LOOK OUT FOR THE ENGINE.

Kaipara and Waitemata Echo, 24 January 1912, Page 3

LOOK OUT FOR THE ENGINE.

At the Police Court on Saturday Mr F, V. Fraser, S. M., delivered his reserved judgment in the important by law action of the Railway Department v. Charles Reylands, the evidence in which was heard on Monday last. The defendent, who is employed hy Mr James Hand, owner of a property some three-quarters of a mile to the south of the Helensville railway station, was charged with having attempted to pass over a private crossing without first having ascertained that there was no railway train approaching within hall a mile of the particular point at which he endeavoured to pass over the railway line. Access to his employer's property is gained ny a private crossing with a gate on either side of the line. On October 30 defendant was driving his team to wards his master's place, and having looked at his watch ascertained that the 3.30 p.m. train* was not due, and not having heard any whistle he opened the near gate and took his team through on to the line, leaving his leading horse on the track whilst he went back to close the gate. While he was thus engaged, a special ballast train came along. Owing to the configuration of the country the engine driver was unable to see the horse in time to pull up "before the tTain ran into and killed the animal.

His Worship said the defendant could have seen the advancing train when it was 10 or 12 chains away if he had stepped back a short distance. He did not do everything that was possible to avoid the accident, as he relied upon his watch and upon the fact that he did Dot hear the engine's whistle. But it was the rulo of the ra'lwaymen not to whistle at these private crossings, although the by-laws provided that they should do so when 300 yards from level crossings. Mr Selwyn Mays had cited the case of the Railway Commissioners v. Trask in support of his argument that a "private crossing" is not a "level crossing", and His Worship, after reading the case, had come to the- conclusion that, except for the question of the configuration of the country, the fact were identical with those of the present case. The defendent's excuse that the train not did 1 whistle was not valid, as His Wprship had been able to find no definite authority for the contention that the en-gine-driver should have blown his whistle. The Railway Department had brought the case mainly for the purpose of giving publicity to the matter. The defendant was probablj only the nominal defendant, andjas his amployer had suffered considerable loss through his valuable horse being killed, the ends of justice would be met if the nominal fine of 5s were imposed. The costs and expenses which defendant was ordered to pay amounted to £8 18s. Mr Selwyn Mays appeared as counsel for the Railway Department, and Mr R.McVeagh for the defendant.

We sympathise with Mr Jas. Hand, in losing this case as we consider that as the Railway Department erected the gates making the crossing, (whenthoy took the land from Mr Hand in building the railway) in tho worst place possible, this case should not have been brought on, whereas if they had taken the gates four or five chains either way, it would have been a safe crossing. Not only does Mr Hand lose a valuable horse, valued at £40, but he is mulcted in costs, which will amount to over £20. The whole of the frontage to Mr Hand's property is cut off by the railway line, leaving him no other means of getting out than crossing the line, and it is quite time the Eailway Department put iv a proper open crossing to the property.