MOTOR CAR FATALITY.

Waikato Times, Volume 112, Issue 18796, 18 November 1932, Page 8

MOTOR CAR FATALITY.

O’BRIEN ACQUITTED. ALLEGATIONS NOT PROVED. STRONG DEFENCE SUCCEEDS. Attempts to prove that Charles O’Brien, salesman, of Hamilton, drove a car negligently, thereby causing the death of Robert William Money, were unsuccessful in the Supreme Court, Hamilton, yesterday. After a short retirement the jury brought in a verdict of not guilty and accused was discharged. The case was tried before Mr Justice Herdman. Mr 11. T. Gillies prosecuted for the Crown and Mr J. F. Strang appeared for the prisoner. The jury, after a short retirement, returned a verdict of not guilty. Archibald Silvester Mathieson, chief mechanic for the Hamilton Borough Council, gave evidence concerning the damage to the vehicles. His Honour questioned the witness closely on his ability to judge how the accident happened from the position of the vehicles after the accident. “Perfectly Sober.” Cecil A. Mathieson, Chief Postmaster at Hamilton, acknowledged that O’Brien had only two drinks with him at the Commercial Hotel on the afternoon of the accident. O’Brien was perfectly sober when he left witness. Between 6.10 p.m. and 6.50 p.m. witness saw O’Brien again, and there was no sign of liquor about him. Alfred G. St. George, assistantsurveyor, of Hamilton East, deposed that he noticed O’Brien’s car on its correct side and travelling straight. He did not see the car for long. Reginald Ronald Coombes, sheetmetal worker, supported the evidence of the previous witnesses. Addressing the jury, Mr Strang submitted that the weight of evidence was undoubtedly that O’Brien was on the correct side of the road and driving normally up to the time of the impact. The only evidence of Intoxication was that of Constable Rolland, who would not arrest the prisoner. Mr Gillies asked the jury for the explanation why Miss Money had suddenly turned the direction of her car. He suggested the reason was because she attempted to avoid O’Brien who had swerved on to his wrong side. Surely the evidence of witnesses whose attention had been particularly drawn to O’Brien was more valuable than that of witnesses who knew nothing about the matter. He emphasised that any possible contributory negligence on the part of Miss Money was immaterial. Summing up, His Honour, after reviewing the evidence, said it appeared that Miss Money was on the correct side until near the impact, when she swerved suddenly to her wrong side. O’Brien appeared to have been on his incorrect side part of the way. There was some evidence that both cars were on their correct side for some distance. Whatever happened must have occurred in a "flash.’’