SEQUEL TO COLLISION.

Waikato Times, Volume 103, Issue 17413, 28 May 1928, Page 6

SEQUEL TO COLLISION.

SMASH AT FRANKTON.

DRIVER FINED £5. 'sion™i C t ee th nffS ? rislng out of & colliwnLfVx? J” terse ction of Mill and the Prankion » ’wer# \ o vobce 5n th e Hamiltoa f w pi-ft/l ~°L rt this mornin S- Mr F. \\ Platts, S.M.. was on the Bench. the o New 7 en P ? arrawa i’> foreman of the New Zealand Co-operative Dairy Go s factory Frankton. was charged with negligent driving and failing to give way to a motor car on the right side, and H Hedge, of Commerce Street, Frankton, was charged with negligent and dangerous driving « Both accused pleaded not guilty Mr W. J. King appeared for Garraway and Mr A. E. Webb for Hedge. The facts of the case, as outlined bj the police, were that Garraway’s oar was struck by'the lorry driven by Hedge. The car w'as slewed round and thrown to the other side of the road. Both vehicles were considerably damaged. Mr King raised a point whether his client was not justified in going slow, approaching the intersection, as provided in the new motor regulations.

Off-side Rule.

His Worship said from the evidence of witnesses and accused it appeared that Hedge was travelling at an excessive speed, which had been proved by the manner in which he struck the car, the marks on the road and the fact that the force of the impact knocked the car to the other side of the street. As far as the off-side rule was concerned, when a person was passing at the speed Hedge was. Garraway could be absolved from liability. - , v i . Hedge was convicted on the dangerous driving charge and fined £5. The case against Garraway was dismissecL

Legal Proceeding.

During the hearing of evidence .Mr King asked his Worship if it %as were possible for counsel to crossexamine witnesses called by the other side. He said Mr Wyvern Wilson, S.M., had ruled that no cross-examin-ation was possible under the circumstances.

His Worship said counsel 'could ask a question if he wished. Mir King explained that a question might result in a lengthy cross-exam-ination. His Worship ruled that counsel could not. cross-examine other counsel’s witnesses, 'but could ask any question if he wished to clear up an/ point in the evidence.