NOT GUILTY

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLII, Issue 20548, 14 October 1936, Page 7

NOT GUILTY

CHARGE AGAINST MOTORIST

FATAL ACCIDENT AT WINSLOW

After deliberating for nearly two hours, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty in the Timaru Supreme Court yesterday, when De Lacy Cameron, of Timaru, was charged that on June 17 he negligently drove a motor vehicle at Winslow, on the Main North Road, thereby causing the death of Mary Emily Lowe. His Honour Mr Justice Northcrott was on the bench.

Mr W. D. Campbell conducted the case for the Crown, Cameron being represented by Mr C. S. Thomas (Christchurch).

The following Jury was empanelled: G. A. Martin (foreman), F. P. Fisher, E. J. Ellis, H. Loomes, J. Pyke, F. J. Robinson, G .E. Beswarick, J. J. Liston, R. E. Button, E. J. Newton, s. E. Annan, and C. H. Burrell.

In opening the Crown case Mr Campbell reviewed the facts. He said that such accidents were becoming common, but that did not mean that juries had to look for scapegoats. The charge was laid to meet the case of a man who had allegedly been careless, as there was no suggestion that the death of the woman had been wilfully caused. If the jury found that accused had been guilty of negligence it was their duty to convict. Thomas Peter Lowe, a farmer, of Hinds, said that on June 17 about 7.20 p.m. he was motoring along the main road. Near the Winslow railway station a car driven by Mr Simmonds passed his vehicle, which wa. travelling on the correct side of the road. Simmonds had to swerve out to pass witness, but he then proceeded directly in front of witness. Both cars were lighted. A car was approaching before Simmonds passed him. This car also had Its lights on—strong lights. The approaching car appeared to be fairly close to Simmonds's car when witness first saw it. Cameron's car took a turn 10 the east after it passed Simmonds’s car and then took a diagonal turn to the right towards witness’s car, which

was hit in an instant. The driver’s side of the car was taken right off. The vehicle was swung round. Witness found his sister, Mary, lying on the road a few yards from the car. She died shortly afterwards. Accused stopped, but did not tell him his name until witness asked him a few questions. Mr Thomas questioned witness concerning his evidence at the inquest. ‘‘You did not say anything at the inquest about Cameron straightening up and proceeding down the road after passing Simmonds?” said Mr Thomas— He did not go straight very far. Mr Thomas: Did you or did you not say anything in the Coroner’s Court about a straight piece?—As far as I know I have always said it. The notes must be wrong. There is no mention of such a statement at the inquest. To Mr Campbell witness explained that in the Lower Court he had mentioned about the accused’s car going straight. Florence Joyce Watson, of Hinds, a front-seat passenger in Lowe’s car, gave corroborative evidence. Farmer’s Evidence William Henry Simmonas, a Lowecliffe farmer, said that his car was travelling north. Near Winslow he passed Lowe's car, which was on its correct side, and he pulled out to the right to pass. Witness’s speed would be about 40 miles an hour. After passing Lowe he resumed driving on the correct side. He saw the lights of a.. approa,..ing vehicle, but he knew he had plenty of time to pass Lowe. When Cameron's car was just about opposite witness’s vehicle he realised that there was not much room. Cameron’s bumper bar hit a rear mudguard. Witness stopped and found that there had been an accident further down the road. To Mr Thomas: Witness could not say how far Cameron’s car was away when he (witness) passed Lowe, nor could he say how long it was before Cameron's car reached witness after he passed Lowe. The lights on Cameron’s car were very bright.

Donald Murdoch Bruce, a farmer of Lowecliffe, and a passenger in Simmonds’s car, corroborated the driver’s evidence. It never entered his mind that Cameron was intoxicated.

Rita Isobel Bruce, wife of the previous witness, a rear seat passenger in Simmonds’s car, corroborated her husband's evidence.

Mildred Joy Simmonds, another passenger in her father’s car, described passing Lowe’s vehicle and also the slight collision that took place. Replying to Mr Thomas witness said she remembered distinctly her father turning into the left again after passing Lowe’s car. Sergeant Cleary, of Ashburton, said that both damaged cars were on the western side of the road, 28 yards apart. Accused told him that there had been a third car in the accident and it had gone on to Ashburton. Witness found this car near the scene of the accident. Accused seemed to have difficulty in speaking and his breath smelt of liquor. Cameron told him that he had consumed two brandies at the Ashburton Club at 4.45 p.m. Accused was asked to walk down the road and he did so at a normal gait. Witness gained the impression, that Cameron had been endeavouring to hold his breath. Replying to Mr Thomas, witness explained that Dr Miller had examined Cameron and had said that he was all right. Constable Chisnail, of Ashburton, gave evidence as to measurements that had been taken at the scene of the accident. To Mr Thomas: There were no marks from Simmonds’ car to show whether or not he had been driving on the correct side of the road. The evidence given by accused at the Lower Court hearing was read. Cameron attributed the accident to the earlier collision with Simmonds’s car, Simmonds, he alleged, having swung over to hit his vehicle. Address to Jury In his address to the jury, Mr Thomas said he understood that all sorts of rumours had been current in Timaru concerning Cameron and his driving, but he wished to emphasise that he had no previous convictions. His Honour asked Mr Thomas to confine his address to the evidence before the Court. Mr Thomas mentioned that Cameron had said in his statement that he had no convictions and he asked the jury to believe him. Cameron had said that he bore off to his left, but was struck by Simmonds’s car which came across, and he could not avoid the collision with Lowe's car. The story for the Crown was diametrically opposed to the

story of the defence, but the silent evidence was the greatest feature in Cameron’s favour. While there was no question of the honesty of the witnesses for the Crown, he submitted that both the Lowe and Simmonds families were friends and the accident had been reconstructed. If that evidence stood by itself, he would have to admit that Cameron was guilty of manslaughter, but that was not the position. There was the silent evidence disclosed by the police measurements and photographs, which he received.

Mr Thomas illustrated his points with car models and contended that if the story of the Crown witnesses was correct, the collision could not possibly have taken place. The reason for the passengers in Lowe’s car losing sight of the lights of Cameron’s car momentarily was attributable, counsel contended, to Simmonds going across Cameron’s vehicle and blotting them out. The real issue was whether the death of the unfortunate woman was due to the negligence of accused, said his Honour in his summing up. Counsel for accused had said that the question of liquor could be disregarded, but that was a question for the jury. The sergeant had stated that he could smell liquor on Cameron, who gave the sergeant the impression that he was trying to conceal it. If it was to be believed that Cameron had two brandies more than two hours before the accident, and had dinner afterwards, would it still be passible tc smell the liquor as the sergeant had done? His Honour reviewed the evidence for the Crown. If Simmonds’s car had behaved in the abnormal way claimed by accused surely Lowe, best of all, would have had an opportunity of seeing it. It was for the jury to determine how the accident, which should never have happened, did occur and whether Cameron was careless.

The jury retired at 3.55 p.m. and returned with their verdict at 5.50 p.m.