RUN DOWN BY CAR.
A fatal accident occurred on the Main South road near Hampden about dusk on Monday evening. A youth named Magnus Laing, with a companion, was cycling south, when he was overtaken and knocked down by a car driven by Moss Wylie, a University student who was returning to Dunedin. Death was almost instantaneous. The unfortunate lad was a member of a well-known Hampden family. — Oamaru message. -Evening Star, 3/4/1929.
CORONER’S INQUEST.
The adjourned inquest touching the death of Magnus Laing was continued yesterday morning before Mr A. A. McWilliam, acting-coroner, and the following jury: — Messrs Alexander S. Familton (foreman), S. Jackson, R. D. Aitchison, and J. Woolford. Lengthy evidence was given by Charles William Johnson, retired railway servant, who accompanied the deceased on the night of the fatality, and by William Campbell-Johnson, R. Gould, L. Stevenson, Moss Wylie, C. C. Cook, jun.. Constable Woodley, and Dr Trotter. The verdict of the jury was that they found the deceased, Magnus Laing, met his death by being struck by a motor car on the night of April 2, the car being driven by Moss Wylie, and that the driver, Moss Wylie, did not exercise sufficient vigilance in looking out.
The funeral of the deceased took place at Hampden yesterday afternoon, the Rev. Mr Davis, of Hampden, officiating at the graveside. Many beautiful floral tributes were received, and a large number of residents attended, including the teachers and senior scholars of the Hampden School. Four Waitaki High School scholars acted as pall bearers. -Otago Daily Times, 5/4/1929.
A Serious Charge.
At a sitting of the Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon Moss Wylie, a 'Varsity student, was charged with, on April 2, at Hampden, negligently driving a motor car thereby causing the death of Magnus Laing. Mr A. Hamilton, instructed by Mr A. C. Hanlon, appeared for defendant, who was remanded till May 7, bail being allowed, in self, of £200 and one surety of £100. -North Otago Times, 1/5/1929.
HAMPDEN FATALITY
DEATH OF MAGNUS LAING
MOTORIST TO FACE SUPREME COURT TRIAL.
The Sequel td a collision at Hampden on the night of April 2 was heard in the Police Court yesterday before Mr H. W. Bundle. Moss Wylie, a student, appearing on remand, was committed to the Supreme Court for trial on a charge of negligent driving, thereby causing the death of Magnus Laing. Accused was represented by Mr A. C. Hanlon, of Dunedin, and Senior-Sergeant Scott prosecuted.
The facts of the case, as stated by the Senior-Sergeant, were that on April 2 deceased (Magnus Laing) and a companion, Charles William Johnson were returning to Hampden from the fishing rocks, both riding bicycles. When nearing the township a car came up in the rear. Johnson saw the lights of the car. The car, which was driven by accused, collided with the bicycle ridden by deceased, and as the result of the impact Laing died.
The first witness was Dr Alexander Trotter, of Herbert, who said that about 7p.m. on April 2 he was called to the house of Mr Murcott, at Hampden, to which Laing had been taken. "I found him lying in a comotose state, suffering from a lacerated wound passing from the right temple to the bridge of the nose," he said: "The nose was crushed and lacerated. He had minor lacerations of the face and there were abrasions on both knees.
"I formed the opinion," the witness added, "that he was suffering from a fracture of the anterior portion of the base of the skull. He gradually sank and died about halfpast eight, the cause of death being laceration and haemorrhage of the brain."
William Henry Murcott, a licensed surveyor, residing at Hampden, stated that he prepared a plan of the scene of the accident (produced).
Bicycles Had No Lights.
Charies Johnson, retired railway servant, Hampden, detailed his movements and those of Laing on April 2. Both left the fishing rocks about 4.35, p.m., and reached the spot where the accident occurred at about 6.30. For most of the way they were travelling abreast and at the time of the accident were practically in line, although Laing might possibly have been a trifle behind witness. A loud report, like a tyre bursting, was the first intimation he received of the collision.
