LORRY CRASH AFTER DANCE.

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 538, 22 August 1932, Page 7

LORRY CRASH AFTER DANCE.

Defence Admits that Driver Fell Asleep at Wheel. JURY RETURNS VERDICT OF GUILTY. THE TRIAL of Abraham Leonard Talbot on a charge of negligently driving a motor-lorry at Omihi on July 23, thereby causing the death of Henry William Hamilton Shaw, took place in the Supreme Court this morning. The Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, heard the case. A plea of not guilty was entered. After witnesses had been heard, counsel for the defence contended that no negligence had been shown by Talbot. Counsel held that the fact that Talbot had dozed at the wheel could hardly be termed negligence. His Honor disagreed with this view of counsel. The jury retired at 1 p.m. to consider its verdict. After a retirement of tw r o hours the jury returned a verdict of guilty, with a recommendation for mercy, because of Talbot’s previous good character. He was remanded until Wednesdav for sentence.

The Crown Prosecutor said that the j accused, a man named Shaw and some others employed at the Happy Valley station, had permission to take the station lorry to go to a dance. Previous to that a five-gallon keg had been obtained and left down the road some distance, and was picked up on the way to the dance. After the dance finished in the morning Talbot, Shaw and two others decided to come to Christchurch. All the men had had a certain amount of liquor. Near Omihi the lorry came to an S-shaped bend in the road with a railway crossing and cattle stops. The lorry hit the second cattle stop and went on some distance until stopped by a bank at the .side of the road. Shaw was riding in the back of the lorry and was thrown out, his neck being broken. There was a terrific crash, and the lorry carried away forty-five feet of fencing and knocked the cattle stop about. The lorry travelled over twenty yards after hitting the stop until it was pulled up by the bank. The lorry must have been travelling fast as people sleeping some distance from the road had been awakened by the roar of the engine and heard the crash. Photographs Produced. Constable J. B. Kearton, police photographer, produced photographs taken at the scene of the accident. John Gordon Shaw, a storeman, said that the dead man was his brother, and had been employed at the relief camp at Happy Valley as a labourer. Dr F. T. Birkenshaw, of Amberley, said he was at the scene of the accident at 4 a.m., and examined the body of Shaw. Show’s neck had been broken, his nose was broken, and his skull was fractured. He appeared to have struck the ground with his left shoulder. There were four men there at the time. John Lewis, a relief worker at Ilappy Valley, said that on July 20 last he came to Christchurch in Matson’s car, together with Shaw. Shaw took an empty five-gallon demijohn to the Waipara Hotel, and this was filled and collected on the return journey. It was left in the scrub near the boundary gate. Went to a Dance. On July 22, witness, Talbot, Shaw and a man named Wormalrl went to a dance at Scargill, and the jar was picked up on the way down. The jar was emptied at the dance. When the dance finished Shaw was showing signs of drink, Wormald was all right, and the accused was quite sober. They decided to come on to Christchurch in the lorry, Shaw and witness being in the back. Witness went to sleep in the back of the lorry and remembered nothing until he found himself in the doctor’s car. The four did not drink all the beer themselves. To counsel, witness said he had been eleven weeks at Ilappy Valley. The truck was a noisy one, and gave the impression when going slow of going much faster. Frederick John Wormald, a labourer employed at Happy Valley, one of the party in the lorry, said that he had four or five shandies at the dance, but the beer did not come from the jar. In the lorry he sat beside Talbot. Witness had been asleep, but when two or three yards off the crossing he noticed that the lorry was off the road and making straight for the cattle stop. Passengers Thrown Out. When the lorry stopped, witness looked in the back of the lorry but did not see anyone there. Shaw was found a chain away, but Lewis was not far off. Shaw had apparently been thrown out before they reached the railway line. Witness rang for assistance. He did not see accused have any liquor. To counsel: The lorry was noisy, particularly in low gear. It was a heavy truck. Talbot was .sober when he left the dance and, as a matter of fact, played the piano for the last dance. It would be about ten miles from Scargill to Omihi on a winding, hilly road. A driver would have to exercise great care. To his Honor: They had no authority to take the lorry to Christchurch, but they wished to go to the races that day, as they were not due back until Monday. A Five-gallon Keg. William Stanley Potton, licensee of the Waipara Hotel, said that Shaw had

j purchased a live-gallon jar of beer at the ! hotel on July 20. | Thomas Ferguson Dobson, an orchardist, of Omihi. said that just before 3 a.m. on July 23 he was awakened by the roar of a motor on the road. His house was a quarter of a mile from the crossing. Just after hearing the roar of the engine he heard a crash. Two men, the accused and Wormald, came to the house shortly after, and witness noticed a strong smell of liquor. They wanted a telephone, and witness directed them to a neighbour’s place. Witness went down to the crossing, where he was joined later by the aesused and Wormald. The accused showed no sign of liquor, but Wormald was drunk. Witness saw a bottle lying on the seat of the cabin of the lorry. To Counsel: He assumed from the noise that the lorry was a noisy one or was travelling very fast. Also Heard Noise. Ada Simpson, a married woman, of Omihi, said she had also heard the noise of a motor passing. It seemed very loud. Her house was right on the main'road. Constable James Kennedy, of Amberley, said he went to the scene of the accident the same morning. The lorry had turned off the road twentl-eight paces from the crossing. To counsel: The lorry was not capable of doing more than thirty-five miles an hour, as the throttle was screwed down. The accused’s employer, Mr Matson, spoke highly of the accused. No evidence was called for the defence. Case for the Defence. Addressing the jury, counsel said that the negligence alleged against the accause was said to lie in: first, drink: secondly, driving at too great a speed; and, thirdly, that he could not have been keeping a proper look out. There was no evidence to show that the accused had anything to do with the purchase of the keg of beer, and it was feasible even that he. did not know it was put aboard the lorry at the ! boundary gate. It was not a case of ! four personal friends going out to- ! gether. Shaw and Lewis were only i casual acquaintances. There was I nothing to show that the accused had j had any liquor. I Both Lewis and Wormald said that | Talbot was quite sober when they set out for Christchurch. The accused | had given his explanation on oath be- : fore the Coroner. He said he had three | or four shandies during the evening, the last of them about 10.30 p.m. Talbot had driven skilfully from Scargill to Omihi on a road where a lorry required careful handling. His Honor: I shall direct the jury that the question of drink does not enter into the case at all. It does not matter one iota. It is purely a I case of negligence. Question of Speed. Continuing his address, counsel said ! that the evidence of speeding was j most unconvincing. Talbot said that j he had dozed off just before the accident. It was fatally easy to do that after a long journey. Added to that was the fact that Talbot had had several strenuous days’ pig-hunting. It was through no fault of his own that he dozed off. and that could hardly be termed negligence. The fact that there were no brake marks bore out his statement. The accused had no license to drive, but so far as the case before them was concerned that point was of little significance. Appearances were against the accused, but it was the duty of the Crown to prove that the accused had been negligent in some particular respect, beyond all reasonable doubt. His Honor Sums Up. 11 is Honor said that the question of intoxication did not enter into the case . Negligence existed in a breach of the duties to take ordinary and reasonable care. The whole question to consider was whether the circumstances of the case disclosed that reasonable care had been shown. It was negligence for a man to go to sleep at the wheel and run off the roacl. His Honor could not see how the jury could come to any other conclusion.