A TRAFFIC CASE

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19673, 15 December 1933, Page 4

A TRAFFIC CASE

r DANGEROUS DRIVING s J ALLEGED * CHARGE DISMISSED f v i The circumstances proved did not • justify him in entering a conviction, 1 said Mr C. R. Orr-Walker, S.M., yester--2 day, when giving his reserved judgment t in a case in which Henry Walter Lister ‘ was charged that on October 26, he “ drove a car along Evans Street at a speed and in a manner which might ; have been dangerous to the public. ; The Magistrate said that defendant ; made two trips from the show with a ; trailer on the evening in question, and \ there was some doubt as to which trip the prosecution referred to. He was . satisfied that it was the first trip. The , prosecution alleged that defendant j drove his car (with trailer behind) from the north side of Beverley Road to the southern side of the viaduct at speeds of about 35 miles an hour at Beverley Road, and about 30 miles an hour from there. If these speeds, of more than 25 miles an hour, were proved, the onus would be upon do- j fendant to satisfy the Court that they were not, under the circumstances, dangerous to the public. The evidence in support of these speeds was given by a quite fair witness, but his evidence was only estimated under conditions which, in the Magistrate's opinion, rendered it dangerous to accept or

estimate without some corroboration, and there was none. The position, therefore, was that the onus, as in ordinary prosecutions, was upon the prosecution to prove its case. The Magistrate went on to say that defendant, an experienced driver, had denied that he travelled more than 25 miles an hour on the first trip; unless the evidence proved otherwise, and it did not, the Court could not assume his speed to have exceeded 25 miles an hour. Even this speed under some circumstances might be dangerous to the public, and the question was whether any such circumstances existed. These circumstances alleged by the prosecution to exist were (a) that defendant overtook and passed a car at Beverley Road and another at the viaduct; <b) that he failed to give way to two cars coming down Wai-iti Road, and <c) that there were some children and adults waiting to go over the crossing at the Viaduct. There was no suggestion that defendant was otherwise driving carelessly or in nr. unskilled manner Inspector’s Action. “It is perhaps natural that . . ant has rather a hazy recollectic . oi the circumstances connected with the trip}, and it is significant that the ■ and saw defendant, as he alleges, speeding all the way from beyond Beverley Road and flagrantly breaking the traffic rules, did not sign to defendant or attempt to stop him or arrest his progress to warn him,” said the Magistrate One would certainh have expected him to do this and the fact that he did not at least come out

to the roadway was to his mind almost a complete answer to the charge that defendant was driving dangerously or at a dangerous spjecd. “The assistant Traffic Inspector admitted that defendant slackened up as he approached and crossed the foot of Wai-iti Road. He also admitted quite frankly and fairly that there would have been danger at the Waiiti Road corner when the other cars came down had it not been for the width of the road at that corner.” It was not alleged that defendant did not keep well to his left, and it seemed clear that the Wai-iti Road cars could not. without gross negligence on the part of their drivers, have collided with defendant's car. The overtaking of another car on an intersection was a breach of regulation, but not necessarily a proof of dangerous driving. There was no suggestion that children were going across the roadway or were not under control. The evidence showed that there were a few waiting on the footpath with adults presumably in charge, and with the Inspector nearby regulating the traffic. According to the prasecution, the traffic from the show had practically “The circumstances proved do not Justify me in convicting a driver of the serious offence of dangerous driving and the information must be dismissed.” Mr Ravmond ;ukcd that costs be allowed defendant, but the Magistrate remarked that it was not usual to allow costs in such cases.