"Directly after," witness continued, "Magnus Laing was hurled through the air directly in front of me on to the grass at the side of the road." Witness added that he immediately to Laing's assistance He was on the ground with a large pool of blood near him. With the assistance of the accused and his companion witness lifted Laing th the car.
"Prior to the impact I noticed that a car was following, which at the time was close upon us - a few yards away." He heard no horn sounded. The car had lights which appeared good. He could not say at what speed the car was travelling. "I was riding well into the grass, practically in the gutter, and deceased was close beside me.' he said. "You could see plainly ahead at the time. It was getting dusk. Witness said he had a red reflector on his bicycle, but did not know whether there was one on Laing's bicycle. Neither bicycle carried lights. Laing's hearing was good, and, as far as witness knew, his sight was good. Both were travelling at about eight miles an hour.
To Mr Hanlon: They came over the Kuri Creek bridge. Magnus Laing was in front. The bridge was on the right hand side of the road. After crossing it they went across to the left hand side of the road.
Mr Hanlon: When you got to the left hand side pf the road, in what order were you riding? — Side by side.
Dropped Behind a Little.
Which side were you on? I was then on the grass side. Did you continue to ride like that, side by side, up to the time of the accident? — Yes, till shortly before the accident, when Laing dropped a little behind.
Are you quite sure that just prior to the accident you were not behind Laing? — Yes.
Where you were riding was just close to the grass? — Yes.
The reason you were riding there was because it was easier going? — No.
When he dropped behind, you cannot say whether he was directly behind you or not? — No.
Why couldn't he go in your wheel tracks? — I don't think he would.
Witness; After Laing was thrown through the air the car went on some distanee and then pulled up. He could not say the distance the car travelled. A pool of blood, four to six inches in diameter, was on the road at the spot where the impact took pace. This would be about 12ft from the spot where the body was thrown.
Mr Hanlon: How do you account for the first pool of blood when the car was in motion? — That is a question. Witness went on to say that there was a splash of blood on the left-hand mudguard.
How big was the patch of blood on the car? It covered the width of the mudguard.
To a further question witness stated it was a fairly large patch. This blood was first seen when the car was examined on the day of the inquest, two days later.
When the car was following you, could you see your shadow in front of you? — It was too early in the evening for much shadow of myself and the boy from the headlight of the motor car.
Was it daylight or dusk? — It was the beginning of dusk. He considered he could see a person several hundred yards ahead, provided the road was unobstructed by traffic.
Other Traffic.
For the purpose of seeing, there was no need for light on the car? — A motorist could have seen me on the road at the time of the accident for at least three or four hundred yards.
The effect of your evidence is that this young fellow just drove up in his car and ran over the boy? — I say that he could easily have seen us.
The Witness further stated that when the car came over the bridge the driver would have been unable to see witness and Laing because of a dip in the road. He could not say how far off the accused should have been able to see.
Mr Hanlon: Did you jump off your bicycle when you saw the boy plunge across the road? — Yes.
The Senior-Sergeant: Can you say whether there was any other traffic to prevent the accused from seeing you? — I saw two cars after we crossed the bridge. They were going in the opposite direction.
His Worship: Was there any traffic going in the same direction as the accused? — No.
Losh Stevenson, a retired railway servant, a resident of Hampden, deposed that on the evening of the accident he was working in front of his house. He saw two cyclists travelling south, on their correct side, but they had no lights. He next saw a car following, which was also on its correct side. He was unable to say the correct speed, but on account of its fast pace it attracted his attention. The visibility was fairly good. He was half a chain from the road. He could see two men in the car. He could not say whether they were paying attention or not but the car was being driven correctly. There was no other traffic between the car and the cyclists. He heard a crash and knew by the noise that the car had struck the bicycles. He did not see the collision. He at once went to the scene, and saw the body of the boy lying close to the road. Laing was unconscious. The motor car was a little ahead of the body — about two chains and a-half. He did not hear the horn sounded. He could see, dimly, what happened from his place. The distance was approximately five chains. "The only reason I can attribute to the accused's failure to see the cyclists was that his eyes were not on the road," he said. He noticed a disturbance on the road some distance back from where the body was. He found fragments of glass on the road, to the north side of the body.
