RAILWAY REGULATIONS.

Northern Advocate, 12 May 1915, Page 5

RAILWAY REGULATIONS.

WHANGAREI MOTORISTS CHARGED. J A DANGEROUS CROSSING. | I I The iirst cases in Whangarei ; brought under Section 10 of the; Government Railways Act Amend- ! ment Act, 1913, respecting railway! crossings were heard yesterday be- j fore Mr E. Page, S.M. j C. R. Lovatt, builder, Whangarei, v, as 'charged with that being the

driver of a motor vehicle he did :ittempt to pass over the railway lino crossing in Walton Street on April 19 when the line was not clear"; also that on the same date he did fail to stop his motor before coming into contact with the railway line at the Walton Street crossing; and that on the same date he failed to keep a vigilant look-out for ap-

proaching trains at the railway crossing in Walton Street.

Defendant pleaded guilty to the first charge and the others were then withdrawn.

James Georgeson, engine driver, said he was preparing with' his engine to join the train leaving for Hukerenui. When opposite the railway offices he blew the engine whistle. Me saw defendant motorcycling towards the crossing and witness sounded a warning. He had seen defendant pass over the crossing on several occasions. Defendant said it had been a custom for a space to be left between goods waggons on the crossing 39 that traffic could pass. He asked if there were a train in the station could he cross the line? The Magistrate advised defendant to consult his solicitor in respect of the question. Similar charges were made against Edward Hall Thomas, motor car pro- j prietor, of Whangarei, the date of \ th e offences being April 2S. i

Defendant, represented by Mr \Y A. Carruth, pleaded not guilty.

James Georgeson, engine driver, said he was in charge of the 9.40 a.m. train to Hukerenui on April 28. On reaching the water tanks outside the railway station he always blew .he engine whistle. At the Duke

Street crossing near the tanks on April 28 a lorry loaded with v sanS passed over, and witness remembered blowing the whistle in warning. When lie was approaching the eattle-Uops in front of the Water Street crossing, his fireman called out, "Whoa! look out!!" Witness shut off steam and put on the brakes. He did not see what happened, but he felt the collision. There was a motor car which seemed to have backed off the crossing, but which had not got quite clear. The collision did not seem to have been severe and lie did not stop the train.

Answering Mr- Camith, witness said there were three crossings between the railway station and Water Street. lie blew the engine whistle before starting the train, then again at Duke street. He could not say definitely that he blew the' whistle v. r hen approaching Water Street. Witness did not see defendant ap- j proacliing in his motor car, which j crossed one rail, being therail nearest Bank Street. The forepart of the motor car was struck. By the regulations witness was required to blow the engine whistle when within 300 yards of a crossing. The distance between the Walton Street crossing and the railway crossing in Water Street was about 100 yards, j and the Duke Street crossing was between the two. On.c whistle would do for two crossings on account of the short distance. He admitted that a building in Water Street rid the crossing to a certain extent. W. Dalzell, fireman, corroborated the details of the collision. The crossing at Water Street was dangerous. A signal at the. crossing indicated the approach of incoming trains, but of no others. He admitted that building's on each side of the street partially obscured the view. Defendant said he v/as proceeding to his garage, which was just past the crossing. He had picked up a passenger at the corner of Bank and Water Streets, and lie was travelling between fcjur and five miles per hour. He did not see the engine j until it was on the cattle-stops, j when che whistle was blown. He j liad not heard it before. Witness i stopped the machine -on an angle, and the engine, brushed a tyre and the front of the chassis. It did not move the car. Daniel Mascn, passenger in the r ; ar, corroborated as to the sudden approach of the engine. He said the front wheels of the motor car did not touch the first rail. Mr Carruth pointed out the dan-j gerous nature of tho crossing. The : Vv'hangarei Chamber of Commerce . had tried to have the crossing im- ; proved, lie supposed that, like many other things, nothing would be done until someone v-'as killed. If there were nothing' thai the Railway Department could do to alter the crossing a man should be appointed to look after it. The Magistrate held defendant , Lovatt guilty and imposed a fine of; £1, with Court costs 11s and wit-j nesses' half costs £ 1 2s od. I

I In respect of the cases against • Thomas, the Magistrate held him j guilty legally on the first two i charges. The circumstances wore I somewhat special, he said. The ! .crossing was exceedingly dangerous j and. was one of the worst he had I seen, lie believed that defendant had ; made a reasonable attempt to comply j with the by-laws. Defendant would j bo convicted on the tirst charge and j ordered to pay Court costs 11s and j ,£l.-L\s Gd witnesses-half costs. i Mr Carruth asked if His Worship could make any recommendation on the dangerous nature of the cross- { ing. As traffic increased, the crossing became more dangerous. One could not, tell by the sound of the J whistle which way an engine was j coming. ! The Magistrate said he would ro>i port to the Railway Department that i the evidence in the case showed that

Hie crossing was dangerous.