CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16582, 15 November 1921, Page 8

CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER.

LONC RETIREMENT IN THE LLOYD CASE. NO VERDICT AT LUNCH TIME The trial of Archibald Lloyd, a taxi driver, on a charge of manslaughter, was concluded to-day, before Mr Justice Adam s and a common jury of twelve. The charge was in connection with tho death of a little girl named Kathleen Mary Archer, which followed her being run over by Lloyd’s motor-car on Lincoln Road on August 13. Mr A. T- Donnelly, Crown Prosecutor, conducted the case for the Crown. Mr C. S. Thomas, with him Mr J. D. Godfrey, appeared for the accused. There was a long retirement by the jury, and the verdict had not been brought in by lunch time. Addressing the jury, Mr Thomas said he had a very grave feeling of responsibility. Lloyd had been in the community for a long time, and had not a black mark against him. No one could fail to feel the deepest sympathy for Mr« Archer, the deceased child’s mother, but he appealed to the jury not- to let such foelinp- bias their judgment of the merits of the case. The main evidence against Lloyd was that alleging insobriety. But the evidence disclosed nothing inconsistent with shock following upon the accident, and they muHt remember that Lloyd had gone to Dr Marks that night, a few minutes after he left the police station, end had been certified sober. Referring to Sergeant Roach’g evidence alleging that Lloyd was under the influence of liquor, Mr Thomas sajd he would say only one ihing- Sergeant Roach held him to be not sober, and Lloyd had just run down and killod a little girl: yet the sergeant allowed him to drive away in his motor-car. Then, again, the Crown witnesses differed as to whether Lloyd was under the influence of liquor. Walker, who travelled in liis car before the accident, and King, who went to the Hospftnl wi*h him after it, said he was sober. To illustrate the theory of the defence as to how the accident occurred, Mr Thomas used a blackboard sketch plan. Fie said the child probably ran round the front of the car. and then waited in the road for her mother to come from behind the tramcar. Seeing * motor-car coming from town she turned and jumped on to the footpath, ttien bolted out into the road again to meet her mother. Then the tragedy occurred. Anything mi*rht have distracted Lloyd’s attention for tho second or two in which the little girl bolted out into the road. Mr Thomas also dealt with the probable effect of the dazzling headlights on Mercer’s motorcar approaching Lloyd’s, and submit-t-ed that the jury should take' into consideration, in determining whether Lloyd exercised proper care, that he observed the ordinary courtesy of the road by dimming his headlights. Mr Donnelly said it was for the jury to consider how Lloyd, exercising proper care, could have run over and killed the little girl on Lincoln Road. Before j the Supreme Court trial nothing had been said by Lloyd as to the effect upon him of the allegedly dazzling headlights on Mercers car. Mr Thomas s hypothesis concerning the occurrence of the accident was inconsistent with the evidence. He submitted that the little girl was standing on the road looking through the tramcar to her mother, wit'll her eyes off the approaching motor-car driven by Lloj’d, and that standing thus she was run down. It waß incredible that accused sounded the horn on his motorcar without any of the witnesses hearing it. If he had given any warning of his approach the little girl would have got out of the way. The jurv must consider the broad, undisputed facts. He submitted that on these it was shown that Lloyd had failed to keep a proper look-out, had not given a proper warning of his approach, had been travelling too fast, and had been in his driving. The question as to whether Lloyd was under the influence of liquor was not the main one. They must consider whether accused was negligent. Th e state of acc-used at the time would help to explain any negligence which the jury might consider had been committed by Lloyd. Ford’s evidence was incredible in the circumstances, and was discounted to a large extent by the fact that he came forward with it so late. Teague’s explanation had broken down under crossexamination. The evidence called by the defence was useless to the jury. There was no explanation of the accident consistent with the car having been carefully handled by the accused. His Honor reviewed the case. He said that the question of accused’s sobriety at the tim© of the accident was only a side isi?ue. The main issue was whether he exercised proper care. If he were drunk, yet exercised proper care, he must be found not guilty. If he was perfectly sober, but failed to exercise proper care, he must be found guilty. Circumstances seemed to indicate that the child’s body had been carried about ten yards toward the city after the impact. That would give an indication ns to the speed of the approaching motor-car. It was clear that the horn had not been blown in order to warn the child, because the driver said he did not see her until the accident occurred. Nevertheless, it was not in all circumstances a prudent thing to Mow a horn : neither did the blowing of a horn absolve a driver from the necessity of exercising prudence in other respects relative to the driving of the car. The jury retired at 11.45 a.m.