WOMAN DROWNED
CAR PLUNGES INTO CREEK
(By Telegraph. — Press Association.)
DUNEDIN, This Day. A car driven by Theodore Allen with two passengers, Mrs. May Jones and Mrs. Bertha Simpson, when returning from Waipori late last night, swerved off the road near Berwick and plunged ton feet into a creek with three feet of water. The car turned over and Mrs. Jones was pinned underneath and drowned. The others were brought to Dunedin Hospital. Their injuries are not serious. -Evening Post, 12/8/1929.
DEATHS
JONES. — On the 12th August, 1929, accidentally killed at Berwick, May, dearly beloved wife of James Jones, 210 High street aged 58 years. Private interment. — Hugh Gourlev, Ltd., undertakers. -Evening Star, 12/8/1929.
BERWICK FATALITY
VERDICT OF ACCIDENTAL DEATH
CORONER TAKES WITNESSES TO TASK
“This is a case of misadventure, rather than of palpable negligence,” said the Coroner (Mr J. K. Bartholomew, S.M.) at the inquest yesterday afternoon on the. body of Mrs May Jones, in returning a verdict that death was due to drowning, the result of a car accidentally overturning on the Waipori road, near Berwick. “The evidence shows that Theodore Allan, the driver of the car, safely negotiated the dangerous Waipori Falls road, and then went over the bank after coming on to the flat. The question is How did the accident happen? There has been some reference to Allan’s condition, but the evidence regarding the liquor has not been satisfactory. Some of the witnesses have not been candid, and others have been untruthful. Crabbe, who was in the car, say that he did not see whether Allan had any drink or not. That is inconceivable. Mrs Simpson, in her statement to the police, said that Allan and the other men in the car had a drink, and now she contradicts it by saying that only Allan had a drink. Then Allan himself admits that he had two glasses of ale. But three witnesses who saw him after the accident say that he smelt of liquor; and gave evidence concerning his conduct when they found him. They agree that his condition might have been due to shock. Dr Wylie and Constable Southgate saw him two hours after the accident, and both state that, although he smelt of liquor, he was sober. For a man to drive down such a dangerous road requires skill and care, and it is almost impossible for an intoxicated man to have done it. In consideration of the evidence, it cannot be said that Allan was intoxicated.”
When the proceedings were resumed in the afternoon Mr W. G. Hay opened on behalf of Allan.
Constable Southgate stated that he made an examination of the road where he accident occurred, and found that the car had swerved off the road some 1Oft from the bridge. He followed the wheel tracks back thirty-six paces from the bridge, and saw that the car had swerved 2ft off the ordinary tracks. Twenty-six paces further back there was a similar swerve. Witness saw Allan about 3.15 a.m., some two hours after the accident. He was quite sober, but smelt strongly of drink. Allan attributed the accident to the fact that his wind screen was blurred with the rain. There was a small full flask of whisky or brandy in his coat. The road was very narrow, and difficult to drive on. If a man was under the influence of liquor, witness thought he would lave trouble in driving through. There are some nasty hairpin bends, and no paint or sides on the bridge.
To Mr Hay: The road was certainly dangerous, and there was very little room to spare. Allan had passed the most dangerous section. The shower that blurred his windscreen might have been responsible for his erratic driving.
A written statement by Dr R. H. McC. Wylie, who visited the scene with Constable Southgate, was handed in. The doctor was quite certain that Allan was sober when he examined him two hours after the accident. He was suffering considerably from shock.
Theodore Allan, a labourer employed by the Dunedin City Corporation, and residing at 210 High street, stated that on the trip to Waipori they stopped at Green Island to obtain a permit to go through Mr Reid’s property at Berwick. No liquor was consumed there. On the way out he was passed two glasses of ale, which he drank. He could not say whether any of the others had liquor or not. At the time he drank the ale the car was going very slowly, almost at walking pace. He thought they might have arrived at Waipori about 9.30 p.m. After leaving Crabbe and Farrell, he accompanied Mrs Jones (his sister) and Mrs Simpson to the former’s house. No liquor was consumed there. They left about two hours later for town. The steering gear and the lights were in good order. Witness did not remember running off the wheel tracks. He did not see the bridge at all, as the lights were misleading. He was travelling from 10 to 15 miles an hour at the time. After the accident occurred he did not have the slightest idea how he got out from under the car. He heard Mrs Simpson call out, and had considerable difficulty in getting her to the bank. He did not hear a word from Mrs Jones, and on going to the car could only get her head clear of the water. He thought that her body must have been jammed between the seat and a bag of blocks which was in the car. Witness had no idea of the time he sat holding her there. He could not drag her clear, and was absolutely exhausted. Witness stated that he was perfectly sober at the time of the accident.
To Mr Hay: the witness said that if he had used any bad language to the men who appeared on the scene he knew nothing of it.
Harry Berland, a taxi proprietor, said that the road in question was very dangerous. A man under the influence of drink could not negotiate it. He visited the scene the next day, and quite understood how the accident occurred. There was a slight bend to the right immediately on to the bridge, in such a situation the lights of a car could be misleading, for the beams would point straight ahead. There was some gravel beside the road, and this night also have misled the driver. The bridge itself was several inches below the level of the road, and a driver night not notice the bridge until he was immediately on it. In going round inch a corner as this every motorist drove blind for a second of two. Witness did not think the lights of the car would shine on the bridge while the curve was being taken.
Maurice Hilton Reid, who gave evidence in the morning, was then recalled by the police. He stated that there vas no loose gravel beside the bridge, nor was the statement that the lights would not shine on the bridge true. The road was quite level going on to the bridge.
To Mr Hay, the witness said that in going round a bend like this a motorist would be driving slightly into the dark. He would not swear that there was no loose gravel from the point of he accident to the bridge. He was of the opinion that the floor of the bridge could be seen 30ft back. This evidence concluded the inquest. -Evening Star, 24/8/1929.
No comments:
Post a Comment