SUPREME COURT.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXVII, Issue 10746, 10 September 1913, Page 8

SUPREME COURT.

Per Press Association. Wanganui September 10 The hearing of the case S J. Gibbons v Railway Department a claim tor £ls against the Railway Department, was continued yesterday, J Low, District Railway Engineer, in charge of the line from Marton to Frankton, was called He stated that a train 1050 fe;t long, coald not shunt without crossing the roads. To Mr McLean: If the train was 100 feet less it would not have been necessary to "foul" the roads at all William Dralfin, motor car garage proprietor, stated that with lamps snch as the plaintiff used, the roadway could be seen for a distance of 150' feet E Armstrong, • District Traffic Manager, was called as to the lenth of the train in question—the one with which Gibbons collided. There were 54 -vehicles and the engine in the train, a total length of 1050 feet W A Moonie, guard on the train said the train was detained for only ten minutes at Cliff Road station. It was necessary in shunting to foul the crossing as the trucks shunted were very close behind the engine. He was not aware of the accident until lis received a letter some time later from the District Office To Mr Collins: As far as he could recollect the van was only about a van's length over the crossing in the direotion of MartoH,. This closed the case for the defence. Mr Marshall in his address, stated that though the claim was only £ls there was a very important principle conoerned, and therefore the decision of the Solicitor-General to have the case decided 'by the Supreme Court. This was the first time the Court had been called upon to decide on the liability of the Rialway Department, arising out of a collision with or by running into s*ationary trucks on a level crossing. The regulations state that anyone whp crosses a level crossing at more than a walking pace does so at his own risk, and this was one of the defences he put forward in- this caee. ! His Honour stated that it appeared to him that this was Mr Marshall 'a sole defence. Mr Collins in reply contended that the section of the regulations under which Mr Marshall was defending .was overruled by section 191 of the Public Works Act, under which the crossing of railways was not mentioned as a walking pace, but as the best pace convenient. This he held his client "was doing. The action had been brought more with a view of having the point settled, than with the object of getting damages from the Department. His Honour stated that he would take time to consider his decision Greymouth, September 10. In t' e Supreme Court the.case of manslaughter against Samuel Godfrey in connection with the death of Ronald Adainson South, of Westland, during a fight, ths jury returned no bill