TWO YEARS’ GAOL

Hawera Star, Volume XLV, 1 March 1926, Page 5

TWO YEARS’ GAOL

FOR OPAPA ENGINE-DRIVER GUILTY OF MANSLAUGHTER. •JURY RECOMMENDS MERCY. (BY TELEGRAPH PRESS ASSOCIATION.) NAPIER, March 1. Frederick La'vin, driver of the train which was derailed at Te Aute Hill on September' 22 last, was found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced this morning to two years’ reformative detention by the Chief Justice, Mr C. P. Skerrett. His Honour said lie believed he was

erring on the,side of mercy.

HIS HONOUR SUMS UP. CASE FOR THE .JURY. m, , NAPIER, Feb. 22. •Frfaf • 2 ’ la “ sla Hg ht er charge against Frederick Lavm, the driver of the express train on the occasion of the devilment at Opapa was concluded vesteday afternoon, when the -jury returned; a verdict of guilty. His Honour, in summing up, said the chief regulation with, which ' the iurv was concerned was that which regulated the speed round' the Te. Aute' curves, ihe question for the jury was: Did the engine-driver exceed the maximum speed round these curves,' and, if so, did that contribute to the death of the three persons named? Tliis w'as a question the. Crown had sought to answer affirmatively. The evidence (of the Crown as to speed, drawn from 20 witnesses, was estimated, speeds of 50 45, 54, 35, 40, 60, and 40. Precise reliance could not be placed * oii these estimates, 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 speed, the defence had’ called Mr., Davidson, who said he noticed nothing unusual in the speed of the train and that the brakes were applied. Mr. Yates did not notice excessive speed. His Honour pointed out that this evidence was purely negative. There were some persons who did not notice things, and these men might not have noticed the speed of the train, and 1 his Honour suggested that this evidence, was hot of much! value to ithe jury. The jury had to decide if the preponderance of evidence as to speed was in favour of the Crown. The defence had said that the. Crown had not called the guard and the assist, ant guard. His Honour said it was not obligatory for the Crown to call these witnesses, and one had actually been called by the defence, and. had not appeared. On the other hand, It'was-the duty of the defence to call M. Donovan, the fireman, who could know the speed of the engine and whether t-lie brakes were applied, and Marshall, who was an engine-driver, and who would probably know the speed of the LainRegarding the allegations of the third man on the engine and the presence of drink, his Honour said' theser were not . . crucial, but they were important. There undoubtedly was a- third man on the engine from Qnnondville to the scene of the .accident. With regard to beer, no one but the men on the engine knew %vhat went on there. Was the speed excessive- at the curve? Was this the cause of the -accident? The 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- then they must'acquit the accused. - The jury, who deliberated for _ 2* hours, returned a verdict of guilty, adding a strong' recommendation to mercy. The-prisoner- was remanded tittl to-morrow for sentence.