SUPREME COURT

Waikato Times, Volume 90, Issue 14088, 18 June 1919, Page 5

SUPREME COURT

CIVIL BUSINESS. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Cooper.) Claim for £2OOO. Mary Ann Reid, represented by Mill. A. Hopkins, claimed C? 000 from the Crown for alleged damages for the "~ytieath of her husband. Mr Gillies, Crown Solicitor, represented the Crown. The case, which was heard before judge and jury, arose out of the death of Charles .1. Reid, a postal messenger, who was knocked riov.r. by a railway engine and killed in Frankton railway yardp. Irrr following additional evidence was taker, yesterday afternoon,:— Mary Ann Reid, widow of Charles J. Peid. gave evidence tint she lived at Frankton Junction, and was the suppliant in the present action. There were three children of the marriage—one aged 13. one It, and the third 8. Her husband was 35 years old at the time of his death. His health previously had been good, he having been classed "Fit A" when called up in the. ballot. His hearing was sharp and his sight very good.. At the time of the accident he was head messenger of the Postal Department, and was stationed at Frankton, having been 11 years in the service of the Department (three years as messenger). His wages were £l9O, £ls war bonus, and £lO overtime. In April of this year he would have received a substantial rise of about £3O. She was suing on behalf of herself and her children, as she had had no income apart from her husband's earnings. Since his death she had received £1 Is 6d from hfs superannuation money. She could not earn any {income herself in addition to looking after her children.. Sidney Bennett Sims, surveyor and civil engineer, produced a plan of the scene of the accident. Edwin Barker, farmer, Frankton, stated that he knew deceased slightly. On the day of the accident he arrived at Frankton between 1 and 2 p.m., and, walking along the platform, \va,s passed by Reid, who went on to the line. Witness came to a halt at the end of the platform, and, hearing an engine approaching on the rails near which Reid was walking, called out to him, "Look out for the engine." Reid did not appear to hear, and witness called out again twice. By this time the engine was passing, and he called out a warning to the driver. There was only one ■ man on the engine, which was going tender first, with the man's back to the tender. The engine was going at from four to eight miles, per hour, and soon overtook Reid and struck him, the body being terribly mutilated. The' engine went straight on to the loco, shed. He heard no signal from it at any time. He considered that the per~%son on the engine would not have had Reid in view owing to his vision being blocked by the tender. By Mr Gillies: At the railway enquiry he had said that the engine was not going fast. He had not seen the engine stop at the signal-box, but would not contradict the fireman if he said he stopped. Michael J. Walsh, locomotive driver, Mercer, stated that he drove the " Hamilton shunter " on January 20th, arriving at Frankton at 1.50 p.m. After shunting off the trucks, he was taking the engine and tender to the loco shed down the main line, and stopped the. engine near the bookstall, as he had a case of cordials to consign to Hamilton. He instructed Fireman Oorrie to proceed slowly to the loco shed, and he would follow immediately. It was not the usual praet'ee for a driver to leave his engine. lie knew Rule 191 of the Railway Regulations (produced) which said that no fireman may move an engine except when instructed by and in the presence of the driver, and that no engird must be in motion on the main lines except both driver and fireman on it. The fireman moved off with -the engine, proceeding very slowly. Witness finished his business, and then walked down to the shed, being told on the wav that an accident had happened. From the driver's side of the engine ai person walking slowly along the line could have been seen two chains away. He did not remember saying at the inquest ">at a person could have been seen half a chain awny. He had never previously left an engine in charge of a fireman. He did not think it would have made any difference had he remained on the engine, but he admitted saying a* the inquest that if he and the fireman had been on the engine there would have been less chance of an accident. By Mr Gillies: The tender of the engine was loaded with coal. At the scene of the accident there was a fairly sharp curve. It was not a fireman's duty to hang out of an engine to keep a lookout; that would be a dangerous practice. He did not think the fireman, if he was in his proper position, could have seen a person near the signals. As far as he knew there were no rules concerning mail sorters, these men being 7h exactly the same position as surfacemen, etc., in regard to walking in the yards. 'He had been 27 years in the Department, and would not dream of walking on or near a line without satisfying himself that there was no engine about. Robert M. Corrie, fireman and actingengine driver, corroborated the previous witness. After taking charge of the engine he proceeded to the signal box, where he stopped for a minute or two, and then, seeing the Tfne clear from his own side, went to the driver's side, and look the engine to the shed at a speed of four miles per hour. On the way he did nothing but look ahead and work the regulator. He knew the railway rules. He did not know if it would have made any difference had the driver been on the engine. He did not see Barker when taking the engine in. By Mr Gillies: Being acting-engine driver meant that the Department could call on hiin at any time to drive. He had not been disrated on account of the accident. There was a train standing at the Wellington express platform when he pulled up at the signal box. Frederick Wilson, postal messenger, i Frankton, deposed that deceased was an ordinary, careful man, and a good worker. Most of their work was done %n the railway yards, which were not safe by any means—very dangerous in fact, owing to the engines and trains continually running up and down. There was no system which the messengers understood, and whistles were blown very seldom. There was no whistle given by the engines proceeding to the loco sheds. The messengers* work took them about the lines to receive the mail hampers, which they had to carry to the platform. Before the accident the supervisor asked the Bailway Department to have the mail waggons brought up to the platform, but nothing w.-s done, the Department replying that they would do it in their • nwikiime. The vans containing the hanpß«s would come from Auckland, and he left on the third line from the platform, the hampers being carried from there by the messengers to the