Mr Hanlon: Did you see a pool of blood on the road? — Yes, a small patch.
Degree of Visibility.
Mr Hanlon: How far was the pool of blood on the grass in advance of this patch? — About four yards.
Witness added, that the patch of blood was about six inches long and an average width of four inches. It appeared to him that a person had lain there and blood had flown from him, and he had then been moved.
Mr Hanlon: Would you say that as far as visibility was concerned there was necessity for lights? — Yes, under the existing conditions I would not have driven a car without lights.
"From the bridge to the spot where the accident happened the distance is about 500 yards." witness said.
Mr Hanlon: Are there any undulations in the road? — Yes, one, about 100 yards from the bridge. He added that there was a clear view of the scene of the accident for 300 or 400 yards.
How far, roughly, would you have visibility, with light, on a night similar to the night the accident occurred? — About three chains.
The driver might have been keeping his eyes on the right hand side of the road for safety's sake, and might have missed seeing the cyclist on his left? — Yes, that is my honest opinion.
The Senior-Sergeant: What is the width of the road at that point? — The metalled portion is approximately 30 feet.
So even if the cyclists were travelling on the left of the metal, there would be room for the car to pass? — Oh, yes, plenty.
Can you say whether the lights on the car complied with the regulations? — I cannot say that. The light appeared normal.
If the driver of the car was keeping his eye on the right of the road was there any reason he did not see the cyclists? — I am surprised he did not see them.
Charles Cameron Cook, a student, who accompanied accused in the car, said they left Oamaru at 5.30. He did not know what time it was when the car reached the scene of the accident. They met no traffic after crossing the bridge. The lights were burning. He could not say the speed of the car. They were travelling about the crown of the road, on the correct side. He saw no traffic in front. There was no conversation between he and the accused.
"We intended to go round to the station which would mean turning off to the left. I could not say how far we were from the turning, when we struck something," said witness. After the impact he found the car had collided with a boy on a push bike. He saw the bicycle the boy was riding (produced in court). He was unable to say what distance the car travelled after the impact. After the impact he thought the accused said something but he could not remember the remark.
The Speed Limit.
The accused did say something when passing Steyenson's, which was not far from the scene of the accident, about the speed limit being 18 miles an hour. After the collision the left front light was damaged, and the windscreen damaged.
To Mr Hanlon: He remembered someone saying at the time pf the accident that the time was 6.40 p.m.
William Campbell said he was in a paddock on his property when he heard the crash. He was about four and a-half chains from the car. He did not go over as he thought it was simply a blow-out. and one of the tyres had come off. He could see the car quite comfortably at that distance.
To Mr Hanlon: There was a gorse fence between he and the car. Had his view been clear he could possibly have seen a man.
James Russell Gould said when he heard the crash he assumed it was a blow-out. He did not know until afterwards that an accident had happened. He saw the driver bending over an object about three chains behind the car.
To Mr Hanlon: If any statement was made at the inquest that it was one chain froth where the car pulled up to the spot where the man was bending over someone, that was incorrect.
John Thomas Nyhan said he heard the crash but did not see the accident. He heard no horn sounded.
Constable Woodley gave evidence as to the steps taken after the accident, and handed in a statement made by accused. Accused reserved his defence and was committed for trial at the next sitting of the Supreme Court at Oamaru, bail being allowed in his recognition of £200 and one surety of £100. -North Otago Times, 8/5/1929.
WYLIE ACQUITTED
THE HAMPDEN FATALITY
NEGLIGENCE CHARGE FAILS
Moss Wylie faced Mr Justice Kennedy and a jury at the Supreme Court yesterday, charged with recklessly and negligently driving a car so as to cause the death of Magnus Laing. His plea of not guilty was upheld by the jury, and, six hours after he entered the court, Wylie left it, a free man.
