HELENSVILLE FATALITY

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8346, 5 February 1913, Page 9

HELENSVILLE FATALITY

INQUEST ON ELLEN GORDON. Press Association. AUCKLAND, February 4. The inquest on tho death ot Ellen Mary Gordon, who was killed in a motor-car accident at Ivaukapakapa on January 14th, was continued to-day at Helensville. , ~ Nina Morton Hill, wife of P u <lley Druco Hill, of F-ernhill, Hawke s Lay, said that at the time of the accident Mr Hill was driving. Mrs, Gordon was sitting beside him. Witness, was sitting behind tho driver. Iho speedometer registered an average ot ten miles an hour between Auckland and Helensville. On reaching Hie bridge, two miles on tho Helensville side ot Ivaukapakapa, they thought they left the railway. Witness kept a shal P look-out. She saw no signals bolero the smash. Witness had some recollection of hearing a whistle, the same_ instant catching sight of tho engme, which was at the crown of the (lipMr Hill crammed on Ins brakes, but tho impetus was too great, and the distance too short. The occupants wcio all thrown out, and the forepart ot, tho car was smashed. .Her sister (the deceased) was picked up beside the cattlestop. Witness, did not, know at that time she was dead, but knew she was badly hurt. The engine was hidden by the trees, which form a hedge. I “ e y did not attempt, to rush tho hue. 1 hey had a map, but the map did not show the railway crossing. • Dudley Bruce Hill said, he was an experienced driver. He bad been driving for ten years. He did not see any sign “ Stop! look for the engine 1” He did not see the railway line. Witness heard no whistle, except when he sighted the engine. That would he when the car was a chain or a chain and a half away. The engine was hidden by the trees.and the rails by a dip in the road. Tho crossing was the most dangerous one he had ever seen. Other evidence was heard, and, after two hours’ adjournment, the jury returned the following verdict: That, tho deceased, Ellen Mary Gordon, was accidentally killed at Kaukapakapa, through the motor-car of which she ivas an occupant colliding with a. railway train.” The following riders were added: “That tho crossing is a particularly dangerous one owing to the approach, thereto being obscured by hedges, which should have been kept cut or removed, and also from tho fact that there is a bend in tho roadway at that place” ; “ That the regulation stop sign, owing to the bend, of the road, mentioned, is because its situation useless as sufficient warning as jto distance, and should, in our opinion, be placed on the other side of the road ”; “ That, in view of the dangerous nature of this crossing, the jury does not consider that the Railway Department has provided sufficient warning of the proximity of tho crossing to serve as a safeguard to tho travelling public, ” ; “That since, in the case of this crossing, the growth of trees and hedges obstruct the’view at a distance and increase the danger of crossings, the local body of tho/locality affected should assist the Railway Department in removing and having removed such ob- , structions, and that this should be a , matter of (Standing instructions to their rangers”; “That it is a: recommendation of the jury that, if so required, the rules and regulations of the Railway Department affecting railway crossings’, stop signals and signs be reframed and enforced in such a way as to enable the peculiar requirements of each particular crossing to be considered.”