FATALITY AT CLARENDON
MOTOR CYCLIST KILLED
COLLISION WITH CAR
Thrown heavily from his motor cycle as the result of a collision with a motor car about 7 o’clock on Saturday night at Clarendon, within a short distance of the scene of a double motoring fatality a few years ago, Thomas Twaddle, aged eighteen years, suffered extensive head injuries and a compound fracture of the right leg, death being instantaneous.
Twaddle was riding his motor cycle from Oamaru (where he had been working as a general labourer) to his home at Lovell’s Flat, and when near Clarendon a collision occurred between the motor cycle and a motor car driven by Mr William J. Strang, of Messrs Henderson’s Stock and station agency, Invercargill. An Invercargill-Dunedin transport service lorry was preceding the motor car towards Dunedin, and Mr Strang was apparently endeavouring to pass the lorry at a favourable part of the straight road when his right-hand mudguard came into collision with the motor cycle. Twaddle was thrown heavily, death being instantaneous.
The deceased was the second son of Mrs and the late Mr John Twaddle, of Lovell’s Flat.
The body was taken to Milton Hospital, and an inquest was opened this morning, Mr H. J. Dixon, S.M., sitting as coroner. Evidence of identification was given by William Twaddle, an uncle of the deceased, and the inquest was then adjourned sine die. -Evening Star, 6/8/1934.
MRS TWADDLE and Family desire to Thank all relatives and friends for kind messages of sympathy and floral tributes in their recent sad bereavement; also Dr Mirams and hospital staff, Milton. -Otago Daily Times, 20/8/1934.
CLARENDON FATALITY
ADJOURNED INQUEST
CHARGE OF NEGLIGENT DRIVING.
(From Our Own Correspondent.) MILTON, September 14.
The adjourned inquest was held at the Milton Courthouse this morning into the circumstances surrounding the death of a young man named Thomas Twaddle, aged 18 years, who was killed near Clarendon on Saturday, August 4, us the result of a collision between his motor cycle and a motor car driven by William James Strang, of Invercargill.
In conjunction with the inquest, a charge was laid against Strang of negligently driving the car, thereby causing the death of Twaddle.
Mr H. J. Dixon, S.M., presided as magistrate and coroner. The inquiry was conducted by Detective Sergeant Doyle (Dunedin). Mr A. C. Hanlon, K.C., appeared on behalf of the accused, and Mr D. J. Sumpter watched the proceeding on behalf of the relatives.
Dr N. T. Mirams, Medical practitioner, Milton, gave evidence that he was called to the scene of the accident about 6.45 p.m. on the date mentioned, and proceeded there in company with Constable Kerse. The deceased’s body was lying m the water channel. On examination he discovered head injuries, with laceration of the brain. Death must have been instantaneous. The body was removed to the Morgue at Milton Hospital, where, on further examination, witness discovered other extensive injuries, including compound facture of the right leg. There was not the slightest evidence of liquor about the deceased. Wituess questioned Strang, the driver of the car, as to how the accident occurred, but he did not answer. The head injuries were consistent with the deceased having been struck by some portion of the motor car. Death was due to a fracture or tlie skull and the other extensive injuries.
Francis Stoddart Little, surveyor in the employ of the Survey Department, produced a plan which he had prepared of the scene of the accident, and gave evidence regarding the position of the motor vehicles on the road.
After the foregoing evidence had been heard at the sitting of the Magistrates Court in the charge against Strong, the Coroner’s Court was opened, when evidence in the inquest was resumed.
Alexander William Milne (Dunedin), motor driver for Robinson’s Motor transport Service, gave evidence that he was proceeding from Invercargill to Dunedin in a six-wheel Leyland motor lorry, and was accompanied by a passenger, George Stanley Jones, who was journeying from Gore to Dunedin. When passing the hall at Clarendon witness was driving on his correct side, and maintained that course, about three to four feet from the grass on the left-hand side. He noticed in the mirror on his lorry the lights of a motor vehicle following behind, and pulled further over to his left side. He was travelling at about 15 miles an hour. Witness also noticed the light of a motor cycle approaching from a northerly direction. He estimated that the speed of the motor cycle was about 20 miles per hour. The motor car travelling behind witness's lorry had almost caught up, and he heard a crash immediately after the motor cycle had passed his lorry. The crash sounded as if it had occurred at the tail end of the lorry. He immediately stopped and went back, when he discovered the motor cycle lying about 20 yards to the rear of the lorry, and facing towards Milton. The motor cycle was lying on the near side of the road, with the deceased’s body directly opposite in the water channel. Strang had also stopped his car and returned to the scene of the accident. Strang asked witness what speed he thought he (Strang) was travelling at. Witness could not remember replying to Strang, but the latter continued by remarking, I think I was doing 30 to 35 miles an hour. Before Witness stopped his lorry Strang's motor car cut across in front of his (witness's) lorry to the left-hand side of the road, narrowly missing striking the front mudguard. Witness estimated that Strang was travelling at about 40 miles an hour when he passed the lorry and cut in front. Strang’s car proceeded about 60 yards after the crash before it was stopped, about 10 yards beyond the junction leading to Berwick road. The night was dark, but good for driving. The road was dry and the visibility good. He did not hear Strang sound the horn of his motor car. The road was straight tor a considerable distance, and the surface covered with metal screenings. When passing the lorry, the deceased was riding the motor cycle well over towards his correct side of the road.