His Honour, addressing the Grand Jury, said the only case to come before it was that of a young man for recklessly and negligently driving a car. Reckless and negligent driving was driving in a manner indifferent of consequences and not exercising that care which a reasonable and prudent man would take. No driver should proceed upon the highway without keeping a proper lookout for traffic from both ways, nor should he proceed at such a speed that would prevent him from seeing other traffic. If the evidence should be that a driver of a motor car, with lights burning, drove along a straight road and ran down a cyclist without being aware of his presence until the moment of impact, they (the jury) would have no difficulty in deciding that the driver was not exercising due caution by keeping a proper lookout or that he was proceeding at a pace so as to make that precaution unavailing. The Grand Jury after a retirement of half an hour brought in a true Rill.
Moss Wylie was then charged that on April 2, at Hampden, he did recklessly and negligently drive a motor car, thereby causing the death of Magnus Laing. He pleaded not guilty. Mr A. C. Hanlon appeared for Wylie and Mr A. G. Greagh prosecuted.
The Common Jury empanelled was G. A. Mitchell, D. Geng. R. B. Swindley, D. Fotheringham, T. Kennedy, C. Tregonning, T. W. Jacobs, J. D. McLeod, A. H. Barclay, G. R. Gregory, W. Gillies and H. S. Whyte. T. W. Jacobs was appointed foreman. The facts as disclosed in evidence in the lower court, were outlined by Mr Creagh.
Doctor's Evidence.
Dr Trotter, of Herbert, was the first witness. He said that on April 2, about 7 o'clock in the evening he was called to the house of Mr Murcott where he found the injured lad, Magnus Laing. The boy was unconscious and was evidently suffering from severe brain injuries through a fracture at the base of the skull. He expired about an hour later. Witness formed the opinion from the nature and location of the injuries that deceased had swerved to the right, with the result that he was lifted on to the bonnet of the car and the right temple struck the wind screen with considerable force.
In reply to Mr Hanlon witness said he could not conceive, owing to the nature of his injuries, that the deceased swerved to the left.
William Henry Murcott, surveyor, of Hampden, said that he had made a plan (produced) of the road from the Kuri bridge to Hampden. Where the road entered the township it was 1 1/2 chains wide. The metalled part was about 25 feet wide. From Stevenson's to Prain's the road was practically level.
Charles William Johnston, of Hampden, deposed that on April 2 last, in company with the deceased Magnus Laing, he cycled to the Bluff. They left on the return journey about 4.35 p.m., and reached the boundary of Hampden about 6,30. It was at this point the accident happened. Neither bicycle carried a lamp. Witness had a red reflector affixed at the rear of his bicycle. Passing Stevenson's place the pair were riding abreast, witness being on the left. When the accident occurred he was a little in advance of Laing. He had noticed a motor car in the rear with lights, and it was then that Laing dropped back. At the time of the accident witness was riding in the gutter m order to give the other lad room. The first he knew of an accident was a loud report which he attributed to the bursting of a bicycle tyre, and immediately after a body was hurled across the road on to the grass in front of him. The car was then ahead. Witness got off his bicycle and attended to the boy, and then Wylie and Cook came to his side. The body was taken to Sir Louis Barnett's, but he was not at home, and the boy was taken to Mr Murcott's house and Dr Trotter was communicated with. At the time of the accident it was getting dusk, but witness considered the light sufficiently good to see 300 to 400 yards. He saw a patch of blood on the road about 12 feet from where the boy was lying on the grass. He thought that was where the impact took place. He could not form an estimate of the speed of the car at the time of the accident. Just before the impact two cars passed, going north.
"Lights Not Necessary."
To Mr Hanlon: Witness did not consider it dark enough to necessitate the use of lights, even though the regulations might require them. The reflector on witness' bicycle was in good order and had been cleaned before he set out that morning. He was sure that the boy was behind him and somewhat to the right, There was not a great deal of dust on the road and the cars which had passed did not cause a dust haze. After the boy was thrown to the ground the car pulled up. He could not say how far it travelled after the impact.
