RACING A TRAIN.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 144084, 1 May 1913, Page 5

RACING A TRAIN.

TAXI-CAB DRIVER CHARGED. At the 'Wanganui Magistrate’s Court on -Monday morning, before Mr. AV. Kerr. S.M., a Wanganui taxi-driver named Alfred Carter was charged on the information of the police with crossing a railway Tine when an engine was approaching. Defendant, who pleaded “Not guilty,” was represented by Mr. Cohen. Evidence given by ,the engine-driver, W. G. Giehard, was to the effect that on April 4th the 1.45 p.m. train, a long string of trucks with two engines attached, was leaving the AVanganui station tor Marton. The foremost engine, in which.the witness was driver, was within SO yards of .the Taupo Quay crossing. Both engines whistled, and the train was travelling at about seven miles an hour, when a taxi-cab, running at 15 miles an hour, shot across the metals six feet in front of tho train. Witness took the number of the car, No. 408, but although pretty certain that defendant was the driver, ho could not swear to Ids identity. A. E. Day deposed that he was fireman on tho foremost engine on the day in question. He saw tho motorcar approaching about 100 yards on the town side of the crossing. Me held up his hand in warning. Tho car steadied down, but,.increasing .its spaed as it approached! shot across ‘ at a swerve, about two yards in front of the engine. There was a lady and

gentleman and a child in tnc car at the time. The driver resembled the defendant, but witness could not swear to his identity.

Sergt. Bourko at this stage applied for an adjournment to enable a constable who witnessed tho occurrence to attend. To this -Mr. Cohen objected. and the case proceeded. Mr. Cohen submitted that there was no doubt that .someone had risked bin life and the lives of his passengers on

the clay in question, but there was no evidence to establish the identity of the driver. His client denied any knowledge of the happening, and had a witness present who was the only passenger in his car about the time of the occurrence. Ho admitted that the number of his client's-car was 108,

■ His Worship held that there were grounds for suspicion that the defendant way the driver of the car, hut without sworn testimony, as to the identity of the driver he could not convict. The case was dismissed.