THE TRAM CAR ACCIDENT IN DUNEDIN.

Globe, Volume XXI, Issue 1774, 27 October 1879, Page 2

THE TRAM CAR ACCIDENT IN DUNEDIN.

THE INQTTEST. [Br Tbibsbaph.] The following is the driver's evidence in the inquest on John Meldrum : Andrew Smith, engine-driver, was the last witness. He said that he wished to give evidence, and, having been sworn, deposed :—I have been engine-driver of the tram car Washington about three months. I was driving that engine south about 2 p.m. yesterday. Where I am placed, I can see a considerable distance ahead of me, but on approaching any object within fifteen or twenty yards I loee sight of it, except when it is to be seen out of the side window. After passing St. Andrew street, I saw two horses and carts backed up towards the carriage shed. I took no notice of they were quiet. There wore four gentlemen on the car. I have constantly warned the conductor against allowing passengers to remain on the outßide as it stops my view and causes danger. On crossing St. Andrew street I told the boy to clear the platform. Preduring that trip I had stopped the train and cleared the platform. When quite close on deceased's horEO I saw it move away from the' footpath. The train car must then have been within three or four yards of the horse's head, though I cannot tell within some yards of the distance an object is when I once lose sight of it. Seeing the danger, I reversed the engine to go in a different direction, and stopped it as quickly as I could manage. About twenty yards from the horses, I drew up to get over some bad places, and went about two to three miles an hour —slower indeed than a person would walk. Before then I could only have been going about six miles an hour. If the engine is in good order I can stop the engine and car in its own length when going at tho rate of five or six miles an hour. This is all the rate wo are allowed to travel at. At the rate we were going at the time of the accident, and with the engine in good order, I could have stopped in half the car's length. I do not know how long it would take by reversing the engines to stop the trains, but it ought not to take so long. On this occasion the steam was very weak. The steam should nut be used at all for stopping. The proper way would be to shut off steam and apply the brake. The brake was in very bad order. The four brakes to the front wheels were off. They were In the shed when the brake broke about three days before the accident. I took the engine to the shed, and reported the accident in the book kept for ihat purpose. The brake was sent to the foundry for oastings, but these wore i not ready. The reversing lever with the steam has since done duty as a brake.

The Coroner—Thia is an explanation of the accident. Then how was it that this engine was allowed to run in this unsafe cob* dition ? Witness—l dor/t know. The matter was reported, and nothing being done, I have been compelled to keep a look-out and take what precautions I could. The Coroner—Then you were actually deprived of the very power of doing your duty ? Witness—Yes, sir. The Coroner—Did you consider it unsafe to work the engine in this condition ? Witness—Yes. I told the superintending engineer so every day. The Coroner—Did you tell Mr Proudfoot ? Witness—l believe Mr Proudfoot did not know anything about this until the inquest was culled. The Coroner—Then if you had bed a proper brake even admitting that the horse did not bolt till you wore within yards of it, do you think that you could have prevented the accident? | Witness —I believe that considering the distance the man was under the cart, I could have saved the man’s life if the car had been in proper working order. lam not confident of this. The Coroner—Do you consider it dangerous to reverse the engine ? Witness —It is Jdangerous to reverse the engine, becaueo being a compound engine and car, it might explode some day if that were done. The Coroner said the jury would doubtless agree with him that from the serious complexion the matter had now assumed, an adjournment would be necessary for the production of the evidence of Mr Craig, the superintending engineer, and others. An adj aurnment was consequently agre d upon, and it was decided to sit again on Monday, at 2 p.m.