FINES IMPOSED

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 80, Issue 300, 18 December 1937, Page 7

FINES IMPOSED

INTOXICATED MOTORISTS CASES AT MARTON After being remanded on two occasions by a Justice of the Peace, Arthur Leslie Wheeler and W. W. D. Strombom, both of Marton,’ appeared before Mr. R. Watson, S.M., in the Marton Magistrate’s Court on Friday afternoon, each charged with being intoxicated while in charge of a car in High Street on December 8. Wheeler was represented by Mr. K. A. Williams, who pleaded guilty, and Strombom by Mr. J. F. R. Wallace, who pleaded not guilty. Constable Shields prosecuted. The prosecutor stated that the case arose from an accident which occurred on the High Street-Stewart Street intersection.

The charge against Wheeler was dealt with first. Constable Shields said that accused was arrested after the accident, as he was showing signs of intoxication. Accused was quite frank about the matter, having had a few drinks after completing a big business deal. Mr. K. A. Williams explained that the degree of intoxication of his client was small, while the general character of accused was good. As a fitting conclusion to a financial deal, his client went to a hotel and had a few drinks. He left shortly after 6 p.m. and at about 6.40 p.m. he entered his car with the intention of going to Wanganui via High Street. He travelled at a speed of about 25 m.p.h. and when opposite Stewart Street a car cut across in front of him, a collision resulting. Both drivers were subsequently arrested and medical attention obtained certified that his client was under the influence of

liquor. One doctor stated that he was not unfit to drive a car. Counsel continued that his client was not in an advanced state of intoxication. Accused’s character was well known as good. He was farming in a big way, being a Romney breeder, while many times he had acted as judge at various shows. This latter position, counsel submitted, argued for the customary sobriety of his client.

In asking that his client be not sent to prison, nor his licence cancelled, counsel said that as the result of much publicity, accused had suffered humiliation. Cancellation of the licence would interfere with lectures which he gave throughout the district on Romney matters. Counsel assured the Court that there was no fear of repetition of the offence. The magistrate said that in the meantime a conviction would be entered, but sentence would not be passed until the charge against Strombom had been dealt with.

Dr. W. S. R. Dick stated that he was called to the police station at Marton on December 8 at 7.50 p.m., and examined Strombom, who admitted that he had had a good few drinks. He came to the conclusion that he was intoxicated and unfit to .drive a car.

To Mr. Wallace: He put Strombom through a test—walking a straight line and conversation. He deviated slightly from the straight line and his enunciation was thick. He was like a man who had pulled himself together. A shock an hour or so before would depend on the individual how it acted upon him. The shock may have sobered him.

Dr. R. A. Church deposed that he examined the two defendants with the ordinary exercises such as knee jerks, walking a straight line, and picking up a pin from the floor. Strombom told him that he had had several drinks that day and his breath also smelt of liquor. From his general demeanour he formed the opinion that his faculties were slightly affected, but he was able to drive a car. He knew that an accident had occurred.

To Mr. Wallace: Defendant complied with all his tests. He was not sufficiently intoxicated to affect his co-ordination. He thought that he was competent to drive a car when he examined him. Defendant was of a phlegmatic nature, of slow speech and presumably slow in thinking. To the police: “If fully drunk at the time of the accident would the collission have any effect on him?—

“Yes. He would endeavour to pull himself together.” Constable Hugh Shields stated that at 6.40 p.m. on December 8, after hearing the clash of a collission at High Street and Stewart Street intersection he went to the scene, about 50 yards away. He saw defendant Wheeler on the roadway and they went to the police station. Strombom had disappeared and on information he was found at the Rangitikei Motors garage. He later charged defendants with being intoxicated. They were then examined by Drs. Church and Dick and subsequently released on bail.

