BOY’S ANKLE BROKEN.

Waikato Times, Volume 105, Issue 17783, 7 August 1929, Page 8

BOY’S ANKLE BROKEN.

CASE BEFORE COURT. (Continued from Pase 7.) Defendant said he declined to make a statement to the police because he thought it advisable to say nothing in view of future proceedings. It was he who suggested that the car should be examined. It was possible the marks on the car could have been caused by striking a bicycle, hut then again, other things might have caused them. Cross-examined by Senior Sergeant Sweeney, witness said he had four glasses of ale at the Waikato Hotel, where he remained till closing time prior to driving Dagnall home. He had no recollection of passing any car after entering River Road. His bumper had been out of alignment for some time. He did not know why he had not mentioned this to the police, when he heard the officers commenting on its position. Walter A. Rayson, motor mechanic, said that some weeks before tiie accident Littlejohn’s car was in the garage where lie worked. The bumper was then out of alignment. There were a number of jobs to be done on the car, hut Littlejohn called for it before the bumper was straightened. A Passenger’s Story.

Wilfred Dagnall, machinery agent, who was a passenger in Littlejohn’s car, said the night was dark and wet and he had no knowledge of the presence of a cyclist in the vicinity of River Road, neither did he feel a bump or hear a cry. lie saw bright lights ahead of them as they proceeded down Bridge Street. Re could not tell what they were. Senior Sergeant Sweeney: “Was it possible for the car to pass over tnis bicycle without you having noticed it?” Witness thought it quite possible to do so.

Richard 11. Kirkwood, insurance inspector, who had been ‘ _ ji the Waikato Hotel with Littlejohn and Dagnall, said he followed them down Bridge Street in his own car. He saw Littlejohn’s car turn into River Road. He knew nothing of the accident and did not remember somebody trying to pull him up as he drove past. There was no other car proceeding down Bridge Street at the time. His Worship: Then it must have been either Littlejohn's car or your car that caused the. accident? Warning to Motorists. His Worship said he had not the slightest doubt that defendant’s car, whilst cutting the corner, knocked the boy, who was proceeding in a reasonable manner, off his cycle. It was possible that the explanation of Littlejohn and Bagnall that they did not observe anything unusual, was correct. It was possible also that they' were in such a state that nothing very much mattered. It was a'wet night; they had been to' an hotel and had remained there till it closed. They then drove home through the pouring rain. They could not see properly where they were going, and a bump or two did not matter. He did not think defendant would have been so heartless as to have continued on had he known' an accident had occurred. Ilis Worship therefore dismissed the other charges and convicted defendant merely on the charge of dangerous driving. On this charge he would be fined £5 and costs. His Worship added that he did not infer that defendant was intoxicated, but he desired .to issue a warning against motorists taking alcohol. Although defendant had had only a few drinks His Worship had no doubt that his driving and his spirit were affected as a result. He would not be capable of keeping Ihe same vigilant look out that he would have done without the liquor. There w'as no doubt that even a few drinks would affect a man’s ability to drive.