THE WHANGAMARINO SMASH.

Auckland Star, Volume XLV, Issue 215, 9 September 1914, Page 3

THE WHANGAMARINO SMASH.

PORTER DONALDSON ACQUITTED. . OF MANSLAUGHTER CHARGE. 'After a retirement of only ten minutciv the jury empanneled to try Porter William Donaldson on a charge of msnrfanghter arising out of the WhaBganiarino railway accident of May last, returned a verdict of *\>iot guilty/ 1 and the accused was discharged. Xo evidence was called for the defence, !Mr. J. C. Martin, contenting himself with addressing -the jriry. Counsel contended that it nrast be clearly proved that the accused was guilty of a distinct breach of negligence The only rule of the railway service that he. could bo said to have broken -ivas that which was laid dowu that siernalmen mnst examine their signals '•frequently." This last was an indefinite term, and obviously gave the eignalman a. fairly wide discretion. He ■was to examine them as often as he judged necessary. The accused saw the back light of the signal, which served to indicate that the latter was at "danger," at about midnight, and six hours later, wheE he. did not spe the light, he attributed it to fog; -which had always 'been responsible on ■previous occasions. As he haxi only a few minutes in which to get the goods train ("tear of the line before the express arrived, he did not fee] justified in going several hundred yards toward the Mgnal to satisfy himself that it was right. He had never iprevioualy had trouble -with the signal, and was fairly justified , in assuming that nothing was wrong. The adjusting of the signals, was no part of his duty, and be had no reason to anticipate the combination of causes that actually brought the signal from "danger , to "safety.' . Counsel further referred to the accused's clean departmental record, his reputation for carefulness, and the physical suffering that had resulted from his injuries in the collision. His Honor, Mr. Justice Cooper, in summing up, referred to the difficulty of setting up any standard of culpable negligence. In the case of the accused, it must be clearly proved that he had knowingly neglected to carry out a definite and distinct duty. The accused himself, in his evidence in the. lower court had candidly and fairly summed ■up the case both for and against himself ■when he said that he had relied upon the proper working of the signals, as he Icnew they were in order, though this assumption he afterwards knew was a ■along one. The aocused; ■was relying, in making thin assumption, on the fact that -the wgnals had worked without a. bitch •for cix months previously, and he could not have foreseen the various causes Cat -combined! to make the signal drop,,