CROSSING SMASH

Waikato Times, Volume 119, Issue 19891, 21 May 1936, Page 11

CROSSING SMASH

WOMAN PROSECUTED. WARNING SIGNAL INOPERATIVE. “AN ABSOLUTE TRAP." ...... (Times Representative). TE A\VAMUTU, \V‘ednesday. The sequel to n level-crossing accident at ’l'e .-\\\innutu was heard in the Te .\namutu Alusisirlite's uourt today when .\int'guret Quin \\as charged that on .\Lirrii 2'l. she attempted to cross the railway line when it was not elem". .\ir i". [L Levien. 5.31., presided. constable J. l"ui‘:u)l.li conducted the raise for the police and Mr S. S. Preston represented the defendant. Constable Forsyth gave evidence that defendant was driving the car towards Pirongia when the uecident happened. She had had a lucky escape from earious injury. in entering a plea of guilty on hehalt‘ or his client, .\lr Preston said that the defendant was- proceeding towards her home in Plrongia on the Sunday afternoon. and knew the crossing well. The wig-wag signal at the roadside was operated by the_weight or the engine on )he line when the train was coming south. but was controlled from the station when the locomotive was travelling in the opposite directionThe train on the Sunday was a special returning from the \\’uitomo Caves and travelled straight through the Te Awa—mutu station at -io miles per hour. As it was Sunday ulternoon all the station onleials were 011' duty, and there was no one present to operate the signal: “It was an absolute trap and it was negligence on the part of the Railways Department to leave this trap.“ continued 311' Preston. “it was the duty of the Department to have someone at the station '\\ hen the train was coming through." No Warning Given. Counsel said the only warning was‘ when the train was actually crossing the road at to mph. The detendant‘s good driving had avoided a much more ‘ serious accident. Constable Forsyth said that in an interview the stationmuster had told him that the warning would operate one second before the train was on the crossing- ; .\ir Preston stated that the train did not sound a whistle before reaching the crossing. ’i‘zill hedges had been; allowed to grow near the road and had obstructed the flow along that line. The t'a'ct that the hedges had: been cut down next morning was proof that the Department realised the dam ge‘r’. Two advertising hoardings also served to block the View of approach—ing drivers. “The Railway Depart-j inrut were lucky that they did not have -t\\'o deaths on their hands, for they‘ would have been responsible,“ he ‘ added. . l The Magistrate said it was not. his place to say whether the safeguards \\e're sumrient or not. but it they were“ inadequate the matter would be recti— ‘ lieit. 'i‘heltailnay Department should; hth' the some privilege as local bod—‘ it-s in rounding ot‘t luid corners and making the crossings sale. The defendant had been over the crossing many times and knew the ordinary warning signs were [lit-re.-»ln-vlew of the sperial circumstances attendingdho case and because defendant hint been adequately punished by» the shook or the fll‘i'ltlenl, ‘she was convicted and discharged.