INTERFERING WITH A RAILWAY.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXX, Issue 3556, 22 June 1912, Page 2

INTERFERING WITH A RAILWAY.

FINE IMPOSED FOR MOVING TRUCKS AT KAITARATAHI.

AN INTERESTING CASE

The attention of Mr W. A. Barton, S.M., was occupied yesterday morning hearing a charge brought against a man named Frederick Boniface of interfering with railway trucks at lvaitaratahi on May 20. Defendant waS charged with doing an act which might endanger the lives cf persons travelling on the railway, and further that he did move part of the rolling-stock on the Gisborne-Rotorua railway without having lawful authority to do so. Sergeant Hutton conducted the prosecution, and Mr J. Blair appeared for the defendant, who pleaded a -technical breach of the railway bylaws.

Walter Charles Niehol, actingguard and porter, said he was on a sepcial goods train on May 20, and upon arrival at lvaitaratahi found a wagon almost l'oul of the other end. The stop-block was off. The waggon was pushed blear and the stop-block locked. The stop-block, as far as he know, was usually kept locked. He had always found it locked. The' locks and keys were specially made for the railway. To / Mr Blair: It. would be an unexpected train to an outsider. Witness had been three months on the Gisborne line, and he went up and down about twice a week. There were other persons who locked and unlocked the blocks. Each guard and acting-guard had a- key, and he thought the gangers dicl also. The trucks were not so far but that the train could not pot past, and were not in a position to endanger the train. They pushed them back so as to lock the blocks.

To Sergeant Hutton; He did not notice whether the brakes were down on the trucks- A strong wind could not have shifted them.

Joseph William Russell, railway guard, stated that he , was in charge of the train on May 20, when waggons were shunted into the siding at Kaitaratahi. He locked the stopblocks. Ho had never found them open. To Mr Blair: Witness came on the Gisborne line about a fortnight before May -20. Since then 4hoy had not been more careful than at any other time. Guard Niehol reported the matter, and witness was called on for an explanation. It was witness’s duty to lock tlie block on May 20. He was perfectly sure he locked the block. The trucks were left at the siding between 5 and 5.15 p.m. Mr Blair pointed out that the special train passed at noon, before the trucks were there. Witness said he was not sure whether he was on the train the previous day.

Willoughby Cecil Sefton said he was acting-ganger „on the section of the line from Wuihirere to Te Karaka. To his knowledge the guards had not been, in the habit of leaving the stop-blocks open. He had never known them to be left, open for the convenience of carters. t\ itness had no key. The gangers were not allowed to have keys. If they required one they had to apply to the nearest stationmaster. The lock could not be fastened and yet leave the block open. To Mr Blair: A great deal of care was taken of the keys, and an outsider would have great difficulty in obtaining possession of one. Constable Doyle stated that ho interviewed the defendant about the end of May, when lie said lu? was filling gravel in trucks at Kaitaratahi on May 20. He remembered the special train, and lie saw the guard shthiting the trucks he (defendant) had been filling back over the stopblocks. Defendant said for the convenience of loading he had shifted the trucks back. Witness asked him how he had done so without removing the stop-block. Defendant said the block was unlocked, and he had turned it back. He said it was never locked to bis knowledge. That was the first time he had been loading there.' He said the lock was not in working order, so the block could not be locked. Witness examined' the block, and found it locked, and there was nothing to show that the lock had been forced at any time. To Mr Blair: Burrows had the gravel contract defendant was working oil, -and he said that if there was any trouble be should be summoned arid not defendant. Burrows said the block was seldom locked. Mr Blair pointed out from the guard's evidence the train was not endangered. Defendant knew the time of the ordinary train, and intended running the truck back before it came along. He had no reason to expect a special train. It was highly improbable that defendant, who went on to the job for the first time that day, had one of the keys in his possession. There was no malicious net on defendant’s part. He held that a light penalty would meet the case, as there had only been a technical breach.

After defendant had given evidence His Worship said he was not satisfied upon the evidence that defendant did open the lock, and it was not suggested that he committed the offence with any intention to'cause injury; but of course such an act as lie did might have done so, and it was very necessary that he should be punished. If such cases were allowed to go unpunished very serious consequences might result, and persons should not on any account interfere with the working of the railway. The defendant had not denied the matter, and did not put the authorities to any unnecessary trouble. The maximum penalty was £SO, but ho thought under tlfe circumstances a fine of £1 in •each case would suffice. If further cases of interfering with the rail came before him, much heavier penalties would bo inflicted. Defendant was fined that amount jrn eash case, in default 4 days’ imprisonment, the cost amounting to £le ss.