MOTOR-CYCLIST FACES CHARGE OF CAUSING GIRLS DEATH

Star (Christchurch), Issue 19237, 26 November 1930, Page 9

MOTOR-CYCLIST FACES CHARGE OF CAUSING GIRLS DEATH

Sequel To A Collision On October 8 In Colombo Street.

44 'T'HAT ON OCTOBER 8 he negligently drove a motorX cycle on Colombo Street, thereby causing the death of Marin Gladys Kitchner,” was a charge preferred against a young man names James Inkster, employed as a plasterer, in the Magistrate’s Court this morning. An alternative charge of negligent driving was also laid. Inkster was represented by Mr Tracy and pleaded not guilty to both charges. Mr H. P. Lawry, S.M., was on the Bench. Sub-Inspector O’Hara conducted the case for the police. On the first charge the accused was committed to the Supreme Court for trial, and the hearing of the alternative charge was adjourned sine die.

Maurice St Clair Wells, house surgeon at the Christchurch Hospital, said that the girl Kitchner was admitted to the hospital at 8.15 a.m. on October 8, in an unconscious condition, fehe was severely injured about the head and body. Her condition improved a little in the early afternoon, but she died at 4.30 p.m., the cause of death probably being a fracture at the base of the skull. Cycle Knocked Over. Robert James Bradford, a carpenter, employed by the City Council, said that at 8 a.m. on the day in question he was driving a car in Colombo Street. When he came to the right-of-way to the council yard at Sydenham a motorbicycle flashed across in _ front of the car just as it was nearing the footpath. Accused w'as riding the motorcycle, and very nearly got past, but struck the front, right-hand mudguard. The cycle was knocked over into a culvert. A girl who was pillion-riding on the motor-cycle with accused was thrown against the culvert. Witness put his car off . the road and went back to see to the girl, who was taken into the Fire Brigade Station. So far as witness could judge, the motor-cycle was travelling at about thirty miles an hour, but he did not get a good view of it, as he was watching traffic both on Colombo Street a&d coming out of the right-of-way. Tho motor-cyclist, who was going north, had a distance of eight feet clear between the front of the car and the gutter. Witness spoke to accused at the time, and he said he slowed down at Milton Street. Witness told Inkster that one of those at the scene of the accident had said that he was travelling at forty miles an hour. The motor-cycle continued on for a distance of a chain after the accident. The car pulled up at the culvert. To Mr Tracy, witness said that he had no opportunity of gauiging the exact speed of the motor-cycle. The road surface was wet at the time of the accident. Constable Leith said that he found no skid marks on the roadway at the scene of the smash. He made a sketch plan of the locality, and found that the motor-cycle travelled 54 feet after the impact and struck the culvert over the gutter in front of the Sydenham

Librar3 r . The car went about nine feet after the crash. Wheels Would Not Grip. In a statement made to witness, accused said that after crossing Milton Street he increased his speed to about twenty miles an hour, when the accident happened. Accused did not hear a horn sounded and did not see the car until its front wheels were between the west set of tram lines. He applied his brakes, but the wheels would not grip the wet bitumen surface. The car struck the cycle and he lost his balance, the machine going on to the culvert, when his sister-in-law, riding pillion, was thrown off on to the footpath," He estimated the speed of the car at twelve miles an hour. The Defence. Mr Tracy submitted that there was very little negligence, even from the prosecution's point of view. The accused was going north with a lot of other traffic and the council yards entrance also required watching. The only points on which accused could be held guilty were on the questions of speed—of which there was no evidence ■—and the failure to see the car. But a car going at twelve m.p.h. was doing eighteen feet a second, and was only a flash in the short time given to see it. Counsel quoted words of the Coroner at the inquest that there was an excuse for the -motor-cyclist not seeing the car until the last moment owing to the traffic in front of him and to the side. The wet surface prevented ordinary braking, and counsel submitted that there was no chance of a jury convicting of negligence. Mr Lawry: Could not the accused have swerved further to the left, or even gone on to the footpath over the culvert ? Counsel: There might have the possibility, speaking theoretically after the event. Mr Lawry: The case is not as serious as some that have come before the Court, but it will be best to leave it to a jury to decide whether there was an opportunity for the motor-cyclist going further to the left. The question of bail was held over until the afternoon.