INTOXICATED MOTORIST.

Wairarapa Age, 2 October 1935, Page 6

INTOXICATED MOTORIST.

MASTERTON STOCK AGENT BEFORE COURT. FINED £l5 AND LICENCE SUSPENDED. “The safety of the highway must be preserved and men who in the course of their duties or otherwise take liquor in quantities that impair their reason are a menace to the community,’’ observed Mr. S. L. P. Free, one of the two presiding J's.P., in the Masterton Magistrate’s Court yesterday, when convicting Arthur Lester Morgan, a stock agent, on a charge of being intoxicated while in charge of a motor car. Defendant, who pleaded guilty, was convicted and fined £l5. His driver's licence was also endorsed and suspended for a period of six months. The charge was a sequel to a collision in Renall Street early on Monday night between cars driven, by defendant and Mr. P. F. Fagan, a Masterton garage proprietor. Both, cars were extensively damaged, but neither of the drivers was injured. A young lady passenger in Mr. Fagan's car received minor cuts from flying glass. Sergeant T. H. Dyer, who conducted the prosecution, stated that Mr Fagan was proceeding down Renall Street towards town. When approaching the intersection of Renall and Chapel streets he saw a car approaching on the wrong side of the street. At frst he thought it intended to turn into a gateway and he pulled over, to the right hand side of -the street. Almost simultaneously the approaching car swerved in the same direction and a collision occurred. The police were summoned and on defendant being taken to the Police Station a. doctor certified that he was intoxicated. Defendant had been before the Court in 1925 on a charge of reckless driving when he had been fined and his licence suspended. Mr. H. A. Cuningham, who appeared for defendant, said his client realised his position and did not intend to waste time applying for the suppression of his name. Defendant had taken the turn into Renall Street too widely and had become confused by -the lights of Fagan's car. Morgan had had liquor, but, counsel emphasised, the case should not be understood, as one of helpiess intoxication or anything of that sort. Morgan had had a long day on the «oad and had eaten nothing since early morning. Just prior to the accident defendant had interviewed a client in Masterton and completed an important deal. He had accepted some liquor offered him at his client’s house and the whole position was that he had underestimated the effects of the liquor ©n an empty stomach. Morgan had not been -driving at atn excessive speed, in fact he was probably .going too slowly. Referring to any penalty that might be imposed, counsel said that defendant's car was the means of his livelihood. Defendant, who was a highly respected citizen, was quite willing to take out a prohibition order aaginst himself, but it would be almost impossible for a man following his line of occupation to adhere strictly to the terms Of the order. Mr. Free, with whom was associated Mr. E. G. Eton, J.P., said that defendant had pleaded guilty to being intoxicated in charge of a motor car, an offence which one could not but regard as serious. Steps, he added, had to be taken to preserve the safety of the highway. There was a growing body of opinion which considered that terms of imprisonment and not fines should be imposed in similar cases. Opinion in that direction was steadily growing. The Bench did. not consider the present case one for imprisonment, but in order to emphasise the seriousness of the offence a substantial fine, would be imposed. Defendant would be convicted, fined £l5 and IDs 6d costs, and his licence would be endorsed and suspended for six months.