FEILDING LEVEL CROSSING SMASH

Manawatu Times, Volume LIV, Issue 6945, 26 June 1929, Page 3

FEILDING LEVEL CROSSING SMASH

Court Proceedings Under Repealed Act

NO KINK IMPOSED

The recent Kimbolt-un road railway crossing accident was referred to at the Feilding Magistrate's Court, yesterday, when John Stalker, company manager, of Feilding, was prosecuted for failing to stop when approaching the railway crossing before coming into contact with the rails. The defendant. was charged under both the repealed Act of 1926 and the new Act which came into operation on June 1, l.u't Sergeant Cahill withdrew the information under the present Act following on legal argument in wkrrh the Acts Interpretation Act was referred to. The facts said Sergeant Cahill were that the defendant ran info a uain on the evening of May .15 when 1 negotiating the crossing. It was dark 'and wet and visibility was bad. However, the wig-wag was going and defendant should nave exercised more care. There had been rumours that defendant was intoxicated at the time but Sergeant Oaihill wished to remove all doubts on this point and produced a medical certificate of the doctor who examined defendant immediately after the accident, certifying that he was not drunk. The defendant received injuries and was fortunate to have escaped with his life.

Mr. L. A. Elliott said that defendant’ had been driving over (lie crossing daily for the past ten years and his Worship was well aware of the particular crossing and the accidents which had occurred there. Defendant approached the crossing a,t. 7.30 p.m. and assumed that the 7.20 p.m. train from AVanganui was in. In summing up, his AVorskip said the charge was brought under the Government Railways Act, 1926, which although in existence at the time of the offence, had now been repealed as from Juno I. The substituted enactment made no provision for the offence with which defendant was charged. That is to sav, it would appear that the legislature recognised that the provisions of the Act of 1926 were somewhat harsh, in that the speed of motor vehicles over crossings was lirst raised from ten miles an hour to 15 miles an hour and no provision for stopping before crossing the railway lino had been made. Defendant was charged with not, stopping and this was no lunger the law. Had the accident taken place a few weeks later, Stalker would not have been charged with the present offence. ITis AVorsihip agreed that it wa,s a bad crossing and on a wet night, with so

many lights shining i -a the vicinity, it was very hard to determine whether there was a train on the line or not. Ho recalled the case of a motorist running into stationary trucks at night. In all the circumstances, his AVorship did riot, propose to lino defendant but lie would be ordered to pay Court costs 10s.