THE OPAPA DERAILMENT

Evening Star, Issue 19186, 1 March 1926, Page 3

THE OPAPA DERAILMENT

MANSLAUGHTER FOUND AGAINST LAVIN RECOMMENDATION TO MERCY [Per United Press Association.] NAPIER, February 28. The charge of manslaughter against Fredk. Lavin, the driver of the express train on the occasion of the derailment at Opapa. was concluded yesterday afternoon when the jury returned a verdict of guilty. _ _ The Chief Justice (Mr Justice Skcrrett), in summing up, said the chief regulation with which rhe jury was concerned was that, which regulated the speed round the Te-Ante curves. The questions for the jury were: Did the engine driver exceed the maximum speed round these, curves? and, if so, did that contribute to the deaths of the three persons named? These questions the Crown had a right to have answered affirmatively. The evidence of the Crown as to speed, which was obtained from twenty witnesses, was variously estimated at speeds of 50, 45, 54. 35, 40, 60, and 40 miles an hour. Precise reliance could not be placed on these, but they indicated that the speed was substantially over 25-miles per hour. All the other witnesses called said the speed was excessive, that there were exclamations of alarm, and.that the passengers were thrown about. Against the allegations of excessive speed, the defence had called Mr Davidson, who said that he noticed nothing unusual in the pace of the train, and that tho brakes were applied. Air Yates did not notice any excessive speed. His Honor pointed out that this evidence was purely negative. There were some persons who did not notice things, and these men might nob have noticed the speed of the train. His Honor suggested that this evidence was not of much value to tho jury, which had to decide if the preponderance of evidence as to speed was iu favor of the Crown. Tho defence had said that the Crown had not called the guard and the assistant guard. His Honor said it was not obligatory for the Crown to call these witnesses. One had actually been called by the defence and had not appeared. On the other hand, it was the duty of tho defence to call M. Donovan, the fireman, wlio could know the speed of tho engine and whether the brakes were applied. They could also have called Marshall, who was an engine driver, and who would probably know tho speed of the train. Regarding the allegations of a third man being on the engine, and the presence of drink, His Honor said these wore not crucial, but they were inportant. There undoubtedly was a third man on the engine right from Ormondville to the sceno of the accident. With regard to the boor, no one but the men in the engine knew what went on there. Was the speed excessive at tho curve? Was this the cause of tlie accident? Tho jury had to decide these questions. If they had no doubt of the fact, then it was their duty to convict. If they had reasonable doubt they must acquit the accused.

Tho jury, which deliberated two and a-hnlf hours, brought in a verdict of guilty, and added a strong recommendation to mercy. The prisoner was remanded till to-morrow for sentence.