RAILWAY CROSSINGS.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXII, Issue 34, 23 January 1912, Page 8

RAILWAY CROSSINGS.

AN IMPORTANT CASE. (Tor Press Association.) Auckland, January 2i. A judgment of importance to property owners who Have access it tJieu- lands by means of private r.d.way crossings was given by Mr. E. \ . Eraser, S.iVl., in the case Hallway Department v. Eduard Hylands. The defendant is a carter employee, by a man who lias a property abou, tnrec-quarters of a mile to tiie souim cf Holensville South railway station, and in order to reach the property ii was necessary to cross the railway lint at a private crossing. On October 3.1. tile defendant was driving to the property, and on approaching the private crossing looked at his watch and ascertained that the regular 3.30 p.m. train was not due. Hearing no whistle, he deemed it safe to cross the line, and opened the near gate, drove ovci the line, leaving a leading horse or, the One while lie went back to dost the gate. While he was thus engager; a ballast train came along, and, owing to the configuration of the country, the engine-driver was unable U see the horse in time to prevent a collision with the animal, which was de stroyed. The authorities prosecuted defendant under a section of the regulations, which provides that a poison must ascertain that no train i; approaching within half a mile before crossing a line.

In giving judgment, the Magistrate Slid that defendant did not take rca so liable stops to ascertain if there war a train approaching within half a mile, and that his excuse that the ongmc did not whistle was not a valid -excuse inasmuch as he (the Magistrate) war nimble to find any definite authority O' the state in oi it that the enginedriver should have whistled. The°emi.iloyor had suffered considerable loss 'through the destruction of a valuable horse, and the ends of justice would be mot by a nominal fine of ss, the defendant being ordered to pay costr amounting to £S 18s.