THE SPEED CASE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXII, Issue 19348, 1 July 1925, Page 5

THE SPEED CASE

DEFENDANT GIVES EVIDENCE. MAGISTRATE TO GIVE JUDGMENT THIS MORNING The Magistrate’s Court was crowded yesterday, when the hearing of the charge against Hugh Montgomerie Speed of being in charge of a motor car whilst drunk, was concluded. A feature of the hearing was the somewhat blunt testimony of the defendant, who gave his evidence in a manner that, was brightened with la degree of humour. Before placing the principal witness for the defence in the witness box, Mr. L. Cohen, his counsel, quoted Section xBl of the Licensing Act in relation to Section 28 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the first case, said

counsel, a general condition was stipulated in regard to a person under the influence of liquor, while in the I'attei instance the question involved was the capacity or incapacity of an individual to drive a car. Would the average man, tasked counsel, say that Speed, in the circumstances, was not in a iii condition to drive his car! It was impossible, added Mr. Cohen, to test the capability of Speed to drive the car without putting him in the car to exorcise these functions at the time. Mr Cohen Analysed the evidence of the prosecution in detail, and submitted that the evidence of the Crown was inadequate to support the charge, made (against defendant, and therefore, the information should be dismissed. The Magistrate (Air. J. S. Barton, S.M.), considered, however, that the defence had a to answer. Henry Haszard, engineer to the Wan ganui Harbour Board, stated that on the evening of Juno 8 he was at the fire in Castlecliff. He slaw defendant, who was on the road adjacent to the fire. Witness spoke to Speed, who barracked the brigade. He was sober but had had a little drink. Witness could see nothing at thlat time to indicate that Speed was unfit to drive a clar. Speed, in witness’ opinion was boisterously good natuied and excitable in different circumstances. To the Senior-Sergeant: Witness had never seen Speed intoxicated. Frank Turnbull, practising as a solicitor in Wanganui, said he had known defendant for some thirteen yeJa.rs. Speed’s experiences in the army —he had been badly wounded—had affected him—he was of an excitable disposition. If Speed were excited and argued, and the argument went any length, it would produce in him la certain irritablity. He was a good hearted man, and enjoyed an argument, but if it worked to a point, his language might become expressive and abusive. If falsely accused, he w(as apt. to become agitated. To the Senior-Sergeant: Witness saw Speed at 11.15 p.m. on .Tune 8, and he was then quite sober. If at a football match, defendant would be apt to use expressions in his enthusiasm which witness would not use in any circumstances. “Speed,” said the witness, “was a pig-headed old fool who went to the war at the age of 45 or 46.” He had been wounded and had associated with various types of soldiers. Speed’s language, when he was in an excited condition, was on a par with army parlance. Imlay Saunders gave evidence thtit he had been associated with defendant for some twenty-five years. He had a habit of “barracking,” land would argue with his best friends. He was an unconventional man, full of fun and barrack. He was, however, boister- ' ous when under the influence of liquor. (Speed whs a big, good-hearted man. i Christian Whitelaw, motor expert, I was called by Mr. Cohen for an .opinion. Mr. Whitelaw said that on the | morning following the fire he inspected the locality where Speed had driven into the lupin, and chine to the conclusion that Speed, in backing his car I from this point, put up a good per- ' forma nee in the dark. Witness said he was convinced that Speed did not !smash the rear board of the fire engine. Should such hhvc been the case, I Speed’s car would have given indications of the impact. DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE. Defendant then gave evidence. He said he was a farmer, and had been resident in Wanghnui for some thirty years. His recollection of the events on the evening of June 8, and the morning of June 9, was perfect. Ho dined at his club on June 8 and played “Chinaman” up to midnight on that date. Witness left the club at midnight with Mr. C. Paterson. Efarly in the evening he had a drink. On leaving the club he sot out to drive his companion home to Castlecliff. When witness left the club he was perfectly sober, and did not indulge in any liquor after leaving. On the way tn Castlccliff the attention of witness ana his associate was attracted by a fire, and with the possibility of helping anyone immediately involved, they proceeded to the scene. Witness drove straight up Carson Street to the fire—he had not been Along this thoroughfare before. The fire engine did not pass witness. He saw it for the first time at the fire. He was a chain land a a half in the rear of the fire engine. He was qot tawarc that the enginn would necessarily have to reverse back. The fire engine was equipped with a big light at the rear —a fact which witness took to indicate the front lights. It was neces.starv for witness to back to make a passage for the lire machine. He reversed as quickly as ho could. He turned off the road into the lupin. Witness hesitated in his movement, as he Was not familiar with the direction he was taking. In answer to counsel witness said he did not know if any other driver couM negotiate the movement with any greater degree of alacrity than he showed. When the clar reached the lupin witness got out and walked back to the fire, which was then practically out. While witness was backing the firemen on the engine “yelled’ toe him to get out of the road. He did so, and was certain that he did not delay the brigade one second, and, further, was positive that his car did not connect with the reAr-board of the engine. He jocularly remarked about the car. Witness admitted, under pressure of his counsel, that he had made an offer to Mr. and Mrs. Hooper and family, who were burned out, to relieve their distress at the moment fol-