In evidence L. Stevenson said he was working near his gate, which would be about 12 yards from the road, on the night of the accident. He noticed Johnston and Laing riding bicycles abreast on the road. Immediately after they passed a car, with lights burning, came along. There were two men in it, and it followed much the same track as the cyclists. He heard a noise and hurried to the scene of the accident. He could not estimate the speed at which the car was travelling. It was dark and he considered the lights on the car necessary. When he reached the scene of the accident he found a boy lying on the grass off the left of the road, in a pool of blood. Later in the evening he returned to the scene of the accident and noticed a small patch of blood on the road, about 12 feet north of the pool on the grass. Approaching from the north there was an unobstructed view of about 400 yards to where the accident occurred.
Charles Cameron Cook, dental student, of Dunedin, said that on April 2 he was accompanying Wylie in a car to Dunedin. They left Oamaru at 5.30 with Wylie driving. The car lights were on. He remembered that passing Stevenson's house the car was travelling on the lefthand side of the road, more to the crown of the road. The first witness knew of an accident was when the car hit something. He saw nothing immediately after the impact. The speed at which the car was travelling was about 25 miles an hour. It was pulled up immediately. He and Wylie got out and walked back to where Johnston was standing. The other boy was lying on the water table, and all three lifted him on to the grass. Wylie then backed the car and the injured lad was driven to Sir Louis Barnett's. When the car was examined afterwards it was found that the left-hand corner of the windscreen was broken, the left lamp was bent back, the left side of the bumper was bent, and there was blood on the left mudguard of the car. When witness later returned to the scene he saw two bicycles some distance away. One had a red reflector and a test was made with a torch. It did not reflect the rays of the torch. It would be 6.40 when the accident occurred.
Cyclists Not Seen.
Under cross-examination by Mr Hanlon witness said that prior to the collision he was looking ahead, but he saw no sign of any bicycles. The one struck evidently came into the line just immediately before the car struck it. Had the bicycles been directly in front, witness thought it would have been impossible for him not to have seen them. Witness was unwell at the time. He received a considerable shock as the result of the accident and his memory of the details was consequently blurred.
To his Honour: The car lights would show up the road for about 20 feet. He did not drive a car, but he considered the lights illuminated for the same distance ahead as on others in which he had ridden at night.
The next witness was William Campbell, of Hampden, who said that on April 2 he was opposite Mr Prain's residence when he saw a car coming along. It was about 7 o'clock and shortly after he heard a crash. He looked up and saw the car stopping. Witness thought a tyre had been punctured.
J. R. Gould said that on April 2 he was inside Mr Prain's house, and about 6.30 he heard a crash. He went out and saw a car standing along the road, slightly to the south. Its lights were distinguishable through a gap at the gate. He saw a man stooping over an object on the side of the road. The car was backed to where the man was stooping, a matter of about three chains.
J. T. Myhon, a retired farmer, said he was on the road in the vicinity of the accident, on the evening of April 2. He noticed a car slowing down and it came to a stop just in front of Prain's gate. It was in the middle of the road and the light on the right-hand side was burning.
The last witness called was Constable Woodley. About 6.50 p.m. on April 2 he went to Sir Louis Barnett's residence. There was a car there, in the back seat of which he saw Johnston holding Magnus Laing. Wylie and Cook were also there. As Sir Louis Barnett was not at home the injured lad was taken to Murcott's home and was attended by Dr Trotter.
To Mr Creagh: He went to the scene of the accident about 8.301 that evening and found traces of blood. He took possession of a canvas bag and a pair of tennis shoes. Johnston informed him they belonged to Laing. He also took possession of I the damaged bicycle, which was the one produced in Court. He secured a statement from the accused which he read. Witness described the damage to the car which consisted of a bent bumper bar, broken lamp glass and bent bracket, a portion of the windscreen broken and an indentation in the bonnet. There were small spots of blood on the running board. He was present when Johnston took possession of his bicycle. It had a rear reflector and when it was being wheeled away he flashed a torch on it, but it did not show up. It was placed at the wrong angle. The spot where the accident occurred would be 21 miles from Oamaru.
