THE BOWEN-STREET FATALITY

Evening Post, Volume LXXIII, Issue 28, 2 February 1907, Page 9

THE BOWEN-STREET FATALITY

CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER. ACCUSED COMMITTED FOR TRIAL. The magisieri.il investigation into the fatality at the corner of Lambton-quay and Bowen-streefc, on 17th December, when Mrs. Amy Kensington was Icnocked down by a fire engine and killed, was concluded yesterday afternoon. The Deputy Superintendent of the Fire Brigade (William St\\lien O'Brien) and the driver of the motor engine (Palmer Otto Spry) were jointly charged with (1) Recklessly driving a motor car 4 'which caused the death of Mrs. Kensington, and (2) with the manslaughter of Mrs. Kensington. Dr. A. M'Artliur, S.M., presided. Mr. .\lyors prosecuted, and Mr. SkeTrett, with him Mr. Wilford, appeared for the- defendants. For the defence -Mr. Wilford said he proposed addressing the court, arid then, if his Worship found there was a prima facie case, to reserve his evidence for the jury. There was a grave duty and Tes- j possibility upon his Wbrship in COfiCS of I this nature, where public servants and men who were engaged in public positions for "the public weal -wore concerned in 'the carrying out of public duties. Thpugh care should be taken by men in driving a fiio brigade 'engine, there was a' big responsibility on the public as well. ,He related ho-.v ho had seen people making way for the London Fire Brigade on the Strand, and said thcro was a 'responsibility on tho people to be careful and watch the brigade. They found in the piesont case that the unfortunate ladies received injuries and that ono of them was killed. Sontinient- must not take the plaoo of a judicial analysis of the whole of the facts, and popular .prejudice should not weigh where matters such as the court had before it were iv evidence, and at stake-. In dealing with these matters they must look at tho question as to whether there was any negligence at- all upon which his Worship as a magistrate could find a prima facie case. There was no evidence, before the court as to the weight of the fire engine. Mr Myers had quoted the Motor Car Regulation Act in his, opening remarks ; but that Act said if the mechanical contrivance weighed more than three tons the statute did not apply. Mr. Myors : I said that if this did not apply there was, a section of r&e Criminal Code which did apply.' > Continuing, Mr. WUford directed hU Worship's attention «o section '24, subclause 3, of tho Fire Brigades Act, 1906, which said that on any alarm of nro the superintendent should with all possible speed proceed to the place where • such fire was, and there direct tho working of the brigade, and so on. Mr. Myers : ii r ou do not say he should disregard the public safety. Mr. Wilford : That is the question for his Worship in determining this case, it seems to me. Continuing, counsel referrod to tho conflicting evidence, and to the alleged unsatisfactory evidence, and askea his Worship," in considering tfye case, to look at the probability of a jury finding a prima facie case and not tho. possibility. His Worship said this case was of such great importance to the public that while he sympathised with' the men he thought it would be better for them that the facts concerning the rate of speed at which they were -going should bo decided by a jury "in the higher court. It would not be right for him to express any opinion, here. ( " Ho had been on the car and he was satisfied that it had been declutched, _ and that the declutching had reduced- the speed onethird. The questions were in what proximity to the corner was the declutching jdone, and what was the speed which preceded the act. That was wnere tho conflict of evidence 'came in, and ho .thought it should be decided ,in the higher court. , . The accused reserved their defence and were committed for trial. Bail was allowed each in his own recognisance in tho sum of £100.