FATALITY AT ALBURY.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 20025, 5 September 1930, Page 16

FATALITY AT ALBURY.

MOTORISTS AND BRIDGES.

COMMENT BY MAGISTRATE. (srECJAI, TO THE TIMAED, September 4. The danger attendant on motorists crossing bridges ■without taking due precautions was commented on in the Magistrate's Court to-day, when Mr C. It. Orr Walker, S.M., road his reserved judgment in tho case in which James Armit Simpson, aged 19 years, a lorry-driver employed by John Hamilton Smillie, w as charged with having driven, on May 19th last at Rocky Gully bridge, Albury, in a manner which might bo dangerous to the public. Inspector 1. S. Bird appeared for the police'and Mr \V. 11. Walton on behalf of tho driver and tho owner of the lorry. His Worship said that a man had died as a consequence of a collision on the bridgo, but the police had not charged the defendant with negligently killing this man, and he understood that they had no intention of to doing. Tho real question in the case was whether defendant in driving on to tlrj bridge did so in a dangerous manlier. Ft hacj been proved that tho defendant was driving a heavily-laden lorry from his employer's mine beyond Albury to J'ocky Gully to unload coal, fie had his headlights on. Though not very defective they did not fully comply with tho requirements of tho regulations. The lorry was not an old one, and tho brakes, of modern type, were, as claimed by the defendant and his employer, in and proper condition. This had been confirmed by tho police. The defendant and u witness named Cox, who accompanied him on the journey, estimated that they approached the bridge at about 20 miles an hour, and that as they came to the actual bridge tho speed was about 15 miles an hour. As in all estimates of speed after accidents, Courts had to accept them with £rcnt caution, and even suspicion, ana one must accordingly consider how far the opinion of defendant and Cox in this case agreed with the proved fact*. After reviewing this evidence, his. Worship said it was olear that the lorry went at least 77ft. and probably over 80ft, after nil the brakes had been jammed on when the serious danger was noticed at the commencement of the bridge. If effective, the brakes should havo stopped the lorry going at 20 mitotan hour in 50ft. In followed that as it bad pulled up in 80ft with ail the brakes on and with the assistance of the railing of the bridge, tho speed must have been nearer SO Htan 20 miles an hour. The bridge was 17Oft long and 12ft Sin vide, and was well known to defendant as n dangerous one. The lorry was 7ft 2in wide. It was 6 p.m. and dark at the tune or "the accident. Defendant should not have entered that narrow bridge at such a high speed, especially as he could not clearly see the full length of i f . lie mudL convict defendant of the offence.

With regard to the punishment, the Magistrate said that be must not lose •iijzht of the fact that defendant was not charged with causing the death >f the hor.-:eman by negligent driving, '■ind the punishment he inflicted must bn viewed accordingly. Defendant was a youth of 19 years, with very little driving experience In his opinion it had been wrong of defendant's employer to send him out in chaise of a heavy lorry loaded with four tons of coal to deliver after 6 p.m., eight tciles from his homo. Defendant would not arrive back home till probably well after 7 p.m., and ho had not had his tea. These facts probably accounted for the excessive speed at which he bad driven the lorry on to the bridge. The Magistrate ad fled that he thought the ends -if justice would be met if defendant were prohibited from driving motor vehicles for a period, and accordingly his present driver's license would lw canceller!.- Defendant was also ordered to pay Court costs.

Mr Walton askerl that a fine of £5 Is be inflicted, so that he would have tho right to appeal. Counsel made the request on the grounds that proof could be brought of the fact that defendant's speed of ]u miles an hour had not been brought out at the trial. The Magistrate:, It is rather strange that that evidence was not given I Mr Walton: The speed had been observed at a point 100 yards from "the bridge. The Magistrate: The defendant may have speeded up during that distance. Mr Walton: Tho witness who appeared was not asked the question as to speed. The Magistrate: I did not decide on th<> witness Cox's evidence. I can only give my decision on the evidence hrought before mo. The Court is not bound to inflict a fine of £o In. J. decided on the actual proved facts. I will consider the point raised by oounscl, and will give my decision on enterina; up judgment at Fairlie next Monday.