SEVEN DAYS’ GAOL FOR VAN DRIVER.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17881, 24 June 1926, Page 9

SEVEN DAYS’ GAOL FOR VAN DRIVER.

SEQUEL TO COLLISION ON PAPANUI ROAD. On a charge of having be£n found id a state of intoxication while in charge of a motor van, Dennis Benjamin O'Callaghan, carrier, aged 48, was sen** tenced to seven days’ imprisonment, in the Magistrate's Court to-day'. The case J was the sequel to an accident which M occurred on the Papanui Road on June 16. Sub-Inspector Mathew said that at 6.45 p.m. O'Callaghan was driving a motor truck near the Papanui post office, when he ran into a stationary motor-car. The police found that O'Callaghan was drunk, and not in a fit state to drive a motor-cat. He had been before the Court on a similar charge about eleven months ago. Speaking in mitigation of the offence, Mr E. White said that there ! were real merits on which he could make an appeal. O'Callaghan had a wife and ten children, of whom seven were of school age. For the last three i years he had been working in Christchurch and put in very long hours—from seven in the morning ' till eight at night. Medical opinion was that ! the man was completely run down physically. The man was not addicted to drink, and could not stand liqtior. He was willing to take out a prohibition order. Three drinks in the afternoon were responsible for his condition. O’Callaghan was a member of the School Committee at Papanui. Every’one for whom he did work regarded him as a temperate man. The Magistrate (Mr H. A. Young) said that as counsel for accused had pointed out the determination of what was to be done was a problem. To make matters worse he was on July 21 last year convicted of the same thing. He was fined £5 and his license was suspended for one month. The position was a serious dne, and on the other hand there were a number of circumstances which appealed to one's sympathy. A case of the kind, how- ! ever, could not be passed over without some punishment, and the question whifch arose was what was the best thing to do in the interests of the public, and the accused and his family*. A heavy fine such as sometimes was imposed in these cases would not be suitable, and if his license were sus- ; pended he would be unable to maintain his wife and family'. The best course would be to impose a punishment which would affect the accused himself, and he would be sentenced to seven days’ imprisonment. The applf- . cation for a prohibition order would be granted. The accused’s license was endorsed.