SEQUEL TO CROSSING TRAGEDY

Evening Star, Issue 21783, 27 July 1934, Page 3

SEQUEL TO CROSSING TRAGEDY

MOTORIST CONVICTED OF NEGLIGENCE.

[Per United Press Association.]

AUCKLAND, July 26. On a'charge of negligently driving a motor car so as to cause death, Frank Impey, aged -forty-nine (Mr Allan Moody), was found guilty by a Supreme Court jury, with a strong recommendation to, mercy. Mr Justice Herdman, who conducted the trial, said he would certainly giye effect to the recommendation. Impey was the driver of a car with three passengers which was struck by the express 'from Opua at the Waitakere level crossing on March 23. Two of the occupants of the car—Charles Manderson and James Higgs—died from their injuries while they were being taken-to.-hospital. Mr Meredith, Crown Prosecutor, appeared for the Crown. The Judge drew the attention of the jury to the Statute which made a person . criminally. responsible if by his own neglect in driving a motor vehicle he caused the death of someone else. This legislation had been passed in the interests of the safety of the public. It was said by the Crown that the accused did not keep a proper look-out and did not have his car under proper control. This man -was bound in his own interests and in the interests of those in the car with him to keep a sharp look-out for, danger at this crossing. The jury was entitled to come to the conclusion that he'had a fair view of the line for a considerable distance. The judge said he did not know that the speed of the train had anything to do with. it. " The , Railways Department, 1 suppose,” be said, “is entitled, subject to its own regulations, to travel at what speed it likes.” When a . motor driver approached a railway crossing he might expect a train to be approaching at a high rate of speed. If they wore going to limit the railway speed they might as well take the trains off the lines altogether. It would take two days to go to Wellington instead .of twelve hours. It was the motorists’ duty to keep a proper lookout in such circumstancee a* those before them, and the simple question for the jury to decide was whether the accused did so.

The jury was absent for slightly, over two ' hours before delivering .its verdict. The jury added a rider asking His Honour to direct the attention- of the railway authorities to the necessity for having warning signals at all crossings.