lowing the burning out. While witness wAs making these arrangements threo firemen of the Castlccliff Brigade camo

up and one —Brown—said, “You have delayed us, and run into our engine.” Witness replied “Yon’re a liar.’* He denied the accusation and waxed warm about it. Witness invited Brown, to inspect his (witness’) car. “Were you getting calmer or warmer?” enquired Mr. Cohen. —“I was becoming certainly warmer,” added wit-

Continuing, defendant sAid that Constable Sheehan came on the scene later, and inquired if he (witness) was in charge of the car. Witness replied “What the has it got, to do with you, anyway!” The policeman responded by saying he would arrest witness for being intoxicated while in charge of a car. Witness resented this suggestion. Ho denied ever sitting down on the running board of his car on the pressure of the policeman. He did not use the phrase “Hey! Mr. Policeman,” —he never used such fin expression in his life. The constable then intimated that he would arrest witness for being intoxicated while in. charge of a motor car. “I want a doctor,” observed witness, to which the constable replied “I’ll take you to one.” Both witness land tho constable walked to the latter’s car witness proceeded unassisted. On the journey to the city he was under the impression he was being driven to a doctor, as the consflable had intimated. When witness land the policeman boarded the car the latter inquired where he had been and whore he had got drink. Witness replied that he had boon playing billiards all night at his club. The constable inquired if witness had had drink at the Wanganui Club, but in reply he informed the policeman that the Wanganui Cluo closed for refreshments at 6 p.m. On arrival at tho station witness demanded a doctor, stating the while thlan any I doctor would suit. Witness wanted I the watch-house keeper to obtain the services of tho police doctor. Dr. Adamas eventually arrived. Constables Sheehan and Dumphy were present at the time. Dr. Adams put witness through a verbal tost. At this stage defendant detailed tho conversation between the doctor and himself. Dr. Adams pronounced witness as being “perfectly all right.” Witness concluded from this that ho was about to be released, when Sergeant Sivyer walked into the watch-house. The Ser-

geant asked witness if he knew anyone in Wanganui, to which he replied “thousands.” Witness intimated to the Sergeant that he wished to retrieve his car from tho lupin at Castlccliff, saying, “Do vou think that I am going to leave iny car—£7oo worth—for all the • hooligans in Castlccliff to play with?” (Laughter). At the station witness was searched, hut during this process said, “Here, not too much of that—l’ve seen the same thing done with the Tommy sergeant-majors in Egypt.” (Laughter). Witness said To Sergeant Sivyer, “I’ll take out all I’ve got on nie, then you dan go through me.” (Laughter). Witness’ possessions amounted to £6 17s. These were witness’ absolute recollections of the evening in question. There were no reasons why he should have been arrested, as he was absolutely sober and capable of driving his car. Examined by Senior-Sergeant Lopdoll, defendant said he did not pass any remarks directly to the firemen at the fire. “Were you making derisive remarks about the firemen?” asked Mr. Barton. —“Well, I would not put it that way. I did not comment in what might be termed la derisive vein.” Witness admitted, however, that whatever remarks he might have made were checked by the witness Haszard. Some remarks attributed to him he maj have made, but these would all bo ob served in A sense of “barrack.” Further questioned by the SeniorSergeant, the witness said the interview between him and the firemen took place after the fire was extinguished. The firemen spoke in a very officious way. The accusation that witness collided with the fire engine was made several times. Tho constable, like the firemen, was too officious. Witness admitted having said to Constable Sheehan, “I’ve a good mind to have a go at you, policeman or no policeman.” Sheehan’s statement that witness followed him, calling out, was an untruth.

This concluded the case for the defence.

Mr. Barton intimated that he would I give a written decision at 10 a.m. to