To Mr. Wallace: From information received he found that Strombom was at the Rangitikei Motors garage and was standing in the doorway when he arrived. The passenger, Sutton, had a cut on his head. Strombom did not say anything to him about going to the garage. He was taken to the police station and charged with being intoxicated. He could not remember whether Constable Bowman was on the scene of the accident. It was the usual practice to obtain a second medical advice. Constable J. Bowman gave evidence on the accident and the examination of the two defendants. Mr. J. Hartigan, traffic inspector, deposed that at 8 p.m. he went to the scene of the motor collision. From the position of the cars it was apparently an error of judgment on Strombom’s part, who was nearest to the intersection. Then he went to the police station and saw the defendant, who appeared to be in a dazed condition. To Mr. Wallace: He did not hand a hat to the defendant. For the defence Mr. Wallace stated that there was a good deal of publicity given to motor-car collisions and quoted several judgments bearing on the case before the Court. There was no evidence to prove that defendant was in a state of intoxication and asked that the case be dismissed. The magistrate considered that a prima facie case had been made by the prosecution and it was the duty of the defence to call evidence if they thought fit. A. Hopkins, salesman at Rangitikei Motors, stated that Strombom came to the garage and stated that he had had an accident and would like him to make arrangements to remove his car. Defendant and Sutton (who was bleeding on the head) walked to the garage. Strombom was supporting Sutton. Strombom appeared to be quite normal and described the posi-

tion of the car. If Strombom wanted a car to go home he would have lent him one of the firm’s cars. He did not smell any liquor or defendant. John G. Blackwell deposed that he was in High Street at the time of the accident. Wheeler came up High Streep from Broadway in his car and immediately afterwards there was a collision and he saw Strombom’s car moving into the gutter. He saw the occupants of the car and the passenger Sutton appeared to be stunned from the shock. He did not converse with Strombom but he did not think that he was under the influence of liquor. W. Bruce McKenzie testified to hearing the clash of the cars. Defendant appeared to be quite alright and not under the influence of liquor. Constable Shields spoke to Strombom just before he left to take Sutton down the road and assisted him to walk. He saw one of the cars slide off the other one. H. J. Gould, surveyor, called to the witness box, gave evidence to having been driven home by Strombom. on the night of the accident at approximately 5.30. He noticed nothing to suggest that Strombom was the worse for drink. “I wouldn't have gone home with him if I had,” he added. Strombom, in evidence, said he arrived in town with one Sutton shortly after mid-day on the day of the accident, having business to attend to. He detailed his movements and said that at about 2.30 he had two whiskies, later in the afternoon three medium shandies, and at about 5.15, three more medium shandies. He drove Mr. H. J. Gould home, and, on returning to town, had a meal with Sutton. No more drink had been consumed. After tea he set out for home in his car. When he reached the top of High Street he turned about to return for something he had forgotten. On the way down, he saw a car coming up High Street, and, intending to turn into Stewart Street, signalled accordingly. He then perceived that the other car was coming up much faster than anticipated and he swung over to the kerb to avoid a collision. He was unsuccessful, the car driven by Wheeler striking his car on the back and pushing him along the road.

Witness then detailed the events following the accident. He was shaken and so was Sutton, who was with him as passenger. Sutton’s face was bleeding. Witness had a brief conversation with Constable Shields and went away to have the car seen to by a garage. On returning he was taken to the police station and was obliged to undergo various tests for sobriety. Bail was then allowed and he went home. Mr. W. E. Simpson, farmer, deposed that he was a neighbour of Strombom and had known him since he was a boy. He was of a quiet and retiring nature, slow of speech and not very smart in his actions. The magistrate, in giving judgment, stated that in this case he was unable to overlook the evidence of the two medical men who gave evidence for the prosecution. Defendant admitted that he had two whiskies and six shandies during the afternoon preceding the accident. He was compelled to act on the evidence that defendant was affected by the liquor that he had drunk and was not in a fit state to drive a car. Imprisonment was not unusual in these cases and this matter had received consideration by this Court. In this case the state of intoxication was*not so bad and as there were no previous convictions consideration had been given. Driving of cars whilst in a state of intoxication was a very serious charge. The improper driving of a car may lead to loss of life and other serious consequences. Wheeler would be convicted and fined £3O and his licence cancelled till May 31, 1938, and witnesses’ expenses £1 Is. Defendant Strombom would be convicted and fined £2O and his driver’s licence cancelled till May 31, 1938, and costs £3 12s.