RAILWAY CROSSINGS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18547, 3 November 1923, Page 10

RAILWAY CROSSINGS.

MOTORISTS AND TRAINS. \ BISKS UNDULY TAKEN. \ < HAMILTON PROSECUTIONS. •• :»V ; 'i. ■> ■ TBI TELEGRAPH.-—OWN CoaMSSPONDENT.] HAMILTON. Friday In view of recent accidents the Railway Department is taking drastic action against motorists who endeavour to beat the engine to a railway crossiug, or fail to stop before coming to the lines whether a train is in view or not. The Crown Solici; tor is to prosecute in all future cases, and, in addition to the usual fine and costs, offenders will have to pay his fee of £3 3s. A number of prosecutions were heard here to-day before Mr. H. A. Young, S.M. The first defendant was Thomas A. Cooper, who, it was stated, endeavoured to get across the crossing before a train. His action compelled the engine-driver to apply his emergency brakes. The application of the brake smashed a hook and coupling of one waggon. The crossing was an easy one. Mr. Noel Johnson, who appeared for Cooper, said that his instructions were that the engine's , whistle had not been sounded. Counsel maintained that if the department desired to give publicity to its ruling as regards railway crossings it should prosecute every motorist who failed to 6top whether there was a train there or not. The regulation was very frequently infringed at the Victoria Street crossing. . He himself was constantly doing it. Apparently the department only prosecuted when motorists had received a frighh and had nearly been run over. This contention was repudiated by Mr. Gillies, ' who pointed out that he had several cases to follow in which motorists who had committed the offence had done so when there was no train about. Defendant was convicted and fined £5 and costs. A young Ngaruawahia carrier, C. L. Davis, was similarly prosecuted. His excuse for not hearing a train as he drove up to the crossing was that he had a load of "bottles or his lorry at the time. Ho was ordered to pay costs. . Two Hamilton motorists, Michael Coventry and Robert Malcolm, who it was stated had rather a narrow escape at the River Road crossing, also appeared, Malcolm stated that Coventry's car had gone over the crossing directly in front of him. This led him to assume that the fine was clear. In a statement to the Crown Solicitor Coventry, who did not appear, had said he was quite unaware that he had narrowly escaped an accident, and it was only when the happenings of the day were mentioned to him that he could recall the incident. Mr. Gillies:' The crossing is a difficult one, Your Worship. I offered the Borough Council £100 some years ago if they would remedy it. Coventry was fined _ £5,; Court costs 7s, and the Crown Solicitor's fee of £3 3s. Malcolm was fined costs and the amount of the Crown Solicitor's fee.