COMMITTED FOR TRIAL

Wairarapa Daily Times, 16 January 1932, Page 4

COMMITTED FOR TRIAL

SEQUEL TO COLLISION.

CHARGE OF NEGLIGENCE,

At the conclusion of the hearing of the evidence in respect to a charge of negligently driving a. motor car on the Masterton-Carterton highway on August 22, 1931, thereby causing tire death of Emma Grace Grose, Robert George Coulston, slaughterman. Waingawa, was committed for trial at the next sittings of the Supreme Court at Wellington by Mr J. Miller, S.M. When the case for the police concluded yesterday afternoon counsel for Coulston said that there was a. suggestion in the police case that the fact that accused had taken some drink prior to the accident had contributed to what had occurred. It was not enough, however, to ask that this should be inferred, without leading adequate supporting evidence. In fact, all the witnesses on this point had said that Coulston was not affected by drink. The evidence on the question of negligence was not strong. That day, Grose had advanced a theory that Coulston had switched on his lights and swerved across the road, thus causing the accident. At the inquest, however, Grose had advanced no such theory. The position of the cars after the accident, bearing in mind that Coulston’s car was about twice as heavy as the other, was not what would have been expected had the heavier vehicle swung across the road, at high speed, into collision with the other. Counsel invited the Magistrate to dismiss the charge on the ground that it was not adequately supported by evidence.

Mr Miller said this was a case in which the duty was not cast upon him of weighing the evidence to ascertain whether accused was guilty or not. All he had to ascertain was whether a prim a facie case was made out. Counsel had advanced a number of points which he said were in favour of accused and supplied reasons for refusing to commit him for trial. The answer to that was that he (the Magistrate) could not go into the case in detail. All that he had to ascertain was whether a prima facie case had been made out. He was not satisfied that the case should be dismissed on account of the weakness of the evidence. It was a point that the accused in a case like this might be guilty in spite of the contributory negligence of the other party. There were several issues on which it was for a. jury to form their conclusions. Here they had a wide and straight road on which no accident of this kind should have occurred. Grose said that he was on the left side s> f the road at the time of the' accident. Coulston also said that he was on the left side of the road. Taking all the surrounding circumstances, it was for a jury to say which party should be believed. It was for a jury also to arrive at conclusions on what had been said about lights coming across the road and on the evidence that those in a car going south saw a car coming north, and that those in a car coming north did not see a car going south. He thought, subject to what might be advanced in rebuttal of this view, that there was a prima facie case to answer. Counsel for Coulston said he did not think it advisable to carry the matter further at that stage. Bail was fixed at- one surety of £2OO, or two sureties of £IOO each.