the post. The pole had had to be repaired exactly a week later as the result of another accident. Evidence of Telford having admitted breaking the pole was given by Constable A. J. Mills. In a statement, Telford said he went off the road to avoid a motorcyclist coming round the corner. He had no idea that the pole had been broken and accordingly had not notified the Post and Telegraph Department. Cross-examined by Mr." Brokenshire, the constable said the road was fairly level, but a heap of rubbish on the left hand side would prevent a motorist from going over on that side to avoid a cyclist. Questioned by counsel, Constable Mills admitted that Telford’s insurance company had offered to pay the cost of repairs before the information was laid on August 3. He did not remember mentioning the matter to his superiors. Claiming that the statement given by Telford to the police was favourable to him, Mr. Brokenshire submitted that the statement was evidence of Telford not being negligent. The magistrate held .that proof of the statement would have to be given by Telford in person. Evidence was given by Telford, who, cross-examined by the senior-sergeant, said he accelerated to avoid the cyclist. His car struck the pole a glancing blow. He was doing about 20 miles an hour when lie first saw the cyclist. Telford told Mr. Woodward that he was heading straight for the post and in trying to avoid it he had swung hard to the left. The mudguard and running board of tfie car were torn off and lay alongside the car about 12 feet past the pole. He did not know who had informed the police. He admitted that on the plan it appeared as if he had run straight off the corner, but he denied that his speed had been excessive and swore that his statement concerning the cyclist was true. Jack Freethey,' Omata, who was ordered out of court by Mr. Woodward during the examination of Telford, said Telford gave no indication of having had liquor. If the car had braked the cyclist might have been able to swing past, but it would have meant his going well over on the wrong side of the road. To the senior-sergeant, Freethey said' he examined the pole after impact and noticed it leaning over at an angle of about 30 degrees. It had been splintered ,

near the base. He remembered telling Telford so. The burden of proof was on the defendant, said Mr. Woodward, and in the present case there seemed to be a number of improbabilities in Telford’s story. It also seemed unlikely that Telford would have gone off the road to avoid

the cyclist. The third feature was that the course of the car seemed to indicate that it had run off through excessive speed. There was a difference in th* evidence of Telford and Freethey. Tejr ford was guilty of an offence of danger?.' ous or negligent driving and he must bo convicted accordingly.