CRASH SEQUEL

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 208, 18 September 1937, Page 7

CRASH SEQUEL

-Pre38 Aasociation.)

Case Against Pilot is Reopened

ONE CHARGE DISMISSED

(By Telegrapli-

IKVERCARGILL, Last NighfX, The re-hearing of the case in which Arthur John Bradshaw was convictcd last Friday by Mr W. H. Freeman, S.M., of having on December 30, 1936, failed to satisfy himself /before commencing a flight that the aircjaft was safely loaded for the flight' and that he used an unlicensed lauding ground, wsb completed in; the Magistrate's Court this morning. Defendant, who was represented _ by Mr B. W. Hewat, pleaded not guilty and elected to Ido deal't with summarily when asked if ho elected to be tried by^ a jury or by a. magistrate. Mr H. J. Macalister, who prosecuted, said that, by agreement, the evidence taken in the previous proceedings was admit'ted and deemed to have been taken in the present proeeedings. Mr Hewat said he agreed, but asked that the objections made previously by Mr R- B. Bannerman stand in the present hearing. "The position is an un- j usual one," continued Mr Hewat, addressing the Court. " Your pronouncenient was made at an earlier hearing, and defendant is in the position of appellant from that pronouncement. I submit your Worship misdirected yourself in the interpretation of the regulations. On the merita of the case the defendant should not be convicted of either offence." Counsel then dealt with the charge of using an unlicensed ground while plying for hire, and said the regulation under which defendant had been convicted was directed obviously at the proprietors or licensees of landing grounds, and not against pilots. The pilot was entltled to make a casuaV landing on any ground and committed sn ofi'enee only if be made it a reguiar plak o of lauoing. Bradshaw should not have beeu eonvicted under Regulatipn 10. If his actions were contraxy to the regulations, then ko should have be-':n charged under Regulation 7. it was the first' time he had landed at Big Bny When carrying farc-paying passengers', Mr Macalister said the opinioa of 'ho pilot must be based on reasonable prerniges — that was the whole kernal of the matter — 'but 'tho case for the Crown Was that he did not do so. Defendant , had ffiiled .to satisfy himself the tnachine was satisfactorily loaded.' He did nbt weigK ;of ta^e. . -at^equate steps to find the true weights of the passengers. He had also- estimated the weight of .tho luggage, He submitted defendant .knew tha. iQnd -Was- up near the rnaximum, for he tbok ou't a can of petfol. .There was no. room for argu- . menfc that the proper step to tako was to weight every item. As to thc other charge, if Mr. Hewat 's submission were correct, it would be a most exti'aordinary state of affairs, for it would mean a pilot could land anywhere in New Zealand. That was opposed to the whole intention of the regulations. Defendant was convieted on the charge of failing to satisfy himself that the aircraft was safely loaded, the charge of using an unlicensod landing ■ground being dismisscd.