Untitled

Hokitika Guardian, 19 December 1930, Page 6

i-bj«Ted-bCT-titß'’haspTttrlr —rTherErwas" ~ar slight drizzle for a quarter of an hour before; the accident, .There was no raiij lfailing at the time of the impact.

To Mr Thomas.—Did not know there is a tree at the end of the baths, or , ,a cabbage tree between the’ police station and- the bath. .There is an electric pole there. From'the railway line to the police station, dopr'.is about 2£ chains. When last.' noticed the engine was just on the footpath at the crossing. The accident took place 47'feet further on than where he last saw the engine, prior to it stopping. At no time did he sight Mr Renton’s motor car.

' Lawrence H. Evans gave evidence that he was a, motor mechanic. He had just arrived at Newmans, workshop when he heard a train whistle, in the vicinity of the baths. Heard a crash 25 to 30 seconds after. Looked through a window;and came to the conclusion that the train had struck a car. The train had then stopped. Went out to the train and jumped through the carriages. Saw a damaged car clear of the rails, facing the train. There were three people in the car. Saw Mrs Oates oh the ground. Took necessary steps to remove the injured to the hosital. The car was later removed to the garage, where he examined it. The b.iqk portion of the rear door was badly damaged. The length over all of the car f was 14£ feet, with four wheel brakes in perfect order. Travelling at 10 do 12 miles an hour could have pulled up within two car lengths. To Mr Thomas. —It is a fact that if a car had been left standing in the cold .for some time and. had then : been-filled with windows closed, that the windows would fog up. If there was rain outside the gla-ss and fogged inside it would be difficult to see. He had known Renton for six years'and he is a very com--petent driver; The pillar at the corner of a sedan car affects the vision very much.

i "Sergt. C. J. King gave evidence that following a call he went to the scene of 'the accident. Took the following measurements: Welt Street is 80ft wides, footpath Oft wide on each side; 3t>ft from left hand side of the footpath. towards the centre of Weld Street was the point of impact; 30fet back weso from the impact gives a view of the Hokitika bridge, 220 yards away; 90 feet back along Weld Street west gives a view of a. train passing the swimming baths, a distance of threechains along the line. From the point of the impact tp where the car came to rest was 45, feet. He produced a statement taken from Paul Renton on Oct. 30th.

Frank William Pile deposed he was a fireman stationed at Ross. He was on the'train from Ross on 30th. Oct. His-position w a,s on the left-hand side. Coming over the bridge they got the all clear-signal. ' The engine whistled just before’eoming off the bridge and when opposite the swimming baths. When about 100 years past the baths saw a caf approaching the crossing. . It was no travelling at a fast speed. The drived whs Mr Renton. The car continued dii-find tho train also. Was halfway across the crossing when he realised something was going to happen.. The car made no effort to pull up and witness called on the driver to stop. The car was then about 10 yards away. It continued on and disappeared from view in front of the engine. When he called on the driver to stop he applied the brakes immediately and he felt the train respond. He felt the impact. The speed of the train was about six miles an hour.

To Mr Thomas.—The train was drifting, from the bridge at the time. Six miles an hour is the regulation at this point.

Leslie Allen Elmsly gave evidence he was a. railway engine-driver at Ross. On Oct. 30th. he was in charge of the mixed train from Ross with a load of 149 tons without the engine. On reaching the bridge found the semaphone -set at clear. Whistled before entering tin bridge, before leaving it and again ai the swimming baths. His position was on the right side of the engine. Steam was shut off before leaving the bridge. Had a clear view of the east side. Was about three parts over the crossing when the fireman gave the signal to ■stop. 1 ' '• At once applied the emergfncy brake and the train responded immediately. From the time of the call to stop and the crash was about 3to 4 ' seconds. Felt and heard the crash. Did not see. the actual cause at the -moment.- Tlieii immediately after the ear came into his view. The engine had Lit the car, slewed it round and thrust it .clear of the line. Saw a woman come out of the car. She dropped well clear of the engine. The train carried on and stopped in about 25 yards. The train speed was about 6 miles an hour., To Mr Thomas.—His mate would have a fair view for two to three chains Witness had no warning till he was three parts over the crossing. This was the case for the prosecution. / THE DEFENCE. Mr Thomas intimated he would lead evidence and address the Court at the conclusion. Paul Holmes Renton gave evidence that he was a merchant in Hokitika. The .statement he made at the Police Station'on the night of the accident, was correct. The car had been standting for 1 to 1J hours in Tailored Street prior to starting out on the journey. The weather was cold and stormy. By i the time he pulled up at Dr Hopkins’ diouse, he had travelled 300 to 400 yards, with two passengers. When Mrs* Renton went in the Doctor’s he Avipcd the wind screen because it was foggy inside. It had become foggy between the time of starting and stopping. Shortly after starting from the Doctor’s', he set the wind screen wiper agoing. Ttad not got it working satis;-

