HUNTLY DISASTER

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2405, 10 March 1915, Page 7

HUNTLY DISASTER

CHARGE OP MANSLAUGHTER FAILS ' DEFENCE NOT CALLED (By Telegraph,—Press Association.) Hamilton, March 9. The Huntly manslaughter charge against James Fletcher, mine manager, was continued at the Supreme Court this mornitiE. Under oross-examination by Mr. Skerrett, Frank Reed, Inspecting Engineer of Mines, said flint from the position where the body of the miner Martin was found he came to the conclusion that Martin was walking in the direction of the door from the winch level. The door leading into No.' 6 bord was ljp element in the causation of the explosion, which was brought about by an eruption of gas from the blower in No. 5 bord.

Re-examined by Mr. Ostler, witness said that it was feasible for deceased Martin to have gone round by what waß known as the Little Dip, which was ■ about ; ten chains longer than the route taken by the other men; but as he was a young man and alone he would travel faster. A hundred cubic feet of gas of a most explosive mixture would cause a violent explosion. Further evidenoe was given by Frederick Barry (stableman), Joseph M. Brownley (horse driver), Alexander M'lntosh (machine man), Patrick Kennedy (trucker), and Daniel Weir, who had carried out the inspection of the old working over a period of four years. The last three witnesses said they had known of small quantities of gas in the mine previous to. the disaster, and on one occasion a miner named Kelly was burned about the arms. All these witnesses were in the mine on the morning of the disaster.

The case came to an abrupt ending this afternoon.

At the conclusion of the case for the Crown Mr. Skerrett for the accused submitted that there was no case to go to a jury.' He raised the point, not with the least desire of wishing to avoid calling the accused and his witnesses, but under the circumstances he was of the opinion that it would be a serious waste of time.' On the main grounds he held_ that there was no case to answer, and it was permissible for His Honour to ask the jury if they wished the defence! heard. His Honour said the matter must rest with the jury at the i present stage, although he was doubtful if some of the grounds of alleged negligence had been supported by evidenoe. On the question being put to the jury by His Honour, the foreman asked permission to retire.

The jury returned in ten minutes, when the foreman intimated that they were unanimously of opinion that the evidence for the prosecution did not sustain .the charge of culpable negligence against the accused. This was tantamount- to a verdict of not guilty, and accused was discharged.