MISSING LINK IN EVIDENCE ON BALLANTYNE’S

Grey River Argus, 16 April 1948, Page 4

MISSING LINK IN EVIDENCE ON BALLANTYNE’S

Who Made Joints in Defective Electrical Conductor ?

CHRISTCHURCH, April 15,

The last of 137 witnesses called by the Crown counsel was heard this afternoon by the Royal commission inquiring into Ballantynes fir P which occurred on November 18, when 41 lives were lost. Mr G. G. C. Watson, Crown Counsel, said that an exception was that of evidence on joints in the conductor fop the main electrical supply. “We are unable to get evidence yet as to who had made the joints, he said. The counsel representing Ballantynes, the M.E.D., and Thompson and Doreen Ltd., have informed us that their clients know nothing about joints having been made, and We have handed th P matter to me detective branch for usual inquiries.”

When the commission resumes tomorrow, Mr T. P. Cleary, counsel for Ballantynes, will make th P opening address, and he intimated to-day that evidence which he proposed to call would occupy the greater pari of next week.

Recalled by the Crown to-dav. Mr Stuart Maxton Nicol, testing engineer, State Hydro-electric Department. Christchurch, said that a closer examination of the conductor for the main electrical supply showed that two joints were more defective than he had thought, when he gave evidence last week.

Questioned by Mr B. A. Barrer (for three unions) Nicol said, “It is very difficult .to believe that these joints were made bv an electrican, but I still believe they were, because I can’t imagine any other tradesman being brave enough to dn work, in Colombo street. I don’t like to think it was an electrician.”

There was no evidence of undue heating in th P f joints being caused by the normal passage of current, witness told Mr E. S. Bowie (counsel for Thompson for Doreen, electrical contractors.

Evidence of police investigations was given bv George Walter Alty, detective sergeant, who was in charge of inquiries. He said that of 458 members of Ballantynes, staff more than 350 had been interviewed and had given statements. Most were interviewed within a fortnight of the fire. In addition, man v members of the public had also been interviewed. “In my inquiries, I was unable to discover any evidence that would tend to show that the fire had been caused by a criminal act on the part of any person, or by the neglect of anyone to perform any legal duty,” he said.