SUPREME COURT.

Feilding Star, Volume XII, Issue 3022, 17 August 1916, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

TAONUI CROSSING FATALITY

CAR DRIVER CHARGED WITH

MANSLAUGHTER.

Tho sequel to tho finding of the verdict of manslaughter in tho inquest proceedings in connection with the deaths of Mr. and Mrs. Goudy nt tho Taonui railway crossing, through tho motor car in which they were riding colliding with a train on June 23 last, was heard in tho Supreme Court, in Palnierston yesterday, when Thomas Stanley Madge, tho driver of tho car, was charged with manslaughter. Accused pleaded not guilty. Formal evidence- was given by H. J. Wyldo, J. Puggan, E. W. Goudy, and tho depositions of accused, as taken at the inquest, was.produced as evidence

J. D. Evans, a passenger in accused's car on the date of tho fatality, sai dhe occupied a seat in front with Madge. Mr. and Mrs. Goudy wero in the roar seat. Witness described tho incidents of tho journey from FeHding up to tho time of reaching tho Taonui crossing, as related at tho inquest. Tho day was wot and stormy, and tho road slippery. Witness's view of tho railway at tho Taonui station wns obscured for a moment owing to a string of trucks;. Madge slowed down about two chains from tho crossing. On turning at tho bend, witness saw tho train and called out. Madgo put on the brakes, but the car readied tho lino. Witness did not hear tho train whistle. If it whistled after passing Taonui station, witness must have heard it. Ho thought Madgo was using all care in driving the car. Thomas Stanley Madge, in giving his evidence, stated that he was not awjiro of tho actual time when ho left Feilding. Ho was therefore- not aware that the express was following him. Further evidence was given by A. W. Ward. John Findlav, ami E. L. Broad. Tho latter stalod that the accused wae )n his employ previously, and bore a very good character. TTe had driven witness's car for a considerable length of time, and was both careful and conscientious.

His Honor, in .summing up, said that the jury had to find whether the accused had taken reasonable precaution and reasonable care. They did not have to take extreme precaution or extreme care, but that care which was warranted by the circumstances of the case. The man knew the road, and knew that he had to cross a railway line. He knew also that trains wero running, and ho knew tlie approximate time the train loft Feilding. Ho knew that a train was coming behind him, and ho also knew that he was going slower than tho train. He said that ho had lookod, back, but did ho look back at the pro-' por place? There was no suggestion' that the accused had acted wilfully. He did not want to hurt his car, him-! self, or his passengers. Therefore , he had not acted wilfully. But was thej way ho had acted reasonable? j The jury retired at 4.40 p.m., and! returned half an hour later with a verdict of not guilty. Tho accused was accordingly discharged.