WAS IT MANSLAUGHTER?

Evening Post, Volume LXXXI, Issue 85, 11 April 1911, Page 4

WAS IT MANSLAUGHTER?

A MOTORMAN'S FATE. / The death of a motorman at Auckland in a tramway accident was the subject of a case before the Court of Appeal yesterday afternoon, William Ernest i)awe being the appellant. Mr. J. R. Reed appeared for appellant, and Mr. J. W. Salmond for the Crown. Tho jury found that appellant on or about 29th November, 1910, at Auckland, committed manslaughter by killing Thos. Albert Thompson. Accused v/as a motorman on the Auckland tramways, driving car No. 58. Appellant's car collided with No. 70. The impact was not severe,, but it forced car 70 slightly j forward. At the moment of the. col- ' lision Thompson was in the act of at- , tempting to couple cars 71 and 70, and his head was between tho buffers of each car. The" impact crushed his head between the two buffers, causing his instantaneous death. The verdict of the jury stated: "We consider the accused guilty of neglect of duty caused by extenuating circumstances, but not gross neglect, and strongly recommend him to mercy." In answer to a question put to the jury by Mr. Justice Cooper, they said that they could not unanimously formulate extenuating circumstances, although they ail agreed that there were extenuating circumstances, and stated that they w.ere 1 unable to enter any other verdict than the one stated. I The questions for the consideration of I the court were : — _(1) Is the verdict of the jury a verdict of guilty with a recommendation to mercy ? (2) Is it a verdict of not guilty? (3) Is it too inconclusive to be the one or the other? At the end of hie Honour's statement of the case ho said if it was too inconclusive the prisoner would be retried at the next criminal sittmns at Auckland (on 22nd May). Mr. Salmond submitted that the verdict was one of guilty. It was a general verdict, not a special oi*e. He said that it, was also a general verdict of guilty. Mr. Justice Chapman : Yw : the jury brought in a lecommendation to mercy. Mr. Reed submitted that prisoner was an exceedingly careful man. No accident would have happened but for an extraordinarj* combination of circumstances. He contended that neglect should be grops neglect to justify a verdict of guilty. The verdict, he' maintained, was one of acquittal. Their Honours reserved their decision.