CHARGED AGAIN.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIX, Issue 282, 29 November 1938, Page 11

CHARGED AGAIN.

DRIVERS IN COURT. UNUSUAL PLEA ADVANCED. COMMENT BT MAGISTRATE. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) PALMERSTON XORTH, Monday. The unusual plea of autrefois acquit was heard in the Magistrate'e Court today, when John Jamee Francis Levens was charged with having attempted to drive a car over a railway crossing at a time when it was not clear. Mr. G. I. McGregor, who appeared for defendant, told Mr. H. P. Lawry, S.M.. that accused had been acquitted in the Supreme Court on a charge of negligent driving causing bodily harm, and now lie was charged under Section 9 of the Government Railways Act with attempting to croes the line when a. train was approaching. The two charges hail arisen out of the same set of circumstances. The magistrate pointed out that the Supreme Court could not have punished the defendant for the offence with which he was now charged. There would bo an offence whether there was bodii.v injury or not, or whether or not the car was hit by a train. Not Sufficient Evidence? Mr. McGregor submitted the defendant could not be charged with a breach of a statutory duty that had been the basis of a negligence claim in the Supreme Court. '"It looks as if evidence which would be sufficient to justify a conviction on the present charge would not be sufficient to justify a conviction in the Supreme Court,"' said the magistrate. "However, as Mr. McGregor has raised the issue, I won't decide it now." The decision was reserved. Prior to hearing the above case the magistrate had before him a charge concerning another railway crossing accident that had been the subject of Supreme Court proceedings. T. S. R. Taylor, represented by Mr. McGregor, pleaded guilty to having attempted to drive a car across a level crossing when the line was not clear. Worry and Expense. Inspector Cummings told the Court that the defendant's car had been struck by a train, causing the death of two passengers. Defendant had been tried lin the Supreme Court on a charge of negligent driving causing death, and had been acquitted. After pointing out that defendant had had much worry and expense as a result of the accident, ae well as injuries, Mr. McGregor suggested that where the driver of a car had already been charged with an indictable offence it was unnecessary that he be brought before the Court for a statutory offence. Apparently the Railway Department had instructed the police to take action. Counsel suggested that one prosecution was sufficient in euch cases, and he aeked that the defendant be convicted and discharged. "Cases of this sort are not common in New Zealand, although I have had them before," said Mr. Lawry. "There was a case in Christchurch last week when the magistrate took the view that the law did not give immunity from further prosecution."

Mr. Lawry convicted defendant and ordered him to pay 21/ costs.