nlnt**'•■"'" ■""'' ''■••'>!' seig of lines * to a ni'i'l vrn on the other side for the Kinr- '"'oiir.'r- train r, 'here was no S y S » Pm s-, recrart to the flelivpry of emptymail hampers, they being dumped anywhere in the yo.r-s. sometimes bethe rails. Messengers had to Bother them. Tlrs was the usual tl,in, r in.. r"'hvay -M'tiwu-itii's knowing of the practice. Witness had seen a h.~-mper run over by a passing engine, he being right alongside it. No signal

was given by the engine. The expresses | were not so dangerous as the shunters, because the messengers knew the time- . table. : By Mr Gillies: The practice in regard to the full hampers had not been altered 1 since the accident. Provided there was no train in the way there was no difficulty in seeing the hamper. He did not know of any special signals to anyone working in the yard. He could suggest l a scheme to improve matters—to send a "K " waggon direct to Ihe King Country, and thus avoid transhipment. Alexander Monteith, postal messenger. Frankton railway station, said that the Railway Department, since the accident, had delivered the empty hampers on to the platform, but it was still necessary to tranship the full hampers across the lines. They had asked that a " K" waggon be provided, so that the mails could'be sent straight through to the King Country, but so far this had not been done. The danger was caused principally by engines going to and j from the loco-shed, and the fact that whistles were sometimes not sounded. Witness had had six or eight narrow escapes from accident. Percy H. Castleton, acting-mail supervisor at Frankton for nearly seven years, gave corroborative evidence as to the collecting and loading of mail hampers. It was a very bad system, because of the danger. He had instructed Reid to collect the empty hampers in the yard ®n the day of the accident. On more than one occasion witness had written to the Postal Department pointing out the danger of the practice in vogue. This communication had been sent on to the Railway Department, which had replied that it could not see its way to do what was suggested, as it would mean more expense. If the Railway Department could put cream cans on to the platform, he considered they could do the same with mail hampers. The Court at this stage adjourned for lunch.

Upon the Court resuming the witness Castleton, in reply to Mr Gillies, said he considered that the work of the postal officials was more dangerous than that of the porters and other railway men working in the yards. Constable Warneford also gave evidence. At the request of Mr Gillies Mr Hopkins admitted that the empty hampers were now placed on any part of the platform. This closed the case for the suppliant. The Crown did not call evidence. The Court then adjourned to allow of certain issues to be drawn up and put to the jury. His Honor pointed out that, whatever the verdict of the jury might be, judgment could not be entered up until certain points had been decided by the Privy Council. IN DIVORCE. Sitting in divorce this morning, His Honor, Mr Justice Cooper, considered the following cases:— Prentice v. Prentice. Stephen F. Prentice (represented by Mr Gillies) applied for a divorce from Ellen M. Prentice, on the ground of adultery. There was no appearance of respondent. It was alleged in the petition that respondent had been guilty of misconduct with two men, unknown, in Wellington. The case was adjourned until tomorrow morning to allow of counsel amending the petition in the direction of striking out the name of a third suggested co-respondent. Lane v. Lane. Millie M. Lane (Mr Gillies), asked f«r a divorce from Francis S. A. Lane, on the ground of misconduct. Petitioner gave evidence that she was married on July 12, 1905, living happily with her husband for five or six years. In October, 1016, she proceeded against her husband for maintenance at Masterton, and an order was made. Her husband became manager of a farm at Mangamahu, near Wanganui. In April of last year she saw her husband, who admitted having committed adultery with the lady help on the farm. She wrote to the girl who also admitted the misconduct. His Honor granted a decree.nisi, with costs on the lowest scale against the respondent, to be made absolute at the expiration of three months.