To the coroner: The motor cycle was lying about four feet from the edge of the channel, and about a similar distance from the body.
George Stanley Jones, metal worker, North-East Valley, Dunedin, who was a passenger on the previous witness's lorry, gave corroborative evidence. He estimated that Strang’s car was travelling about 30 to 35 miles an hour when he passed the motor lorry, and swerved across the road immediately in front of the lorry. Witness heard Strang say "I did not see the man.” The night was dark but the visibility was good, and the weather was fine.
Evidence was also given by Constable A. Kerse, Milton, who accompanied Dr Mirams to the scene of the fatality. After their arrival Strang came to witness and remarked “I am the driver of the car and have killed a man.” Witness also gave evidence regarding the position of the lorry, cycle, and motor car on his arrival. He examined Strang’s car — a five-seater Buick sedan — which was bespattered with blood on one side and on portion of the glass in the windscreen. He did not take any measurements that night, but returned next morning, when he discovered the handle grip of the deceased’s motor cycle lying on the road in some broken glass.
Formal evidence was also given by Detective Sergeant Doyle, who produced photographs of the locality.
This concluded the evidence in the inquest, which was formally adjourned sine die
The Magistrate’s Court was reopened, when the various witnesses attested to their evidence at the inquest.
Strang was formally charged and pleaded not guilty. The defence was reserved, and he was committed for trial at the October sitting of the Supreme Court. Bail was allowed in one surety of £100 and self £100. -Otago Daily Times, 15/9/1934.
CLARENDON FATALITY
MOTOR DRIVER CHARGED
TRIAL IN SUPREME COURT
The fatal collision at Clarendon on the night of August 4 had its sequel in the Supreme Court to-day, when the trial was held of a young man, William James Strang, on a charge of negligently driving a motor car, thereby causing the death of Thomas Twaddle.
Accused, who pleaded not guilty, was represented by Mr A. C. Hanlon, K.C., with him Mr K. G. Roy, and Mr J. H. Main (Oamaru) acted as Crown Prosecutor. Mr Justice Kennedy presided.
Opening the case, Mr Main said the crime charged was akin to manslaughter in the Crimes Act. There was no suggestion that drink entered into the case at all; very often drink was a considerable factor. The only evidence of the consumption of liquor was contained in the statement by the accused to the police, but the consumption was so slight that the suggestion was made to the jury that no heed whatever should be given to it. The position then was that the accused, in his sober senses, so negligently drove a car that he caused the death of another human being. It was not necessary that the Crown should prove gross or culpable negligence, but only that the accused, by the want of exercise of due care, caused the death of the unfortunate young man. With the increase of mechanical means of transport, it was regrettable that road accidents had also increased, and the jury, in common with all juries empanelled to try similar cases, was in duty bound to assist the court to prevent such occurrences.
The circumstances of the case were admittedly very distressing, the accused being twenty-four years of age and the deceased eighteen years. On the night of the fatality Twaddle was proceeding on his motor cycle from Oamaru to visit his mother at Lovell’s Flat. The accident occurred on the Main South road at Clarendon, six miles north of Milton. The accused, who lived at Invercargill, was travelling to Dunedin in a sedan car, in which his mother and Mrs Gavin were passengers, and had left Invercargill at 2.45 and Milton at 6.5. Two witnesses — Alexander William Milne and a man named Jones — would give what might be called first-hand evidence of the accident. Milne was the driver of a six-wheeled lorry, and Jones was a passenger in the cab. When at Clarendon Milne noticed in his mirror the lights of a car approaching from the rear, about half a mile away. At the same time he noticed a light coming from the north. He would say that, he was travelling at about fifteen miles an hour, and that the motor cyclist passed him at a speed of twenty to twenty-five miles an hour. Immediately the cycle passed the cab there was a crash, a collision having occurred between Strang’s car and Twaddle’s cycle.
