GUYTON ST. FATALITY

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXII, Issue 19367, 25 July 1925, Page 5

GUYTON ST. FATALITY

POLICE PROSECUTION FAILS. I I NO EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE. [ Charles John Higgins appeared .fore Messrs J. Morrison and J. Driver, IJ.P.s at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday charged, that on Juno 25 last, he (did negligently drive a motor car in [Guyton Street, thereby causing the [death of A. J. Bird. The charge was : laid under Section 27 of the Motor Vehicles Act. ! Senior Sergeant Lopdell conducted [the prosecution, land Mr J. AL Bussey represented the accused. No evidence was called other than ■that which was submitted at the in- [ quest on the late Mr Bird which iwtas held last week. The oxamination-in-chief of the various witnesses was identical with that given at the coron-

ial inquiry. Peter Thomson, locksmith by occnpation, stated thal when ho first observed the deceased’s invalid ehair, il appeared to be pushed to the centre ol the road. The car driven by the aeruscc [appeared to strike the front of th< i chair and seemed also to turn off aftei [the impact. Witness’ observation! [were made either from *a street light [in Hardy Street or the cluster of lights [at. the intersection of Wilson Street and [Guyton Street. He saw the actual { collision, and in his opinion the car istruck the front of the chair while |Miss Walker, who was wheeling it, apparently was struck by a rear mudguard. The mudguard mtay have struck the late Mr Bird on the head. The car travelled at an ordinary pace, but at the point of impact was brought to a standstill immediately. Cross-examined by Mr Hussey, the witness stated that the girl seemed to make hard work in the pushing of the chair. The colour of her dress was dark. Witness would be in a bettei position to see the chair thtan those

seated in the car. He was of the opinion that the persons in the car might easily look over lhe chair, considering its relative position to the car. Miss Maude Welker gave evidence on the lines of that given by her al [the recent inquest. She was not examined bv counsel.

Evidence was given by Dr. Hutchison, who was called to the gjcenc •of the accident, and who attended deceased. Further testimony was submitted by Constable Straffen. who convoyed th€ body of Mr Bird to the morgue. Constable Straffen detailed the injuries the deceased had received, which consisted of a fracture of the right temple, facial (abrasions, and an injury to the I right ear. Sergeant Sivycr gave evidence

mainly concerning certain measurements he had taken after the accident. This closed the chsc for the police. Air Hussey briefly addressed the Court. He submitted that the facts adduced from the evidence of the police did not warrant the case being sent on to the Supreme Court. On the facts, counsel contended, it would be ridiculous to commit the accused foi trial—such a stop would involve the country in waste of time and money, Mr Hussey contended thtit there wn« not a tittie of evidence to show negligence on the part of Higgins—oven the chief witness for the police had given I testimony absolutely in accused’s favour. The case could not, in counsel’s opinion, succeed in the Supreme Court. The police had failed absolutely to establish a primn facie case. “In fact,” concluded counsel, “this is one. of the .weakest cases the prosecution has submitted in my experience as counsel.”

j The bench, in dismissing the case, [stated that the charge against Higgins had been carefully considered, and they had concluded that the evidence of the '.prosecution was all in (accused’s favour. [The bench was convinced that accused [had not. displayed negligence—the car at the time of the fatality wins absolutely under control, and. further, there was not a suspicion of carelessness on the part of Higgins.