12 January, 1956.] THE LEEWARD ISLANDS GAZETTE. | 9

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE WINDWARD ISLANDS AND
LEEWARD ISLANDS.

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE WINDWARD ISLANDS
AND LEEWARD ISLANDS.

APPELATE JURISDICTION.

Between:—
Ivan Epwarpbs Appellant.
vs.
JosePpH E. Byron
Inspector of Police Respondent.
1954. No. 1—ANTIGUA.
Before:—

JACKSON C.J.
GORDON J.
LEWIS J. (Acting)
1955. December 12, 15.
Mr. S. T. Crristian for the appellant.

Mr. R. H. Lockgarrt for the respondent.
JUDGMENT.

This appeal is from a judgment and order of Date, J., affirming the conviction and sentence of
the appellant by the Magistrate, District A, on a charge that he on the 18th May, 1953, being the driver
of a motor car when abont to stop did fail to draw up us close as possible to the side of the road so as to
allow aclear roadway for passing traffic contrary to Reg. 19 (11) of the Vehicles and Road Traffic
Regulations 1946.

The charge arose out of a collision in Market Street on the 18th May, 1953, between two
vehicles, motor car A.G. 808 driven by the appellant in a southerly direction and motor truck A.G. 159
driven by one Ernest Joseph in the opposite direction. Ernest Joseph was charged with driving
without due care and attention under Sec. 53 of the Vehicles and Road Traffic Ordinance 1946.

Both cases were heard together by consent of the parties. At the close of the case for the
prosecution, after a submission by Counsel for the appellant, that there was no case to answer, had been
overruled, the defendant Ernest Joseph gave evidence. The appellant, relying on the submission made
earlier, declined to give any evidence and was convicted and fined $5.00 or 14 days Hard Labour.

In his judgment the learned Judge adopted the findings of fact by the Magistrate which,
inter alia were as follows:—

(i) In the position where vehicle A.G. 808 stopped there was a space of 7ft. between the left
front wheel and the Bast kerb of Market Street and a space of 7ft. 10 inches between the left rear wheel
and the East kerb.

(ii) That there was no evidence that at the time of stopping, there was any reason why
A.G. 808 could not have pulled up next to its left hand kerb instead of 7ft. away from it.

(iii) That A.G. 808 came to a halt just before the collision 1.e. that when the front of A.G. 159
passed the front of A.G. 808 the latter was at a standstill.

It is clear from the reasons given by the Magistrate that the conviction was based on the fact
as found by him that the appellant stopped his car Just before the other vehicle reached him. In
arriving at this conclusion he relied on the evidence of Sgi. Roberts and James Dor.

It would appear that the learned Judge was also of the opinion that the evidence established a
prima facie case against the appellant and accordingly dismissed the appeal. A close examination
however reveals that the evidence of Sgt. Roberts and Dor does not lend support to the conclusion at
which the Magistrate arrived. Whether the appellant’s car stopped before or after the two vehicles
came into contact, is a vital point in the case.