This concluded the evidence.
Mr Creagh intimated that he did not wish to review the evidence.
Address to Jury.
In his address to the jury Mr Hanlon said that if a motorist drove recklessly and negligently and killed anyone, the driver was guilty under the Act. The question was whether the Crown had established the charges that the boy was killed through recklessness or negligence? If the jury was satisfied it had, then it would have to convict on one of the two charges. If, on the other hand, it was not satisfied, then it would have to acquit. Drink was a prolific source of accident, but the Crown had made no suggestion that drink entered into it in this case. The possibility of speeding was also eliminated as accused had taken about an hour to travel 22 miles. That was not speeding. Accused in his statement to the police had stated he had done 35 miles an hour at one stage. On seeing the notice at Hampden he had reduced speed. The car was proceeding along the crown of the road in a proper manner. It had not been suggested it was on its wrong side. There was nothing mechanically wrong with the car and it was lighted. Therefore, he submitted, all points of recklessness or negligence, on which the Crown's case depended, had been answered. The only other point was. whether accused maintained a proper lookout. There was nothing in the evidence to prove it, and the onus was on the Crown to establish accused's guilt. It was dusk when the accident happened — dark enough to use the car lights, and the time had arrived when vehicles required to be lighted. The two bicycles had no lights, and only one had a reflector. The one the deceased was riding had no reflector, and the evidence had gone to show the other did not shine. Unlighted bicycles were a menace to motorists at night. The damage to the car was all on the left side, and the doctor's opinion, formed on all the circumstances, that the unfortunate boy was outside the focus of the car lights and swerved in, he accepted as a reasonable explanation. The Crown had not put forward any theory, and if Dr Trotter's was not right, then there was another explanation and the jury had to find it. Accused had not tried to excuse himself in any way. On the contrary he had been honest and open about it. Accidents had happened before without contributory negligence.
His Honour in summing up said there were two counts or charges indicted against accused. The first was that on April 2, at Hampden, he did recklessly drive a motor car thereby causing the death of Magnus Laing. The second charge was similar, only it was reduced to negligence. If the jury found accused guilty on the first count, it was not necessary to consider the second. If he was found not guilty on the first then the second would have to be considered. Reckless driving meant driving in a manner indifferent to consequences. Negligent driving meant driving without showing that care which any reasonable and prudent driver would exercise. The law set down no impossible conditions for drivers. It had to be proved beyond doubt that accused did not exercise due care before he could be brought in guilty. There was a suggestion that accused failed to keep a careful and prudent lookout. It was not definitely known what speed he was travelling at, but 25 miles an hour between dusk and dark, with lights on, was not an unreasonable speed, providing vigilance was exercised. A driver to discharge his duty had to watch for traffic both ways. The facts were, (1) the cyclists and car were on their correct side of the road, and (2) the car collided with the cyclists without any knowledge of it to the driver until the accident had happened. The road was straight and there was no element of surprise. From the evidence visibility was good, as Stevenson saw and recognised the two cyclists. The car had the lights burning, so why did accused not see the cyclists? According to the regulations car lights should show 100 to 150 feet. If the lights of accused's car did not, then he had no right driving at 25 miles an hour. One bicycle did not have a reflector; the other had, but it did not function. But the driver of the car should have picked up such an object as a cyclist. The suggestion was that the cyclist swerved in and came in contact with the car, thus causing his own death. The doctor's evidence had to be considered. He was competent to speak as a witness, considering all the circumstances. The cyclists were on the side of the road where the left wheel of the car would he. Accused did not swerve because he did not see them.
In conclusion his Honour directed the jury to give consideration to the first count, but in the circumstances of the case to direct attention mainly to the second charge.
After a retirement of 25 minutes the jury brought in a verdict of not guilty on both charges and accused was discharge. -North Otago Times, 5/9/1929.
No comments:
Post a Comment