FAILING TO STOP.

Waikato Times, Volume 96, Issue 15360, 8 October 1923, Page 4

FAILING TO STOP.

MOTORIST FINED MAXIMUM. BOY AND PONY INJURED. RESOURCEFULNESS. A sequel to an occurrence at the end of the Traffic Bridge a few weeks ago, when a motorist collided with a pony ridden by a boy, breaking the animal's leg and throwing the youngster to tho ground, was heard at the Magistrate's Court, Hamilton, to-day, when a de-r monstration driver, Wilfred Luxton Ready, employed by J. Pomeroy and Co., was charged with negligent driving and with failing to stop after: a collision had occurred.

On the application of Mr Strang, who appeared for defendant, it was agreed to adjourn the first charge until October 29, counsel stating that the boy had developed blood poisoning, and that there was likely to be ai civil claim for fairly substantial damages against Ready as a result. With reference to the second charge Senior-Sergeant Mathew stated that defendant was crossing the traffic* bridge on the evening in question at a fairly fast pace, and collided witti one of -two ponies ridden by two brothers, aged about 12 and 14 respectively, just after leaving the western end. The impact must hava been a heavy one, for the young ride* was thrown to the ground, while th« steed had-a leg broken, later having to be destroyed. The mud-guard of defendant's car was badly bent, but despite this he had not stopped until he reached Clarence Street. Tha brother of the injured boy Immediately set out on his pony after tha man responsible for the affair, and! came upon him as he stopped itf Clarence Street. The boy took thai number, and as a result of his resourcefulness the culprit had beentraced.

The Senior-Sergeant read a statement made to the/police by Ready, in which defendant stated he was crossing the bridge on his left side, and had just rcaohed the end when two ponies' loomed up on the right side of tho road. One of the animals shied, and defendant's car" struck it a glancing blow on the rump. He did not consider that there was any damage dond that would warrant a stop. As hflf drove on, however, he became aware" that his' mud-guard was pressing orii one of the front tyres, so he pulled up! to make an examination. It was at this stage that the youngster had caught up to him and informed him of what had occurred. He then immediately returned, but found that hii services were not required.

His Worship said it was quite clear* that the impact was- a fairly severd one, as tiic mud-guard of the car had apparently been badly hont. Defendant had driven, right on. and but fori the presence of mind of the other boy 4 it might not have been possible to" trace him. Defendant would be fined the maximum penaltv of £lO and costs 7s.