HUTT ROAD FATALITY

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 8680, 13 March 1914, Page 8

HUTT ROAD FATALITY

MANSLAUGHTER CHARGE SHEEHAN COMMITTED FOR TRIAL. In the Magistrate’s Court before Mr W. G. Riddell, S.M., yesterday, hearing was resumed in the case in which Thomas Sheehan was charged with being guilty of an omission without lawful excuse to observe a legal duty, which said omission did cause the death of Frank Revell. Mr O. Beere watched proceedings on behalf of tho accused, and Chief-Detective Broherg represented the police.

Mr Beere said that he did not propose to address the Court on legal grounds. If the charge was to be determined by law His Worship would doubtless prefer it to be determined by the higher court. Counsel contended that Sheehan did not directly cause the death of the deceased. There was no evidence to that effect. There was no evidence on which any jury could convict, and, therefore, the Court should not commit him to the Supreme Court. The evidence clearly showed that the deceased was travelling at a high rate of speed, and that fatal injuries would not have been caused but for this fact. The evidence also disclosed that the deceased had a light on his machine. Under .the circumstances if he had —as was necessary on account of his high rate of speed—kept a proper look-out, he would have seen the dray in time to avoid a collision. Sheehan should not be punished merely because the practice of drivers neglecting to provide lights might be a general one. He should not be made a “scape-goat” as an example to other offenders against the by-laws. Chief-Detective Broherg said that the evidence established the fact that the deceased was proceeding along on the right side of the road, while the horse and dray were found in the middle of the road. The only evidence as to the speed at which the deceased was travelling was that of the doctor, who concluded that he must have been travelling fast. ' A cyclist, however, was entitled to go fast, as fast as would cause his death if he was struck by the shaft of a dray heavily weighted with shingle. If a man was cycling along at eight miles an hour it would be sufficient to cause death under the circumstances. He submitted that the case should go before tlie Supreme Court on two grounds: —(1) On account of his breach of the by-law in failing to carry a light, thereby being guilty_of gross negligence; and (2) that quite apart from any by-law he had neglected to take reasonable general precautions in the interests of the safety of the public. The Magistrate said that it was a peculiar case. Although some blame must be attributed to the deceased, it was clear that had Sheehan not been guilty of neglect, it was very probable that the accident would not have been caused. • Although the Court might look at the case from a general point of view and say that a jury would not convict, His Worship was not prepared to exercise that discretionary power in the present case. The case against accused was not a very strong one, but it was proper that it should be left to a jury to say whether or not ho should be convicted. The accused would be committed to the Supreme Court for trial, and allowed out on his own recognisances. Mr Ridilell added that he proposed to waive the stipulation that accused should report himself to the police every day pending his trial. Chief-Detective Broherg said that he had reliable information that Sheehan had cabled to his people to obtain passage money wherewith to get out of tho country.. _ ■ Counsel rejoined that he did not think there was any possibility of this.

The Magistrate ordered the accused to report himself to the police three times a week, directing the police to make application for sureties if any further developments took place in connection with Sheehan’s reported intention of leaving.