SEQUEL TO COLLISION.

Waipawa Mail, Volume XLIX, Issue 149, 7 September 1928, Page 2

SEQUEL TO COLLISION.

CHARGE UNDER THE MOTOR REGULATIONS. DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. As the sequel to a collision between a ear driven by David John McKenzie and a motor cycle driven by Lawrence Crawley, which occurred on April 14th at the junction of Waverlev and Ruataniwha streets, McKenzie was chaiged, at the Magistrate’s Couit yesterday, before Mr A. M. Mowlem, S.M., with failing to give way to an approaching motor vehicle at a street intersection. Sergeant Dempsey conducted the prosecution and Mr Kelly appeared for the defendant. Lawrence Arthur Crawley stated that on April 14th he was driving a motor cycle from Waipukurau to Waipawa, and when at the junction of Waverley and Ruataniwha streets met the defendant, who was driving a car. Dili not see him until the car was right up to him, when it was impossible to avoid a collision, in which witness’ right leg was broken. To Mr Kelly: Was travelling at 10 miles an hour. Was fined £3 last year for negligent driving. Could not say whether he veered over to the right to avoid a collision. Thomas J. Hercock, who was riding with Crawley when the accident occurred, stated that the cycle was travelling at from 20 to 25 miles an hour. When they met defendant he first swerved to liis right and then to his left. Crawley also swerved to his right and the collision resulted. The car was 30 or 40 yards away when witness first saw it. Geoffrey Crawley, who saw the collision, said he considered the motor car was travelling too fast to take the turn on its right side. To Mr Kelly: The ear hit the hike and dragged it about eight feet. Defendant had his biakes on before the collision occurred.

Constable O’Halloran stated thai when he reached the scene the right front wheel was lying across the front wheel of the motor cycle. McKenzie made a statement to witness that he saw the cyclists approaching. Continued on his way and sounded his horn twice. Gave the cyclists plentv of room to pass, when thev cut right across his course. When the collision occurred lie (MeKcnziel said he stopped the ear in its own length. He attributed the accident to the motor cyclist changing' his course. VALIDITY OF REGULATIONS. In opening for the defence Mr Kelly attacked the validity of Ihe motor regulations in that sub-section 6 of section 3(1 required that regulations made by Order-in-Council had to he submitted to both Houses of Parliament within 14 days of being gazetted. or. if Parliament was not in session, within 14 days of Parliament reassembling. There had been no evidence that the regulations lmd been submitted to Parliament and therefore the prosecution must fail. The Court, Mr Kelly submitted, was dealing with a penal statute, and such a statute must he interpreted strictly. So far as the facts of the ease were concerned counsel submitted that if Crawley had continued on his proper course the accident would not have occurred. Tn reply to the Magistrate Sergeant Dempsey said hr l was not competent to argue on the validity of the Act. He could o'nlv deal with the case from tin l point of view of a breach of the regulations. Mr Mowlem: T would not think, at this stage, of holding that the regulations are ultra vires or that the law was not being complied with. THE DEFENCE. Defendant, David John McKenzie, stated that on April 14th he was passing through Waipawa on his way to Ormondville. When approaching the intersection was travelling at about 15 miles an hour, and slowed down to 10 or 12 miles at the junction. Was about 80 yards away when he first saw the motor cycle. Considered it was travelling at not less than 30 miles an hour. It covered 60 yards while witness travelled 20 yards. When the cyclist was near the ear he swerved to the right and the collision resulted. To the Magistrate: Considered the cyclist was travelling so fast that when approaching the ear he lost his head. R. W. Bond gave evidence as to drawing a plan (produced) of the scene of the accident. Reuben Petheriek stated that the tracks of the ear indicated that defendant was well on his right side. Giviijg judgment Mr Mowlem said he did not. think it necessary to go into the technical aspects of the case. The point he had to consider was that it must he proved that defendant had failed to give way. He (the Magistrate) said he was not satisfied that defendant did so fail. The ease would he dismissed hut entirely without prejudice to the rights or liabilities of either party. "I have a decided objection,” said Mr Mowlem. “to deciding civil actions by criminal procedure.”