MOTOR CAR FATALITY.

Temuka Leader, Issue 7330, 7 June 1913, Page 4

MOTOR CAR FATALITY.

SUPREME (GIRT JiEAIMXC

In the Supreme Court, Tiinaru, on Thursday, C. i.l. Dcstey was charged with manslaughter in having caused the death of Percy Dixon, when the former was driving his car along Arthur Street. A nunibor of witnesses were called for the prosecution.

Mr J. W. WJiiio, Crown Prosecutor, stated the facts briefly, ffc explained that the accused vva? charged with manslaughter b, .having caused the death of Percy Dixon. Manslaughter consisted in the lulling' of a perron bv an unlawful act, or omission to perform a legal duly, or by both coinbin }d. In this case the cause of the manslaughter was negligence. Mr White here quoted the definition of manslaughter as given at the Court of Appeal in 1911, by Mr Justice Edwards, in connection with the Auckland tram fatality case. The‘case was Hex v. Davve (N.Z.L.K., p. (131, Vol. 30). In delivering, judgment the learned "judge said that persons driving motive machines were bound to exercise proper prudence and diligence, such as an ordinary skilful driver ’ would exercise, and if through the want of such prudence or diligence, a person was killed, the driver was guilty of manslaughter, unless there were proved circumstances which operated as a sufficient excuse. 'Phe facts in the case now before the Court were that the accused was driving up 'Arthur street, Timaru, with rather poor lights on his car, on the night o? April 1, and on his wrong side of the road. Dixon, who was the victim of the accident, was coming down to the Post Office on his bicycle at the time, and as a result of accused being on his wrong side of the road, there was a collision between the car and the bicycle ; Dixon was thrown on bis head, and died within a couple of hours. Accused did not, sound his horn before the collision, and the Crown alleged that, ho had been guilty of such negligence as had caused the death of Dixcr.. On the facts which would be proved he had no doubt but that the jury would return a verdict that accused was guilty of the (offence with which he was charged. Addressing the i jury, Mr Raymond said that to find the accused guilty of manslaughter they would require to believe that he had bean guilty of culpable negligence, and this had certainly not been established by the Crown. Counsel quoted a noted English Judge, Mr Justice Steven, as a guide to the jury ’in tins ram. Speaking of culpable- negligence as applied to a charge of manslaughter, (he learned Jrddu said that it was the duty of a jury to convict a man of manslaughter if ho were proved to have been gv-ilty of culnablc neg.igcncc thereby causing death; but it was in the discretion of lh>> jury to decide what ! they considered culpable negligence, and it was for them to exercise that discretion carefully. In this case the Crown had not proved culpable negligence nor indeed any negligence on the part of the accused. The jury should remember that whatever verdict they returned would not affect any civil -proceedings which might.be instituted against the accused on behalf of the widow of the deceased. The question as to which side of the road accused was travelling on was the most important one, and 1 the Crown had certainly not proved tlmt accused was on his wrong side; as a matter of fact, the pteponderance of evidence went to show that he was on his proper side, Then they hud the fiv't that, immediately after the accident, before there could have been any thought of criminal proceedings in-, his mind, accused, when he took the deceased to the doctor, gave the latter exactly the same explanation of the accident as he had given to the Court that day. 4ftcr hearing the evidence of wit nesses for the defence, His Honour explained the law in regard to manslaughter, and said that a -high standard of care was expected from drivers of motive machines. U was thenduty to take special care when driving' along the roads, and the question in"this case was as to whether a sufficient standard of care had been observed. The road where this accident occurred was a good one, an I there must, ha v o been carelessr.vjss somcwneie for the collision to have occurred. The jure must be satisfied, in order to convict, that the negligence was at all events in part, on the side of the accused. As to wiiollioi’ accuse* a*as on his right or his wrong side of the road, there was a eonllict of evidence. His Honour here went over the evidence on both sides, for the benefit ol the jury: lie explained the law on the subject fully, and in conclusion said it was a painful case. It was not, however, the case of a reckless man rushing along the road regardless of everybody. It was a painful thing for a man lo realise {hat he had, caused the death of another, and the _ jurv before convicting must be satisfied that I fie accident would not h;.ve happened if the accused had I atom i .;asonable precautions. NOT Gtll.TV. The jurv returned at ten minutes lo seven with the following verdict ‘'Guilty of an error oi judgment not. guilty of culpable negligence." The Judge' said that tills <>f course was equivalent to a verdict of acquittal, and directed that the accused should be discharged. __