ACCIDENT ON BRIDGE.

Waikato Times, Volume 107, Issue 18025, 21 May 1930, Page 8

ACCIDENT ON BRIDGE.

VAN STRIKES TWO CARS. DRIVER before court. CHARGED WITH INTOXICATION. A collision on Hamilton Traffic Bridge shortly after six o’clock on the night of the sth Inst., when a tremendous traffic jamb occurred, 30 or 40 vehicles being obstructed in their progress, resulted in Leonard Warwick Faville, baker, of Hamilton, appearing before Mr Wyvern Wilson, S.M., at Hamilton to-day charged with driving a motor vehicle whilst in a state of intoxication. i Senior-Sergeant Sweeney said that about 6.15 on the night of the sth inst. defendant was driving his baker’s delivery van from Grey Street to Hamilton West. It was noticed by certain people that the progress of the van was unsteady as it travelled down Bridge Street. As it readied the bridge the van collided with a car driven by Dr. E. C. Brewis, and a short distance further oil the bridge collided with a car driven by Mr P. G. Harkness. Dr. Brewis and Mr Harkness alighted and decided that defendant was intoxicated and was not fit to he in charge of a car. He was asked to remain where he was, but instead he restarted his engine and again collided with Mr Harkness’ car. Other witnesses would state that defendant had a flushed face, that he smelled strongly of drink, and that he was obviously under the influence of liquor and not in a fit condition to have charge of a motor vehicle. Dr. E. G. Brewis said that as he was nearing the end of the bridge he noticed another vehicle approaching. It swerved from one side of the road to the other. Witness slowed down almost to a halt. As he did so, defendant’s van collided with the rear of his car as it passed. A moment later he heard a further crash. Alighting he went to the scene of the second crash, where defendant’s van had pulled up. Witness asked defendant if he was drunk, and he replied “ No.” Defendant then alighted and witness asked him his name. Defendant pointed to the name on the van. “Appeared Confused.” Asked by Senior-Sergeant Sweeney what opinion he formed of defendant’s condition, witness said he appeared confused. Defendant’s appearance did not impress him so much, however, as his actions and the stupid nature of the accident. Witness did not think Faville was normal at the time. He did not smell liquor on defendant, although witness told him he did not think him fit to drive a car. Witness asked him to remain until the police arrived. Instead, he re-entered his van and, starting it up again, collided with Mr Harkness’ car a second time, and then backed into the bridge. There was every appearance that defendant was going to collide with Mr Harkness’ car a third time, when witness opened the door of the van and asked defendant to alight. This he did, and disappeared during the subsequent confusion. Someone else drove the van away, and relieved the tremendous congestion that had by this time occurred on the bridge. In answer to Mr W. J. King, witness said definitely that defendant was not drunk. The chief thing that, indicated to witness that something was wrong with the driver, were the gyrations of the van as it approached. In further answer to counsel, witness said he noticed that Favilie’s van had one flat tyre. It was quite feasible -that a man of nervous temperament,- who stammered, would give the impression of intoxication in such a contingency as the one that occurred. Phillip G. Harkness, solicitor, Hamilton, said he saw Favilie’s van approaching the bridge very erratically. It swayed on to the bridge and struck Dr. Brewis’ car, which was in front of witness. The van then swung on to the other side of the bridge, and, swaying again, collided with witness’ car. Dr. Brewis and witness asked defendant what he meant by driving his vehicle in that manner. They told him to alight, which he did. Dr. Brewis told Faville to stand with his feet together and close his eyes, which he did, when he swayed a good deal, whereupon Dr. Brewis said “ You are drunk.” Asked his name Faville merely pointed to the name on the van. Dr. Brewis told him he had better not drive the van again. Defendant, however again mounted the seat and, starting up his engine, backed into witness’ car again and then into the bridge. Cause of the Collisions.

