CASE DISMISSED AGAINST MOTORIST

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17831, 27 April 1926, Page 9

CASE DISMISSED AGAINST MOTORIST

S.M. GIVES BENEFIT OF DOUBT ON CHARGE OF INTOXICATION. As the rCsult of a collision between motor-cars which took place in Oxford Terrace on the evening of April 23. Frederick Walter Page, a traveller, was charged _with being intoxicated while in charge of ; a mptor-car. The accused, who was represented by Mr Thomas, pleaded not guilty. Sub-nlspectqr Mathew prosecuted, and Mr 11. A. Young, S.M., was on the bench. Edward Barwfell, a tramway employee, said he was driving a motorcar west along Oxford Terrace. He noticed two other cars coming towards him. and when he crossed Barbadoes Street one of the cars swerved sudden ly and there was a collision between it and the car driven by witness. Defendant was the driver of the car which collided with witness. Witness spoke

to defendant, who offered to make good the damage done. He smelt of liquor, and was slightly under the influence of liquor, but he was not drunk. To Mr Thomas: Both defendant and witness were shocked by the accident. Sergeant M’Namara. who was on the scene of the accident, said that defendant was unsteady pn his feet and smelt strongly’ of liquor. He admitted having had a spot or two. Constable M’Cormick said that defendant was under the influence of liqffbr. Mr Thomas: Can you tell by the smell of a man's breath how much liquor he has had?—No, but a man smells stronger if he has had a quantity’ of drink. Constable M’Cormick said that defendant was unmistakably drunk. Mr Thomas: Can you tell the difference between a man who smells of liquor and receives a blow on the head and a man who is drunk?—Yes, I think I can. Well, medical men have been in that box and said they couldn’t. I’ve handled a good many drunks in my time. So have the medical men. The question has been argued out at Home and it will be argued a lot more in New Zealand if the penalties get much higher. Defendant/, in evidence, said ! that 'he had two drinks of whisky at Tai Tapu. At the intersection of Barbadoes Street an unlighted cycle cut the corner and that made the witness alter his course. In the collision witness received a blow on the head and was dazed. 1-larr.v Bell, who was with defendant during the afternoon, said that the two whiskies were the only drinks they had. At no time was defendant under the influence of liquor. Patrick John Haugfiey, who spoke to Page immediately after the accident, said that there were no signs of drink on him. He did not smell of drink and was certainly not under the influence of drink. John Pollock said both drivers were excited. Page being the more excited of the two, but he was perfectly sober. THE DECISION. After considering the case for forty minutes the Magistrate said that the main difficulty’ for him was the evidence of Barwell, who said that Page was not intoxicated. There was nothing to that he made a statement any’ different from that when he accompanied defendant to the police station. With this conflict, and considering the serious view taken of the offence, the police should have called in the police surgeon and also have given the accused opportunity to have an expert. The police said accused was drunk and their chief civilian witness said he was not, and while the evidence on this point was available it should have been cleared up. When there is such a conflict the Court should be made certain that all available means had been tested. “ There is a doubt and the accused is entitled to it. The information is dismissed.”