CASE DISMISSED

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 23183, 1 November 1938, Page 12

CASE DISMISSED

CROSSING OF RAILWAY CHARGE AGAINST MOTORIST FAILURE TO STOP ALLEGED [from our owx correspondent] HAMILTON, Monday .A reserved judgment in favour of defendant was given by Mr. S. L. Paterson, S.M., in the Police Court today, in the case in which William G. Mackie was charged with a breach of Section 9 (2) of the Government Railways Amendment Act, 1928, in that being the driver of a motor vehicle in Victoria Street, Hamilton, he failed to stop at a railway crossing where a compulsory stop sign was erected and make adequate observation to ascertain whether or not the line was clear. The magistrate said that the obligation imposed on the driver of a motor vehicle at such a crossing was not "to stop and make adequate observation," but "to stop for such time as may be necessary to make adequate observation." If in spite of stopping for the requisite length of time the motorist then crossed the line and it was not clear, he could of course bo prosecuted for that offence under the following sub-section.

It was an essential part of the proof of the ease for the prosecution that it should be proved or admitted that a compulsory stop sign had been erected at the • crossing. No evidence of this was before the Court. Actually, there was no such sign at the crossing, for he had inspected the site. The information must, however, be dismissed on other grounds, added the magistrate. There was a sharp conflict of evidence between the principal witness for the prosecution, the crossingkeeper. and the defendant and his wife. He was not prepared to accept the evidence of .the crossing-keeper against that of defendant, llio only other witness, although he gave his evidence fairly, did not see very much. It was admitted by tho witnesses for the prosecution that the defendant s car came to a stop.

The magistrate said he was satisfied that defendant stopped long enough to ascertain whether or not the line was clear before he proceeded to cross it. The evidence did not satisfy him that the line was not clear when defendant crossed it.

The information was dismissed