LENIENCY EXTENDED

Waikato Times, Volume 118, Issue 19665, 27 August 1935, Page 6

LENIENCY EXTENDED

NEGLIGENT DRIVING CASE

“NO MORAL OBLIQUITY.”

JURY’S RIDER CONSIDERED.

Taking into account the Jury 8 •strong recommendation to mercy and the general circumstances surrounding the case, which he said disclosed n moral obliquity, Mr Justice Gallon, m the Supreme Court, Hamilton, to-day, admitted John Henry Mahood (2-0. rabbiter, of Cambridge, to two years probation. Mahood was found guilty by a jury yesterday of nesiigent arr\ing of a car causing the death of Ernest McCleutcheon Tapp. On behalf of the accused, Mr W. J. King said he agreed that the jury 8 verdict was a proper one. The accused had not been before the Court P revi “ ously for motoring offences. He hoped His Honour would take into account the jury’s recommendation and the fact that Mahood had pleaded guilty to the other offences of falling to stop and failing to notify the police. “ I can say at the outset that I do not propose to send this young man to gaol,” observed His Honour. “ I have gone carefully into the matter and my conception of my duty does not require me to inflict a term of imprisonment. I am influenced by the jury’s strong recommendation to mercy in view of the bad visibility on the night of the accident. I think I should give dua weight to that recommendation.”

No Suspicion of Liquor. His Honour expressed the opinion that the evidence did not warrant any suspicion that the accused was under the influence of liquor. There was no proof whatever of that and, indeed, the circumstances tended strongly against it. He agreed with the jury’s verdict. He could not understand how a motor vehicle driven with ordinary prudence could overtake pedestrians on a straight road and knock them down without being aware of them. It was doubtful whether the vehicle driven by the accused was fit to he on the road. ,I-Ie was satisfied the lights were in a shocking condition and he was doubtful about the condition of the brakes. The only safe pace at which that vehicle could travel was a crawl. Fils flonour added that Mahood was not associated in the drinking in the hotel except for a few minutes before 6 p.m. He was burdened with a cargo of intoxicated men and probably was anxious to get rid of them, but he had promised to take them home. There was not about the case that moral obliquity which there was about many cases of that sort. It was the first motoring offence the accused had committed, the other two charges having arisen from the same set of circumstances. He did not propose to hold against him the two previous convictions for dishonesty.- Mahood should have shown .more strength of character and wisdom In the choice of his associates.

The accused was admitted to two years’ probation, a special condition being that lie pays the cost of the prosecution (£27 18s 7d) in such'instalments as the probation officer might think lit.