A piotest was made at the Provisional Court by Mr.
'Van den' Berg, Senior Consul's ease in which a truck dri sentenced to one years' imprisonment after being found guilty by the court of first instance, and which sentence was confirmed in the Appeal Court after the prisoner was charged with negligence causing death. The protest which was self-explanatory was, in part, as follo This necused was sentenced by' the Judge in the Court of First Instance to imprisonment- for a period of one year on the charge of causing death through negligence contrary to Art. 2011, Section 2 of the Criminal Code.
This case arose out of a fatal accident which occurred on July 30 whereby a boy of 10 years ler alighting from a tram ear fat Avenue Road and Carter Road corner, ran across the road'and w:
Knocked down by a, truck which' was being driven by the accused. It appears that the child was travelling in company of his mother }who allowed the boy to alight from the tramear before her. She roceived $250 compensation and there was no. desire on her part to stitute criminal proceedings against the accused, From the evidence it appears thet the track proceeded at a very slow rate. Besides the mother there are two witnesses who actually saw the accident. These two witnesses both from the tram car, ran across the road, bat when he was part way across the road, an old woman (presumably the mother) shouted, to him, with the result that he turned back and fell down in front of the truck.
The Judge's Misapprehension From the judgment rendered by the Judge in the Court of First Instance it appears that the Judge was evidently under the impress that under the Traffic Regulations driver when passing a stationary tranicar shall. stop, and that since
was guilty of negligence and should fbe punished with imprisonment for period of one year.
The accused - appealed on the grounds (a) that he did not know that the child had fallen under the rear wheels of his car, (b) that the mother of the do-eased boy did not wish to prosecute him, compensation being paid, and (c) that she really was the person responsible for this accident.
The Court of Appeal did not recall any witnesses, and dismissed the The Judges of the Court of Appeal are of opinion that from the fact that the child was knocked down it was quite clear that it was necessary for the accused to stop.
I do not share this opinion and submit that negligence in this case} was not proven,. and that this judgment is therefore contrary to law.
On many occasions the question negligence has been made the subject of protests owing to a ference of conception between the Judges and Deputies of the principle that forms the basis of an orderly society.
It goes without saying that where there is negligence on the part of Several persons, the negligence of cone does not exempt the other from the responsibility of his own careless act. It would be unjust however to apply the penalty to the one and not to the other, and the guilt must be proved.
Now in this particular case if any person was careless it was the child itself, Taking into account that he was a young boy, travelling in company of his mother, who obviously careless too, the responsibility for his death rests mainly upon her. is nothing to show that the accused failed to" exercise proper cate, on, the contrary I feel more inclined to say that the reverse was the ease, Nevertheless he is brought before the Court, and received a sentence of one' year's imprisonment, although the law in case of established guilt still gives option to impose a fine or to suspend the sentence.
1, therefore, wish to record my objections against. the confirmation of this sentence by the Judges of the Court of Appeal on what I consider an innocent and blamele person,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.