TRAM FATALITY.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 604, 6 September 1909, Page 8

TRAM FATALITY.

■■;-. CONVICTED OF.-..MANSLAUGHTER.' >; IMPORTANT STATEMENT BY THE ~.;,.;:■ *..;/,: ■-.: Judge;; :.;■■ . ■' •'■' i■ . •|'; (By TcleEraph--flpectal OortesDonatiit.l > i ;■■;.-;. Auoklandi September 5. ■;-. ';•■ At .the, Supreme; Court/oh. Saturday, Horbbrt Birkott,.conductor of the tram.,-con-cerned in, the'Onehunga tramway fatality, .whereby Mrs.. Anna Hbrsnell, lato of Ohristdhurch, met her.death on' June 10, was convicted:'of ihanslaughtcr, : 'The ■ moto'rman (Hally), was_■ acquitted;;. ,\ ; ■ ■ . '■.'•;■ ■_■.-':

:li; summing, up in Birkett's case,. Judgo Edwards made some important.remarks.. Ho daid the jury bad a duty and a very serious duty •to. discharge,', and must, not bo led away by mere sympathyif or .the accused. The matter invelved..the safety of hundreds of thousands , of.persons who travelled-by tram. The question;; the jury had, to decide .was this: Did 'the'conductor oxorciso to the reasonable.exstent.required by law , and'common senso the care in the' handling of dangerous machinery necessary..for, the. protection of the public? The necessity for doing this was fully recognised in the Tramway Company's set of rules .. and .'regulations, which appeared to. ;have. got■ into 'a .state of.-confusion; but' a mere breach of the rules of tho company, as tho ; private rules of .the company,:would not render the accused liable unless such , breach involved; a breach ; of tho common law. duty incumbent up'pn persons, in charge of tramcars to so 'act as to avoid ■ all unnecessary danger. Looking .at. the. matter from that point; of view, did not tho facts speak for themselves?. Gounsel .for the accused, asked the/jury to' say that accused was justified when-Rowe camebut; to tho front platform inVassuming that he was , the'person, who; rang the'.bell , ; that he.was .the.only, person .who wished : .'to; alight; They wero asked, 'therefore,'.to declare-that, the accused was justified in -taking' no.■reasonable precautions to see;that nobody' else wished to alight. \«'ln tho opinion of tho learned judge that a .right, view to take. - It did: not matter whether ; the bell was rung.once, twice, or twenty times....What, did matter was whether it 1 .'was a .duty, of the'conductor to reasonable " precautions at Captain Street, and: whether," in fact.'he-did so. The, conductor from the front .'platform looked round one; side'of ..his earsonly. If he had looked through' th'e.car,; he; would -.have .seen- that: three;ladies .were' in. process of. alighting. By .the verdict they .were; asked: to give by counsel for ..the .they, would be assorting, the, doctrine.,that a conductor of'a tramcar, when.bne'pcrspn'hadalighfod/ was justified in v starting the car", again without taking tho precaution to ■ascertain whether others .desired '.to .alight!'■; The: jury should not assert any; such'doctrine., The regula-; iibns of the-Tramway Company ought t0,.b0 observed by the employees; and it was not for the chief inspector to say what' those regulations meant.' ' The-conductor ought unquestionably to have .been on the-back platform. Smoking , was ; abt in itself- an. .offence which could render him'liable, but probably i»was the;canse.:of, his being on 'the''front platform.'- -The 1 .'whple ' thing camo down■:to thisf Did.be take;reasonable; precautions in restarting his • car .without ■ ascertaining what even"a"caßual glance , would, have- shown. Km?. The. jury: must- not be /influenced' seripUßnessof the consequences if they found a;.verdict,-against the ■prisoner.;, They 'had, Meed, nothing to do with.that. Thedutyof passing sentence . was-the '. judge'e duty,; a .duty than-.which none was more responsible or more unpleasant, a duty which no judge, would '/not. ■ gladly. leav^,". to .'somei', other;' trijjirnal, if ho conld. •. : . . : '..V '■' "■.:"-■ , i ,-., The'jury .was out an hour,, and .in bringing m a' verdict of guilty 'strongly recommended Birkett' ty ■; mercy. The''latter;comes up for sehtericoi on "Wednesday. :: ■'.': .:'■