HUTT EXPLOSION

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2133, 27 April 1914, Page 6

HUTT EXPLOSION

uuLlulMlCi Inbuilt

OPINION OF TWO EXPERTS

EVIDENCE CONCLUDED. Tho inquiry conducted by Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., into the circumstances attending tho death of tho victims of the Upper Hutt disaster was concluded on Saturday, when two expert witnesses put forward a theory that tho explosion was duo to gelignite. The- finding will be given.' to-morrow morning. Tho first witness on Saturday was Roy Maltby Girling-Butcher, inspector of explosives, who said that lie had had about five years' experience in t'ho testing and handling of explosives, and had investigated several accidents. He had had experience with gelignite, including practical experience of its behaviour when heated. It was his duty to destroy all imperfect explosives, and , this was done by burning. Ho had found that in about one caso in ten heat was sufficient to explode the trail of gelignite. . Mr. Morison here objected to Mr. Butchor's evidence being admitted. Ho remarked that tho witness should have been called earlier. Tho Chief Detective said that the reason for calling Mr. Butcher was becauso he did not agree with Professor Easterfiekl's theory as to how the explosion occurred. Mr. Morison: Ho should have been called before; ho has been hero all along. Seat of the Explosion, '-Replying- to tho Chief Detective, tho witness said that ho did not agree that tho explosion had occurred at the spot marked.X in tho plans. Had the explosion occurred at that point it would , have been, impossible for debris to have been-thrown on to the south comer of tho hotel balcony, and tho verandah beyond, without a fair proportion of it falling on the roof of tho hotel and being caught by the signboard. Tho debris on the roof consisted of a few fragments— not many in number nor large in size. On the south end of the balcony there was .a considerable quantity- of debris of. a'mixed kind. If the explosion had occurred in the front south- room one would have expected the debris to have been thrown as was actually found. The effeot on. the people, killed'.was also more consistent with an..explosion in this room. • There was no inconsistency in the fact that while Mahoney'; ...Taylor, and Flynu.liad.been badly injured- by.the force of. tho explosion, Gomeskey. and Polling escaped injury directly resulting from the, explosion, since, to reach tho two last-named, the explosion would have to pass' through a floor and a sido wall at what was probably their strongest point. "Moreover," continued the witness, "had the explosion been an acetylene one, from its destructive and propelling force, it was evidontly ono of great violence, and since, according to Professor Easterfield's theory, it. must have occurred. at or below the coiling, the fact that Corneskey andPelling were so injured, in view of the age i of the walls, becomes even , moro striking than if we as'sume gelignite as. tho'cause." The acetylene gas theory would hardly explain how sash-weights and sill from the shop window were found on. the other side of the allotment.

Celignlto or Net? . The Chief-Detective: Ono witness said that at the moment'of the explosion there was a blue light. What kind of light would a gelignite explosion carry? Witness: A brilliant, dazzling light, with i>crhaps a tinge of violot in it. The Chief-Detective asked tho witness what, in his opinion, had caused the explosion. Mr. Morison objected to the question. Tho Coroner said that the witness was an expert, and was entitled to give au opinion, flowover, tho question need not be put. Witness added that he could not explain the' explosion satisfactorily on any other supposition than gelignite. > Mr. Evans: Can you givo an estimate of the quantity of gelignite which would be needed to cause such devastation if exploded in a-ioom T of the sizo referred to? Witness replied that 101b. was his lowest estimate, but said that a great deal would depend on whether the gelignite was burnt, or exploded through, becoming heated.

Against Aoetylena Theory. Dr. James Scott Maclaurin, Dominion Analyst, and Chief Inspector of Explosives, was recalled. Ho said that he had mado experiments with a bottle, acetylene gas, and air, usiug about 1\ per cent, of acetyleno once, and 12i per cent, on another . occasion. Tho capacity of the bottlo was a bout onetenth of a cubic foot. Tho bottlo had survived i the explosion, and the report was not very loud: This bottlo was much larger than tho soda-water bottlo which had been smashed to atoms in Professor Easterfield's experiment. Witness had had the acetylene-gas generator from Bengo and Pratt's store tested, to ascertain if it leaked. Ho had found that there was 'no leak .in cither tap, and' none in the generator. He did .not think that the explosion was one of acetylene. For the quantity of. acetylene which he calculated mikht bo in tho room, an explosion of the kind which occurred would be remarkable. Such an explosion, however, might have been brought about by-Rolignito. ' _ This concluded tho evidence, and counsel did not mako addresses. Tho Coroner stated that ho would deliver his finding at 10 o'clock to-morrow morning. Ho thanked counsel and witnesses for their assistance.