OPARA RAILWAY SMASH

Hokitika Guardian, 16 March 1926, Page 3

OPARA RAILWAY SMASH

COMMISSION OF INQUIRY. WELLINGTON, March It. The Royal Commission which was sot up to inquire into the cause ol the derailment of the Wellington-Napier express train near Opapu station on September 22. 1925, sal in Wellington to-day, when a copy of the depositions and evidence heard in the manslaughter charge against the driver of the train were put in, after which the Commission adjourned to consider its finding.

Mi .Myers. K. 0., who appeared for the Railway Department, explained that previously the Commission took a certain amount ol evidence with record to the condition of the track and rolling stock and the general question of time-table, because it was necessary fn such matters that the public should have the earliest possible inlormatiou in order that their anxiety, il they had anxiety, should he allayed, hut the Commission would remember that counsel very carefully refrained from saving anything that would suggest or indicate their view as to the cause of the disaster. A certain part ot the evidence given by Rrolcssor Scott was, hv courtesy of the Press, not published. It was obvious, however, that Professor Scott’s deductions were correct. There was only one cause to which the disaster could he attributed. The next thing that happened was that the engine driver, la.vin, was arrested and charged with manslaughter. I p to that point evidence had not been called lie*fore the Commission as to the actual speed of the train and as to the cause of the disaster, other than that of Professor Scott, because the engine driver was still in hospital and it -was not considered fair Unit evidence should he given or published winch might prejudice him in any way when charged with manslaughter. Obviously the proper course was to allow that proceeding to go on lie fore anvthing further was done by ihetonimJssion. The position now was that the charge of manslaughter had been heard, and the jury at Napier had convicted the engine driver. Evidence that was given for the Crown during the ease was the same evidence that would have been called before the Commission, had the Commission proceeded and Imd the engine driver not been arrested and charged. The Commission alreadv had the evidence ol Professor Scott and it might well he that on that evidence alone the Commission could come to no other than one particular conclusion. The evidence given by the prosecution in Napier confirmed thn conclusion. Counsel said he proposed to band to the Commission a copy o! the notes of evidence taken for his Honor at the Supreme Court trial Unless the Commission considered otherwise nothing further would be required. If tile Commission desired any particular witness or witnesses to be heard thev would he brought, hut counsel considered it would only be unnecessary expense to bring people to M ellington from various parts of New Zealand to give evidence that was given at the Napier trial. " Mr W Ci. Piddell. S.M.. the chairman said the Commission was satisfiec that it would be a waste of time an. expense to recall witneses. The fael that proceedings were taken a gams I the driver and that the driver wa: found guilty of negligence by a jurt was only what would have been expect ed from the evidence put before tin Commission in the early stages. Tin proceedings in the Supreme Court hai had the effect of making it unnecessar; to recall witness who gave evident* there. The Commission would conside the whole of the evidence as to th condition of the track, condition o rolling stock and other evidence in re gard to speed and in due course woul report to the Minister of Railways The Commission desired to thank com sel. the Railway Department and wit nesses who had given evidence in cor neetion with the inquiry. The Commission adjourned.