MOTORIST ACQUITTED.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18650, 20 August 1930, Page 13

MOTORIST ACQUITTED.

KAIAPOI FATALITY. By Telegraph—Pres.- Association CHRISTCHURCH, August 19. A verdict of not guilty was returned in the Supreme Court to-day in a case in which William Albert Parsons was charged that on April 23, at Kaiapoi, he negligently drove a motor-car and thereby caused the death of Henry Gilbert Hancock. Mr A. T. Donnelly, Crown Prosecutor, said Hancock was cycling to his home on the main road when he was struck and killed by Parsons’s car. The allegations against Parsons were: (1) That he was driving whilst under the influence of liquor. (2) That he had been travelling at an excessive speed. (3) That he did not have the car under proper control. Accused admitted having had four whiskies just prior to the accident. A constable who was called to the scene commenced to take a statement from accused, but had to desist because accused was too drunk. John Nielson, labourer, a mate of Hancock’s, said Parsons helped him to carry Hancock into a whare where witness and Hancock lived. He noticed no signs of Parsons being intoxicated. Alfred Richard Dourning, driver of a motor truck which met and passed Parsons when the accident occurred, said he spoke with Parsons after the accident, and saw no signs that Parsons was intoxicated. He said that Hancock was riding a bicycle just off the edge of the concrete paving. Parsons’ car was running straight with one wheel off the concrete at 25 to 30 miles an hour.

George Gillett, medical practitioner at Kaiapoi, said he examined accused at the request of the police. Accused was intoxicated.

Maxwell Ramsay, medical practitioner, said he saw accused before the accident, when he appeared to have had a fair amount of liquor. He saw Parsons again after the accident, when his condition was worse. Constable Holmes described a conversation with accused afeer the accident. Parsons first said the cyclist was coming towards him, and then that the cyclist was going in the same direction but on the wrong side of the road. Later witness tried to get a statement in writing from Parsons, but had to desist because Parsons was so much under the influence of liquor.

For the defence, Mr Thomas said Parsons was not intoxicated before the accident, but was so affected by shock after the accident that he appeared to be under the influence of liquor. The jury brought in a verdict of not guilty after an hour and threequarters.