LOOK OUT FOR THE ENGINE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 14895, 22 January 1912, Page 9

LOOK OUT FOR THE ENGINE.

A HELENSVILLE ACCIDENT. At the Police Court on Saturday , Mr. F. V. Frazer, S.M., delivered his reeerved judgment in the important by-law action of the Railway Department v. Charles Rylands, the evidence in which waß heard on Monday last. The defendant, who•' is -a carter employed by »the 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 half a mile of the particular point at which he endeavoured to pass over the railway: line. ■; Access to his employer's property is gained by a private crossing with a gate on either side of the line. On October 30 defendant was driving his team towards his master's place, arid 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 be 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 . train 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 , accident, as he relied upon his watch and upon the fact that he did not hear the engine's whistle. But it was the rule of the rail way men not to whistle at these private, crossings, ■■ although the by-laws provided that they should do bo when'3ooyds 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 com3 to the conclusion . that, . except for the question of the configuration of the country, the facts were identical : with those of the present case. The defendant's excuse that the train did not whistle was not valid, as His Worship had been able to find no definite authority for the contention that the engine-driver should have blown his whistle. The Brailway Department had brought the case mainly for the purpose of giving publicity to the matter. The defendant was probably only the nominal . defendant, and as his employer ■ 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 : ordei<sd to pay amounted to £8 18s. Mr. Selwyn Mays appeared .as counsel for the : Railway Department, and Mr. R. McVeagh for the defendant.'' ': ..' "l '?£ ; '.;W. v .;.;,'v; ■ 0- :'," i