Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

JURY DISAGREE.

NEGLIGENT DRIVING CHARGE. IMPORTANT POINT INVOLVED. Per Press Association. CHRISTCHURCH, July 29. The trial of Frank Rowland Coe on a charge of negligent driving so as to cause death, was described by Mr Justice Northcroft in the Supreme Court to-day as a “classic” .one as the jury’s decision would set a standard or reasonable care for motorists. His Honour said that the Crown s case was that the accused was travelling at a reasonable speed and was not affected by liquor, but the question was whether the accused was reasonably careful in continuing when blinded by the lights of another vehicle. During that time he fatally injured a cyclist. The accident no doubt happened through someone taking risksThe question was whether the accused took the risk. A man was forbidden to take any risk endangered anyone else. A person who drove when he could not 6ee was guilty of negligence. , - The .accused was on the horns of a dilemma. Either lie did not keep a proper look-out or else he was trying to do so but could not by being blinded bv oncoming lights. Tho accused s action in pulling over to the left and slowing down for a considerable • instance liefore the bicycle was struck .indicated that he hail been embarrassed by the lights for some time. Pulling to the left under such circumstances did not seem to be wise as anything mig i be struck. It was unfortunate that the cyclist had pulled over to the gravel in tiie hope that there at least ho would be safe. It would be a great misfortune if the jury, thinking tins man did not use reasonable care, tailed to The jury retired at 12.10 n.m. and at 4.10 returned without a verdict “That is quite definite, the foreman of the iurv said when he informed the Court that no decision had been reached. . “I appreciate the effort you have made to come to a decision on an important matter.” his Honour said. A new trial was then ordered but no definite date was fixed Bail v\ as allowed .as before.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/MS19370730.2.113

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 204, 30 July 1937, Page 8

Word count
Tapeke kupu
352

JURY DISAGREE. Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 204, 30 July 1937, Page 8

JURY DISAGREE. Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 204, 30 July 1937, Page 8

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert