BREACH OF OFF-SIDE RULE

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19430, 3 March 1933, Page 13

BREACH OF OFF-SIDE RULE

MOTORIST CONVICTED. At the Timaru Magistrate’s Court ye terday, before Mr C. R. Orr-Walker, S.M., George Hicks pleaded not guilty to a charge of failing to give way to a vehicle on his right, when at an intersection. Perck Harold Bell, butcher, said that on the date in question, he was walking west along Victoria Street. When a few yards from the corner of Victoria Street and Browne Street, he saw a motor cycle approaching him. The motor cyclist sounded his horn, and a moment later witness heard a car horn sound. The cyclist was two-thirds of the way across the intersection when the car struck him. It did not seem to him that the driver of the car had applied his brakes. The Magistrate: “How do you know he didn’t?” Witness: “There were no skid marks. ”

Continuing, witness said that the car had been travelling at between 25 and 30 miles an hour. Ilan Arthur Rodgers said that he was riding a motor-cycle along Browne Street on the night in question. He was riding at between 20 and 25 miles per hour. Approaching the intersection of Victoria Street, he shut off the throttle, reducing his speed to 12 or 15 miles an hour. He heard no warning of approaching traffic, so proceeded acro-s the intersection. When twothirds of the way across he was struck by a car. He did not see the car at all. The Magistrate: “How is it you did not see the car?”

Witness could not explain. In reply to a further question, he said he had been knocked out for ten or fifteen minutes.

The Magistrate: “That might account for it. You may have seen the car, but have since forgotten all about it” Evidence was also given by Constable King, who read a statement made by defendant. In this, defendant alleged that the motor-cyclist approached the intersection at 30 miles an hour. The cyclist was looking to the south, and it was evident to defendant that he would have to do something to avoid an accident. He swerved his car to the left, and at the same time applied his brakes. Defendant, in the box, gave evidence similar to that in his statement.

Lester Dore, who was in the car with defendant, stated that the cyclist hit the car, and not the car the cyclist, as was alleged. The Magistrate said that he was not dealing with a claim as to who was to blame. That was a matter for a civil claim. He had to decide whether defendant, obeyed the- right-hand rule. It was clear from the evidence that defendant did not obey the right-hand rule. In these cases, where there Was a possibility of both parties having transgressed the bylaws, both parties should be brought before, the Court. It was not fair to bring one party. The police should bring both parties, and allow the Court to decide. In view of the fact that defendant had suffered considerable expense already, he felt that the ends of justice would be met by a nominal penalty. Defendant was ordered to pay costs amounting to 24/-.