In answer to Senior-Sergeant Sweeney, witness said at first he formed the opinion that defendant had 'been drinking owing to his failure to answer questions and the fact that he exhibited no interest whatever in the damage he had occasioned the two cars he had collided with. Witness did not smell liquor on accused. Senior-Sergeant Sweeney: Do you think he was in a fit condition to drive the van? Witness: Definitely not. Answering Mr King witness ivas still definite in his opinion that Faville was not in a fit state to drive the van. Constable Carseldine said that on interviewing defendant at his home later he formed the opinion 'that Faville was then not in a fit condition to have charge of a motor vehicle. He seemed unsteady on his feet, his speech was not clear, and his breath smelled slightly of liquor. Replying to Mr King, witness said he knew Faville to be a man who stammered somewhat. Constable Brown also expressed the opinion that defendant was under the influence of drink when interviewed at his house. For the defence, Mr King said Faville was temperamentally nervous and excitable, and when an accident occurred such as this and he came under public scrutiny it placed him in a position which, might reasonably be assumed to be due to drink, especially as he had a distinct impediment in his speech. Faville would state he was quite sober and that the collisions were due either to a defect in the steering or to a punctured tyre. Defective Steering Gear. Defendant, in evidence, said the only liquor he had that afternoon were two drinks at the Commercial Hotel. He later went to the Hamilton Bast Bowling Green. He left there at 5 o’clock and went to his bakery, where he remained until after six o’clock. He had no drink after leaving the Commercial Hotel shortly after lunch. The steering gear of his van was somewhat defective. He saw Dr. Brewis’ car approaching and 'tried to pull his van over, but there was a distinct deflection of the direction of the van.

Defendant denied absolutely that he was intoxicated or in any way under the influence of drink at the time of the accident. The reason he left the scene of the accident was in order to get a mechanic to shift the van. Stephen Henry Johns, foreman baker for Faville, said that for an hour prior to the accident defendant was at the bakehouse and had no drink during that period. At the time of the accident defendant was not under the influence of liquor. Witness was with Faville on the van at the time. The accident was caused owing to the steering suddenly going wrong. Faville was somewhat excited after' the accident, -but not confused. Three witnesses —G. A. Mathieson, C. E. S. Badeley, F. Baker—who were held up at the scene of the accident, were definite in their assertions that while Faville was naturally excited he was not drunk, that he appeared, in fact, to be normally sober. Those who knew him said that Faville was a man more than ordinarily nervous in his manner. “ It Was Well He Was Sober.” William Currie said he remembered Faville being at the Hamilton East Bowling Green on the afternoon of the accident. Defendant was at the green for about an hour. Asked how he came to remember the incident so well, witness said that at the howling green next day Faville’s accident was mentioned, when several howlers remarked: “It was well he was sober.”

Donald Ebbett, garage employee, said that after the accident Faville called on him and asked him to remove his van, which had met with an accident. Defendant at the time was prefectiy sober. Witness went to the traffic bridge and found the vehicle had the front axle bent and a front tyre burst. He was able to drive the van away, although it steered very badly. His Worship: Was that due to the bent axle?—Probably. His Worship said the prosecution rested on the evidence of Dr. Brewis : Mr Harkness and two constables. Neither Dr. Brewis nor Mr Harkness had seen defendant before. The two constables said they knew what the man was like under normal conditions. Not on account of what he found did Dr. Brewis think the man was drunk, but because of the course of the car. The doctor would not say that the man's condition, when he later saw and spoke with him, was due to alcohol. Mr Harkness said he did not smell alcohol on defendant and, and based his opinion that he was intoxicated on the fact that he did not answer questions and showed no in-terest-in the damage that had been done. It was singular, however, said His Worship, that neither of these two witnesses detected any smell of liquor on defendant. The two constables, one and a-half hours later, called at defendant’s house -and though they declared that they thought him unfit to be in charge of a motor vehicle, their evidence on this point was very scanty. One constable said defendant smelled slightly and the other, said that he smelled strongly of liquor. Defenddant’s attitude in the box, however, showed that he had a peculiar manner and way of speaking, whioh might readily excuse the opinion that he was not sober. There was strong evidence by people who knew defendant, and who saw him on this occasion, that he was quite normal. The weight of evidence, said His Worship was such that he thought it would be wrong for him to find that defendant was intoxicated. He tkera£n r A' u ~*»' lc s;ficl the charge.