MOTOR COLLISION

Taranaki Daily News, 5 September 1935, Page 6

MOTOR COLLISION

UNUSUAL CASE AT STRATFORD. COURT RESERVES DECISION. Features different from those usually connected with motor collision cases characterised the police prosecution against Neil Gow, New Plymouth, at the Stratford court yesterday. Gow was charged with negligent driving and failing to stop. Decision was reserved. The other car was driven by Hector G. Wellington and contained four other men while Gow was alone. Wellington maintained that he stopped within a short distance and that Gow disappeared leaving his rear number plate on the road. Gow said he stopped just over the crossing and could see no signs of the other car.

Sergeant C. M. Anniss prosecuted and Mr. A. Bennett, New Plymouth, appeared on Gow’s behalf.

The accident occurred on the main road just south of the railway crossing at the intersection of Rugby and John roads between Tariki and Inglewood. A car driven by Wellington, stated Sergeant Anniss, came out of John Road and turned on to the main road towards Stratford and had just reached the straight beyond the bend where the road crossed the railway when, it was alleged, a car approached on the wrong side of the road and struck the right side of Wellington's car. It was also alleged that the other car proceeded without stopping and witnesses would say that a number-plate, a reflector and a bumper were found on the road.

Wellington said that after the impact he stopped the car and his passengers went back along the road where they found the number plate and reflector. He went to the scene a few minutes later. The bumper was found by factory hands the next day. There was no sign of the other car after the impact.

James Heath, a passenger in Wellington’s car, considered that when the other car was about eight feet away it swerved out towards its own side and the back of k seemed to swing in and strike Wellington's car. The other car seemed to be doing at least 35 miles per hour. He found the number plate half way between the railway line and where they stopped and saw a skid mark starting at the point of impact about two feet on Wellington’s side of the white line down the middle of the road. The mark extended for 20 feet and eased out till it was three feet and six inches inside the line. Similar evidence was given by Joseph and Peter Mischefski and Evelyn W. O’Keefe, passengers in Wellington’s car but none of them described such a large skid mark as Heath. “This case appeals to me as being the most clumsy attempt at after-construc-tion that I have ever met,’’ Mr. Bennett 'said in opening. He went on to say that , the witnesses contradicted one another on essential points and the plan they produced negatived their evidence. ’ He quoted from the section under which G ow was charged and said that one driver should not be required to stop if the other did not. Gow felt two touches from the im-. pact and did not think that any appreciable damage was done but he looked back and saw that the other car was continuing on its way. After he had crossed the railway he noticed by the dash lights, which were wired in series with the tail lamp, that the tail lamp was not burning. He stopped and found that damage at the rear of the car was more extensive than he had thought. He looked back to see if the other car was still at the ■ scene of the impact but on seeing no signs of the other car he proceeded to New Plymouth. If the court believed Gow’s statement then he was not guilty; even if a technical offence were found the circumstances were such that no conviction should be entered. Mr. Bennett suggested that the charge of negligent driving should be dismissed. All five police witnesses asserted that Gow was on his wrong side but witnesses were weighed—not numbered. The whole atmosphere of the court while they were giving evidence was one of after construction and the plan which four of the five confirmed as correct showed their evidence to be false. The magistrate declined to dismiss the case at that point.

Robert C. Fergusson, motor engineer at New Plymouth who repaired Gow’s car, described the damage done, and said he considered the damage could not have been caused if the car was travelling as indicated on the plan. He was alone in his car, Gow said, and as he approached the crossing he saw two cars coming towards him. The second car swung out as if to overtake the first; he passed the first car and felt a touch first at the front of his car and then another at the rear. He looked in the mirror and saw the other car continuing so drove over the crossing noticing at the same time that his dash light and therefore tail lamp also, was out. He stopped, inspected the damage and patched it roughly. Then he walked back a few yards lookin’g for signs of the other car, but seeing none, proceeded to New Plymouth. Mr. Woodward: Why did you not go back for your number plate?—l did not think it worth while. I had an appointment to go to and I knew I could get another for a few shillings. ( GENERAL ITEMS. Little Licensing Business. The only business dealt with by the Stratford Licensing Committee yesterday was one transfer, which was granted. Sergeant C. M. Anniss reported that he had been keeping a close watch on hotels and had no complaints to make. Transfer of Hotel License. The Stratford Licensing Committee granted yesterday the transfer of the license of the Toko J unction Hotel from B. W. Bunberry to J. E. Johnstone. Children’s Court Case.

Reference to a case heard in the Children’s Court at Stratford on August 21, a report of which appeared in the Daily News the following day, was made at the Stratford Court yesterday by Mr. N. H. Moss. The report, he said, inferred that the boy Was convicted, and though no name was mentioned some people at Stratford knew the boy, and in fairness to him it was desired that the fact that no conviction was entered should be made clear. Mr. W. H. Woodward, S.M., said the report implied that the boy Stole a bull, which was not so, and the report was corrected at a later date. He said it was not shown what happened to the bull, and the boy was placed under supervision of the Child Welfare Officer without the implication that he was guilty of the theft of the bull.