The lorry was pulled up promptly, but the car proceeded for an estimated distance of sixty yards, said Mr Main, Milne estimated that the speed of the car was forty miles an hour. That estimate was corroborated by a statement which accused himself made to the police at Milton. About twenty yards behind the lorry Milne and Jones found the cycle lying about six feet out from the edge of the metalled portion of the road, and the deceased in the water-table. The light of the cycle was still burning. Accused returned to the scene, and it was significant that he questioned the two men as to their estimates of his speed, and volunteered the information that be was travelling at between thirty and thirty-five miles an hour. The road at this particular spot was level, and was straight for a long distance. The evidence would be that the visibility was good. The lorry left a width of 10ft to other users of the road, and that was sufficient if care were exercised by others. ]f the lorry was creating a cloud of dust, the accused showed negligence in proceeding. In attempting to pass the lorry accused committed a breach of the regulations prohibiting the passing of a vehicle by another when a third vehicle was approaching. After Dr Mirams had examined Twaddle and found that he was dead, the constable examined the scene. The Crown's case was that if accused had used the care expected of him the would not have occurred.
Evidence on the conclusion of the Crown Prosecutor's address was given by
Francis Little (a surveyor for the Lands Department), Dr Noel Mirams (Milton), Alexander William Milne, George Stanley Jones, Constable Kerse (Milton), and Detective-sergeant Doyle.
No evidence was called for the defence.
“This is probably one of the shortest cases of the motor manslaughter type to come before the court, because it is contained in a very small compass of time and distance and very few facts are involved,” said Mr Hanlon in his address to the jury. There had been practically no dispute about the facts. The jury would have noticed that it was unnecessary for him to cross-examine most of the witnesses, for they had told the truth as far as they could see in the circumstances. In the first place, they had to find whether there was negligent driving on the part of the accused; secondly, they had to inquire whether such negligent driving caused the death of Twaddle. What were the circumstances surrounding the unfortunate affair? The motor lorry and the cycle were passing on a practically flat and level piece of road when the collision occurred. The first thing to be impressed upon the jury was that there was no suggestion of drinking or that accused was careless under the influence of drink. The case had been most fairly placed before them by the Crown Prosecutor, who had said drink was not involved. Was it a case of speeding? was the next question. Was the accused travelling at an excessive rate of speed, either for “show-off” purposes, joy riding, or anxiety to get to some particular place in an inordinately short period of time? The only evidence about speeding in this case was that when the accident happened the motor car shot past the lorry at an angle, evidently trying to avoid both the lorry and the youth. But that happened after the collision. Probabilities should also be taken into consideration by the jury. If a young man had a young woman beside him and was out on a party there might be a careless form of driving through his paying too much attention to the woman instead of to his wheel. Strang was accompanied in the front seat by his best friend in the world, his mother. What were the probabilities of his taking unnecessary risks, driving carelessly, and speeding under such a circumstance? Apart from any feeling which a man might have, the mother would probably think that she would exercise some control if there was anything in the way of recklessness or carelessness on her son’s part. The probabilities were that the young man was not negligent and had not done anything that a prudent man would not have done in similar circumstances. The accused in his statement to the police had made no attempt to minimise anything he had done. It was a plain, honest statement. He did not see any light approaching when he attempted to pass the lorry. His mother said. “Look-out!” or “My God, you’ve hit him,” and there was a crash. The statement showed that the mother also saw nothing almost until the moment of impact. It could not be expected that accused should have stayed behind a lorry travelling at only 15 miles, said Mr Hanlon. The accused followed the lorry for some chains, and when on a straight and flat road he made up his mind to do what any reasonable man would do — he pulled up and probably speeded up. Unfortunately the moment he was emerging from the dust arising from the rear of the lorry the cycle loomed up and the collision occurred. With the slightest more space the accident would not have happened. It did not follow that because a young man had lost his life another should be gaoled or punished. After His Honour had summed up the jury retired at 12.50.
VERDICT OF ACQUITTAL.
After a retirement of one and a-half hours, the jury returned with a verdict of not guilty, and Strang was discharged. -Evening Star, 24/10/1934.
Balclutha Cemetery.
