PEDESTRIAN KILLED

Waikato Times, Volume 118, Issue 19664, 26 August 1935, Page 8

PEDESTRIAN KILLED

KNOCKED DOWN BY TRUCK

RABBITER FACES TRIAL. DEFECTIVE BRAKES AND LIGHTS. Indicted on a charge of negligent driving of a motor vehicle causing the death of Ernest McCleutcheon Tapp, at Cambridge, on the night 22 last, a rabbiter named John Hemy Mahood (26) pleaded not guilty before Mr Justice Callan and a jury in the Supreme Court, Hamilton, today. Mr H. T. Gillies conducted the case for the Crown and Mr W. J. King defended the accused.' In outlining the 'circumstances briefly, Mr Gillies said the accused was driving a truck from Cambridge to Hamilton and when about a mile from Cambridge, on the main highway, he overtook and knocked down Tapp and a woman with whom lie was walking. Both were injured and Tapp had since died. It would toe shown that three passengers in Mahood’s truck were more or less in a state of intoxication, while the brakes and headlights of the truck were inefficient. A regrettable aspect of the case was that Mahood failed to stop to assist Tapp and failed to report the accident to the police. Mahood was arrested about a week later near Atiamuri.

Photographs of the scene of the accident and a locality plan were produced by Constable V. C. Naylor.. •Lydia Maude Stokes,.single, of Onehunga, testified that she and Tapp were walking about 7 p.m. from Cambridge to a friend’s house where they were tooth staying. It had been raining. They were walking on the extreme edge of the bitumen, Tapp being on the outside. They heard something coming behind tout saw no lights. When struck she sustained bruises, cuts and shock. She heard no horn sounded. Dr. A. L. Wilson, of the medical staff of the Waikato Hospital, gave evidence that when Tapp was admitted to hospital on the evening of June 22 he was suffering from severe head and other injuries. Six weeks later he-succumbed to,his injuries, the cause of death being cerebral haemorrhage. Poor Visibility. James Stephen McMillan, ' land agent, of Hamilton, stated that he was returning in his . car from Cambridge to Hamilton when he was slopped toy Miss Stokes. Tapp was lying on the side of the road injured. To Mr King, witness said it was drizzling with rain at the time, 'the bitumen was wet and visibility was very bad. It would be difficult to see pedestrians on such a night. Malcolm Douglas Scott, of the courthouse staff, Hamilton, said he was waiting at the Vogel Street intersection with his sister about 7 p.m. and toe noticed a truck pass on the correct side at a speed of about 30 miles per hour. He did not notice the headlights of the vehicle. He then heard a thud and saw the truck turn sharply to the left and right. The driver did not stop. Witness went to the scene and saw deceased Tapp lying on the roadside.

Corroborative evidence was given by Mamie Isotoel Scott, sister of the previous witness.

William Munro, motor mechanic, of Cambridge, wbo examined the truck driven by Maltood, stated that the condition of the truck’s brakes was poor. There were no headlamp glasses, the beams were inefficient, and the tail-light was inoperative. The horn was in working order. •Cross-examined, witness agreed that he did not examine the truck until a month after the accident. As he viewed the vehicle it was dangerous to handle oh the road or to drive at a speed of more than 15 miles per hour.

Constable C. H. Maisev, of Cambridge, gave evidence dealing with the appearance of the truck and the scene of the accident.

Detective C. P. Belton, of Hamilton, gave evidence that lie located Mahood on July 5 between Atiamuri and Ongaroto. He was rabbit trapping and had his truck with him. Mahood admitted he was the driver of the truck which knocked down Tapp and gave the names of his companions. Witness produced a statement made by the accused.

Statement by Accused,

In the statement Mahood admitted striking Tapp with his truck. He said he did not stop because he did not think lie had caused injury and because lie thought iie might be abresled l'or having weak head-lamps. To Mr King, the detective agreed that the accused had pleaded guilty to charges of failing to stop and Jailing to report to the police and he had been dealt with for those offences. Witness would not agree that Mahocd was perfectly sobdr. Mahood told him he had two or three drinks before leaving Cambridge tout that he was sober. Witness had checked up on Mabood’s movements and, had found that he had been frank.

Robert Samuel Armstrong, rabbi ter. gave evidence that lie and Morgan were drinking in Hie Masonic Hotel, Cambridge, that afternoon before- 0 p.m. A man named Harris joined them at 5 p.m. and Maliood arrived at about 5.43 p.m. At 6 p.m. Maliood left for tea and picked up witness and the others later. Witness sat next to Maliood in the front seat. After they had started and were passing the water-lower witness fell a slight bump. Some distance further on tiie truck was slopped and Maliood inspected the mudguard. Then they rcturned to Hie scene of Hie accident and saw Tapp lying on the road hut they did not stop but turned around and set off again for Hamilton. Cross-examined, witness said on leaving Hie hotel Morgan was drunk. Harris was not sober but lie was not drunk. llis Honour asked the witness to arrange the party in order of sobriety, lie placed Maliood iirst, himself second and Harris third. It was raining at the time and visibility was bad. Witness did not see Tapp and Miss Stokes on Hie road. Maliood suggested reluming and after they returned Maliood was about to get out but witness advised him not to. Witness attributed bis failure to sec Hie pedestrians lo the rain which was healing in his face. The overhead street light made visibility worse.

Objection to Witness. To Mr Gillies, witness swore that Maliood had no more than two drinks. Mr King objected to the nature of Mr Gillies’ re-examination. Mr Gillies asked His Honour for the witness to be treated as hostile. His Honour replied that the witness’ evidence was certainly adverse to the Crown case. Mr King contended that there was nothing in the demeanour or attitude or the witness to suggest that he was not to be relied upon. His Honour ruled that he was not prepared to declare Hie witness hostile but the re-examination would have to be restricted. Witness informed Ills Honour that for about 10 chains before the impact lie was keeping a look-out on the left-hand side. Walter Roderick Morgan said lie remembered nothing about the night’s happenings after leaving the hotel. Cross-examined, witness agreed that lie had had too much to drink. This concluded the Crown’s case. Mr King intimated that lie did not propose lo call evidence. Addressing the jury counsel said no one realised more than Maliood Hie disgrace of his action in refusing to stop and report the matter. Maliood realised that his action was cowardly and reprehensible and he had accepted punishment for it. However, regarding Hie charge of negligent driving counsel submitted that much of Hie Crown’s evidence was irrelevant. Had the accident occurred in daylight the accused could rightly be found guilty. However, owing to. the bad driving conditions •there were mitigating circumstances. He submitted Hie only question for the jury was whether Maliood kept a proper look-out. Judge’s Summing Up. Counsel maintained that there was just as much evidence in the Crown case in favour of Hie accused as against him. There was certainly no suggestion that Hie accused was other than sober. Moreover, no accident would have occurred bad the pedestrians walked on Hie right-hand side of the road, facing approaching traffic. Ilis Honour, summing up, advised the jury not to place (oo much emphasis on the evidence relating to drink, if a ear overtaking two pedestrians on a straight road knocked them down and that did not constitute negligence then the time was coming when pedestrians would have no right to be on country roads at all. There was, however, the evidence of bad weather conditions, defective brakes and lights, and a glare from an overhead lamp. It appeared to be a form of negligence lo have such a vehicle on Hie road. (Proceeding).