INTOXICATED MOTORIST

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXII, Issue 19438, 26 October 1925, Page 8

INTOXICATED MOTORIST

AN UNSUCCESSFUL APPEAL. COURT UPHOLDS CONVICTION. DEFINITION OF THE LA<W. The question of ■what constitutes the I offence of being in charge of a motorcar while drunk was argued in the Supreme Court at Auckland, on Wednesday before Mr Justice Herdman. Frederick Weiss appealed against a conviction by Mr W. R. McKean, S.M., for being in charge of a motor-car at Onehunga while in a state of intoxication. Mr Paterson, for the Crown, said that at 5.45 p.m. on July 10 two constables saw Weiss alongside a car outside the Terminus Hotel at Onehunga. It was dark at tho time and there were no lights on the car. Tho constables told Weiss to turn on his lights. Subsequently Mrs Weiss and Mr Ross entered the front seat of the car, Weiss going into tho back seat. Ross drove the car away. Shortly afterwards the constables accosted Ross in the car and found he had no license to drive. Weiss was then obviously under the influence of liquor. The car was driven into another street, where Weiss withdrew the key from the switchboard and ordered Ross out of the car. Ross went to telephone for the police. Weiss started the engine hut was unable to get the car to move. The hand-brake of the car had been broken. The appeal was made on tho ground that there was no proof that Weiss was intoxicated, that he was not. in charge of the car and that tho conviction was against tho weight of evidence. Constable Johansen, cross-examined, admitted that ho had previously given evidence against Weiss in a by-law case in which the prosecution failed. Constable Poll said Weiss’ car had been standing in front of tho hotel for about two hours. Ho knew Weiss was under the influence of liquor and had decided to arrest him if he drove the car away.

Evidence was given by William Herbert Ross that he was requested by Mrs Weiss to drive the car as Weiss was under the influence of liquor. Witness supported the police evidence as to what transpired subsequently.

Weiss, in evidence, said that on July 10 he drank four “half-handles” of beer. Ho was quite capable of driving the car. His wife got Mr Ross to drive tho car as she wished to go home and witness desired to stay some time longer. Witness came out of the hotel just as Ross was driving away and got into tho back of the car. It was contended by Mr Richmond that Weiss was not in charge of the motor-car at any time after leaving the hotel. That was the only period, he submitted, during which the offence alleged against Weiss could have been committed. A man could be said to be in charge of a car only if he had his hands on the wheel. If a man drove his car to a parking area, left it there and went away and got drunk he could not be held to be drunk in charge of a car. His Honour said that there was ample evidence that Weiss was drunk. '1 he question was whether he was drunk when in charge of the car. It was established that if a man became intoxicated and sat in the driver’s seat of a motor-car he was guilty of the offence charged against Weiss. If he came out of a hotel drunk and stood beside tho car he must also be held to be in charge of the car. The magistrate’s decision was upheld ana the appeal dismised, with £5 5s costs and witnesses’ expenses.