GUILTY OF MANSLAUGHTER.

Otago Witness, Issue 3755, 2 March 1926, Page 65

GUILTY OF MANSLAUGHTER.

OPAPA TRAIN SMASH. EXGJN E-DRIVER CONVICTED. NAPIER, February 28. The charge of manslaughter against Frelk. Lavin, the driver of the express train on the occasion of the derailment at Opapa, was concluded yesterday afternoon when the jury returned a verdict of guilty. The Chief Justice (Mr Justice Skerrett), in summing up. said the chief regulation with which the jury was concerned wal that which regulate! the speed round thn Te Aute curves. The questions for the jury were: Did the engine-driver exceed the maximum speed round these curves, and, if so, did that contribute to the deaths of the three persons named. These ques* toins the Crown had a right to answer affirmatively. The evidence of the Crown as to speed, which was obtained from 20 witnesses, was variously estimated at j speeds of 50. 45, 54, 35, 40, 00, an! 40 milea / an hour. Precise reliance could not be placed on these, but they indicated that the speed was substantially over 25 miles per hour All the other witnesses called said the speed was excessive, that there were exclamations ot alarm, and that the pas w sengers were thrown about. Against the allegations of excessive speed, the defence had called Mr Davidson, who said that M noticed nothing unusual in the pace of the train, and that the brakes were applied. Mr Yates did not notice any excessive speed. His Honor pointed out that this evidence was purely negative. There were some persons who did not notice things, and these men might not have noticed the speed of the train. His Honor suggested that this evidence was not of much value to the jury, which had to decide if the pro-: ponderance of evidence as to speed was in favour of the Crown The defence had said that the Crown bad not called the guard and the assistant guard His Honor said it was not obligatory for the Crown to call these witnesses. One had actually been called by the defence and had not appeared On the other hand it was the duty of the defence to call M. Donovan, the fireman, who could know the speed of the engine and whether the brakes were applied. They could also have called Marshall, who was an engine driver, and who would probably know the speed • of the train. Regarding the allegations of a third man being on the engine and the presence of drink his Honor said these were not crucial, but they were important. There undoubtedly was a third man on the engine right from Ormondville to the scene of the accident. With regard to the beer no one but the men in the engine knew what went on there. VVas the speed excessive at the curve? Was this the cause of the accident? The jury had to decide these questions. If they had no doubt ol the fact then it was their duty to convict. If they had reasonable doubt t.hov must acquit the accused. The jury, which deliberated two and ahalf hours, brought in a verdict of guilty and added a strong recommendation to mercy.