GORGE TRAGEDY.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18635, 2 August 1930, Page 8

GORGE TRAGEDY.

MOTORIST’S TRIAL CONTINUED. JUDGE DIRECTS JURY. By Telegraph—Press Association WELLINGTON. August 1. The trial of Alfred Edward Storey, on a charge of having negligently driven a motor-car in Ngahauranga Gorge, and thereby causing the deaths of Mr and Mrs Norman Cook, was continued before the Chief Justice today. Constable Strawbridge, who was on the scene of the accident shortly after the collision, described the marks he found on the road. Storey’s car, he said, must have been wholly on the wrong side of the white line. George Redyard, who gave evidence for the Crown in the Magistrate's Court, but who was not called by Mr Macassey, as his evidence was regarded by him as irrevelant, was called for the defence. Witness. a motor mechanic, who recovered the car from the bottom of the gully, said the steering gear had been repaired recently. There was a hidden defect, because a pin might have come out. In reply to His Honour, witness said that the pin was intact when he took the steering gear to pieces. Evidence was given by accused, who was on the way to Titahi Bay with three lady passengers when the accident occurred in Ngahauranga Gorge. He said his speed was 18 to 20 miles an hour when he arrived at the lower bend in the Gorge. The car immediately ahead slackened speed to aoout 15 miles an hour. Storey said he could see a further bend about 60 yards away. He saw a space either between the first and second, or the second and third cars, and he pulled out to the right of the cars in front to make for that space, thinking it was quite safe, and having no intention of remaining out. Before he could get in, another car came round the corner. He thought Cook had plenty of room to pass. Storey said he felt a slight knock, and stopped immediately. Cook’s car sw T ung round and crashed over the bank. Storey added that under the circumstances he considered it safe to do what he did. He was not speeding, and he had a 60 yards’ clear view when he moved out. He acted as many motorists would. Insufficient acceleration on his part, or misjudging the speed of the cars ahead of him, were reasons for the accident. Mr Cornish, for accused, submitted that criminal negligence did not apply His Honour did not agree. Negligence was an absence of that care which a reasonable person should use. He put the following questions to the jury:—(1) Was the collision caused by the negligent driving of accused? 1 2) If so, would the death of Mr and Mrs Cook have resulted but for such negligence of accused? The jury retired for over three hours, and returned with the following verdict:— “The jury’s answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, but it strongly recommends that accused be dealt with leniently on the ground that the accident was brought about by an error of judgment.” His Honour ruled otherwise, and the Crown Prosecutor maintained that the verdict was one of guilty. His Honour directed the jury to find a verdict of guilty, saying that the matter could be referred to the Court of Appeal. The foreman of the jury hesitated, and finally said “Yes” to the Judge’s question: “Do you find accused guilty?” Accused was allowed bail in £SOO.