All hut those afflicted with a passion for judicial nicety will, we believe, concur with Judge Lobingier's handling of the Ollerdessen case. Mr. Ollerdessen had the misfortune to run li a Chinese workman, and from injuries then sustained the latter died. In such a case the law provides for penalty ies to be imposed upon the party at fault, but, if we are not mistaken, criminal proceedings would have to be followed by civil action to obtain reparation for the damage done, in this case sustenance for the deceased's widow and children. In a matter such as the present, where criminal intent and action were entirely absent, Judge Lobingier was surely right in departing from the strict method of procedure and in dealing with it on wide and equitable lines. The widow's ent logic was not to be gain-what would it benefit her if the defendant were cast into prison and she and her children left. to starve? Obviously the misfortune suffered by the family could not be wholly repaired, but it could be much alleviated, and the best way to do this by continuing the deceased man's contribution to his family during his normal expectation of life, in this instance 19 years. It is satisfactory that this solution has been possible, and it has the further merit of making it plain to motorists that their misdemeanour are not to be let off lightly now or in the future—irrespective of the fact that so far as can be seen Mr. Ollerdessen's case was by no means free of bad luck.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.