CARS FATAL PLUNGE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 19769, 17 February 1927, Page 8

CARS FATAL PLUNGE

MOTORIST IN THE DOCK CHARGE AGAINST YOUNG FARMER. ACQUITTAL OF ACCUSED. Loose metal at the comer where the car overturned, the condition of the road generally, and a punctured front tyre, wore points in the defence put up by John William Mahoney, a young Taihape farmer, who was charged at the Supreme Court yesterday with causing the death of George Robert Sutherland by driving a car negligently, and in a state of intoxication. The accident of which, the charge was the upshot, happened on the night of December 11, when Mahoney’s car, containing four passengers, tipped over the bank at the bend leading from Kaka road into Robin Street, Taihape. All the passengers were pinned under the car, and Sutherland, when extricated, was dead. Subsequently it was alleged that Mahoney, the driver, was drunk, and he was taken into custody. Smell of Whisky. Mr W. A. Izard, Croown Prosecutor, handled the Crown case, while Mr J. M. Hussey, assisted by Mr Ongley (Taihape), defended the accused. The following jury was chosen: —B. W. Willis (foremai), B. Kendall, C. A. Melville, V. R. Cooke, W. J. Robertson, F. C. Goldsmith, F. 0. Ingram, Walter Hallam, C. J. Flanagan, T. 01lett, N. Feilding, W. Blick. Evidence as to the locality at which the fatality occurred was tendered by H. A. Truman, assistant engineer to the Rangitikci County Council, and medical evidence by Doctors G. N. MeDiarmid and H. M. May, both of whom, on examining accused after the accident, concluded that he was drunk. William May, who saw the car take its plunge over the bank, said he help ed to pull the occupants from under it. There was a strong smell of whisky about the car. Charles Geoffrey Smith, a farm labourer who was in the car at the time, said he could not say what was the cause of the accident, unless it was loose metal on the corner. W. H. A. Nicholls, garage proprietor, said he examined the car next morning. The steering was in order, but the right front tyre was flat. Additional evidence was given by Constable King, of Taihape, W. Jeffery, Stephen Kirkwood, and C. Mackay. Jeffery, accused’s brother-in-law, said the party had three or four drinks of beer at his house before the accident. Mackay, another of the passengers, mentioned, that the dead man, Sutherland, interfered with the steering wheel just gefore the corner was reached. Case for the Defence. Addressing the jury, Mr Hussey, for the defence, produced the tyre from the right front wheel of accused’s car, and pointed to two holes near the valve stem. The fact that the tyre was punctured when the accident occurred showed where responsibility should lie. Further points to be considered we.*e the condition of the road, on which there- was loose sand alongside the asphalt. The accused, John William Mahoney, said in evidence that the state of the road at the corner where the accident occurred made driving difficult. The position was not improved by a light on the corner, which was shining into nis eyes. Tg Mr Izard: He did not dispute the evidence regarding the amount of liquor he had consumed. Thirteen drinks during the evening! —I told the police I had nine shandies. and I had three small glasses o J . beer after that. When did you first find out that t tyre was flat*—l was told next morn ing. Who told yon?—My solicitor, Mi Oncrley. Why have you not mentioned thi? before? —I was not asked to. Why have you held this back until now?—There was no reason for me it do otherwise. Did Sutherland, the deceased, attempt to take the wheel?—l do not remember. Did you tell anyone that the car was difficult to steer? —I told someone at the time. Why is that person not produced here to give evidence? Mr Hussey: Surely my friend realises that that is not evidence, but just hearsay. Accused, continuing, stated that he was never asked to make an explanation to the police. A Bad Comer. R. H. Smith, farmer and garage pro prietor, of Taihape, said the corner where the accident occurred was a bad one, the visibility being poor. The light on the corner was a hindrance. He still had possession of the car concerned in the accident. The inner tube (produced) was taken from the right-hand front wheel, and had beea punctured by the valve stem, in such a way that the tyre would go down very quickly. Further expert evidence was given by J. M. Forbes, a motor mechanic. Accused Acquitted. In summing up, His Honour said the young man was evidently on a Saturday night spree when his car went over a bank and a life was lost. The question was whether he had brought on himself criminal responsibility. They had to be satisfied that the accident was due to accused’s drunkenness or negligence. Would the accident have happened if the driver had been sober? The story accused was now telling should have been to’d long ago, but if ihey were satisfied with that explanation it was one they were entitled to accept. After thirty minutes* retirement the jury returned with a verdict of “not guilty,’’ and accused was discharged.