-faetorily-till-he got-to the-eloek-tower.-Did not notice any fog on the glass on leaving the Doctor’s.- He noticed when he looked to the right, that the right window was foggy, but he did not think it was enough to spoil his vision, and the right window had rain on the outside. When he looked to the right he thought he had taken a careful look, taking the same precaution as usual. In view of after events he could not see anything else but that the fog and rain effects had affected his vision. He produced a photograph of his car showing the. corner pillar. At times the corner pillar affects his vision When his wife and Mrs and Miss Oates got, into the car there was a thick misty rain. If the right window had, been clear he was sure he would have seen the train.

To Sergt. King.—Have driven a car for about 25 years. Drive over the crossing two or three times a day, and am well acquainted with the running of the trains, He had taken the precaution to clean the wind screen at the Doctor’s, but the side window had not clogged up at that time. All the windows were closed. With a closed car and the condition of things as they were that day would not hear a wbistle in the car. The general visibility that day was had.

Margery Seddon Oates gave evidence that she was on a visit to Hokitika, from England. On the day in question with her mother came out from jjv Hopkins’ garage. Think it was raining at the time, but was not sure. Was seated in the hack of the car, witness on the right hand side, mother in the middle and Mrs Renton on the left. As far as she knew Mr Renton drove at a proper speed to where the accident took place and he certainly did not drive fast. She did not hear any whistle, and she had very acute hearing. She actually did not know it was a train with which they had collided.

Mary Jane Renton gave evidence that she was the wife of Paul H. Renton. On Oct. 30th. she went to get Miss Oates for a drive and eventually took Mrs Oates. It was raining.when they came across the path to get into the ear, because they had to hurry. As they drove along she thought the windows were slightly foggy. She saw her husband working at the wind screen wiper. She was a driver hersell. Her husband was not driving fast. Heard no whistle and saw the train for the first time when it was a few feet away.

To, Sergt. King.—She was not taking much notice, not driving, hut she always kept a good lookout. She did not have time to say “train” before it hit them.

COUNSEL’S A DDR EoS. Mr Thomas addressed the court. He held that there was no case to send on for trial. There was no possibility that any jury could find the defendant guilty of negligence, so long as there was an innocent explanation,as well as a guilty explanation. The police say that, because an.. accident has taken place that it stands proved there has been negligence. That does not follow at. all. Tliere are only two grounds of negligence one, that be was travelling too fast and the other than he was not keeping a proper look-out. The first was proved in his favour by the police witnesses and in connection with the latter there were four reasons why he did not see the train. First the day was misty, second there was wind blowing away from the car so that he did not hear the whistle, third that he lid not see the train. On the question of visibility, Spargo did not see the car, and Dougherty saw the train but not the car. The explanation was that there were extraordinary physical features. Renton saw nothing of the train. It was a case of had visibility, caused mainly by the fogging up of the windows of. the car as the result of pickup a load of passengers on a cold day, and as the heat came, a fog came over the glass. He held it was utterly impossible to find a jury that would convict the defendant of criminal negligence. THE CHARGE DISMISSED. His Worship stated the charge was laid under Section 27 sub-section 1 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1924. The question for him to decide was whether a prima facie case had been made out of the defendant recklessly or negligently driving a motor car as a result of which the accident occurred. The evidence for the prosecution showed the defendant was driving at a slow pace. There was no suggestion that any attempt had boon made to hurry or put on the pace, while the car was admittedly under perfect control.. The only thing to wonder at*is that such an accident should have occurred under such circumstances. The weather was misty and apparently affected the windows preventing good visibility and this must have had a good deal to do in preventing the driver seeing the train coming, which was travelling at the regulation pace. There seems to have been exceptional circumstances in connection with the happening. He did not think for a moment that there was anything of recklessness shown, or that he was criminally negligent. He was an experienced driver taking friends out for a drive and he thought the only things that can he said were that the conditions were unusually difficult, and that there was not carelessness shown on the part of the driver. He did not think any jury would convict. He held that a prima facie case had not been made out. Tlie charge would be dismissed.