APPEAL COURT CASE.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LII, Issue 270, 14 October 1932, Page 8

APPEAL COURT CASE.

SEQUEL TO FLYING CRASH. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, Oct. 13. ■’ In the Appeal Court case, Dominion Airlines, Ltd., v. Strand, argument for the respondent was opened this afternoon by Mr T. P. Cleary who, with Mr M. O. Barnett, is appearing for Mr Strand. He said lie placed great importance on two factors, namely, the direction of the wind in relation to tire 'plane and the speed nt which the ’plane was travelling. He submitted that Right’s actiou in attempting to turn into the wind at a low altitude and a low rate of speed was highly negligent. Even if tne argument of appellant that the engine of the ’plane had failed before the crash were correct, the conditions which rendered it impossible for the pilot to get out of his own difficulty were brought about by his own deliberate act. If that argument were sound, then the question of engine trouble was immaterial and the pilot in any event should have maintained sufficient altitude and attained sufficient speed to enable him to turn into the wind.

The Court adjourned until to-mor-row.

TO-DAY’S PROCEEDINGS

Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, Oct. 14. In the Appeal Court case Dominion Air Lines, Ltd. v. Strand, counsel for respondent. Mr Cleary, submitted that the grant of a pilot’s license was not a mntter of right, but lay in the discretion of the Air Board, who could refuse a license on any proper ground. Appellant's whole argument was based on the ground that a medical examination was tire only thing standing between Right and a “B” certificate enabling him to carry passengers. However, the Director of Air Services considered Right unfit to be a commercial pilot. “ Right was suffering from neurasthenia, a form of disability which indicated the absence of tlie nervous stability demanded by the air regulations. ‘The fact that the company had been guilty of a distinct breach of the regulation in allowing a 'plane to be flown by a pilot not holding a “B” license cast tire onus of proof on the appellant- company of proving that there was no connection between the breach of the regulation and the accident.