The Taihape Daily Times. AND WAIMARINO ADVOCATE SATURDAY, SEPT. 20, 1919. A NOTABLE INQUEST.

Taihape Daily Times, 20 September 1919, Page 4

The Taihape Daily Times. AND WAIMARINO ADVOCATE

SATURDAY, SEPT. 20, 1919. A NOTABLE INQUEST.

With which is incorporated “The Taihape Post; and Waimarino Newa.”

Several notable features in the evidence adduced at -the inquest in connection with the death of Thomas Walsh, wh‘c'> was k_illed in a railway accident in May last, seem to invite some measure, of comment. The attitude taken by the Railway Department’s counsel established in the public mind the suggestion that the Coiiit was nather in the nature of a 3 Departmental inquiry than to discover the cause of death. It seemed evident thatpany unnecessary delay in rescuing the pinned‘ down, scalded man» from the 'dea'th—trap in which he was caught’ might contribute" to‘ his death, and yet it was persistently urged that all evidence onthat point" was irrelevant, while Counsel forthe widow maintained, We think, correctly so, =tl~.-at had there been no delay terrible suifering may have been alleviated, and possibly life saved. How such ‘ evidence at a Coroncr’s Inquest of the l kind could be claimed to be inndmis-u able by irrelevance is certainly a mis- ‘ norner to the lay mind, but then, it is said, that ‘common law is not neces-l sanily COHIDIIO‘D. bense. The Departn2en't.’s provision for such 1311 emergency did not appear to be complete; the emergency train was held up at Mata: ; roa by regulations which no ofiiciali present seemed to have any authority to I over-ride, The Dcpartmtents’ Cour._=.el’sl claim that the man in charge of the! train was not responsible for ‘the death l of the driver is beside the question, somebody, or something in connection with ,the' Department,. inculpablry or, otherwise, was responsible, and there; are yet forty—fiVe minutes of time lost I in getting to the relief of the pinned-j down, scalded man which have not been accounted for, and there is cause; Ptoi believe that the failure may have been 1 Owing‘ to the burking of inquiry on that point. It is not contended that a life would have been saved, but following failure of the supreme possibility should have been alleviation of the man’s terrible suffering at ‘the very earliest monient humanly possible, and under the circumstances, if not those under notice, actual life might have ;been saved. The inquiry was one held ‘ 011 behalf of His Majesty the King «to |discover the cause of death of one of His Majc-sty’s subjects, and no evid'erce that tended towards that discovery sh-ould have been objected ‘to, if ‘only because it was opposed to the ‘kin-gly intention. Another feature of ,the inquest which tended to the View lthat it was being regarded as a de- ! partmental inquiry was the extl'aol'din- ’ ary objection made by the Department’s lCounscl to the finding of the Court. .'.l‘he Cor-oner’s verdict is either right i or wrong; the mere statement of Coun. sol that it was not in accordance with the evidence does not render it so; nor should any effort. of Counsel‘to get :1 revision of that verdict on the plea that it was unfair to the Railway Department be permitted ‘to shake the Coroner's consciencious judgment upon what evidence came before him. The ‘Coroner said death resulted from the failure of an: air-pump to act; Department’s Counsel says the weight of the BVidonCo was aganist that finding, and he desired the Coroner to state that death was caused by the engine leaving; the rails, but there was nothing to show how or why_ There was a Very considerable amount of theorising in the evidence of some experts about the pump failure. It was sworn that the pump showed no defect; that it was in Perfect condition when taken oft‘ the derailed engine, but no theory of what might; have been, or what condition ‘the P“mD and brake might have been in after the accident" cannot disturb the fact that a young, capable, engine-V driver stood stoieally to his engine, facing the. awful consequences that he

knew were coming. If; his pump was‘ workable, wouldfhe air pipes -of his‘ brake have remained without suflieient l pressure to stop his rush into almost‘ certain death‘! The fireman ’s evidence: centred around the fact in his mind‘ that the brake failed because the pump would not work. In a last effort to‘ avert what looked to him like certain ‘ disaster, he left the cab of the engine while the train was rushing on to err‘ dcavoul' to set the pump working, but‘ the risk taken proved -a failure, and with no power on earth available, the ‘two men could only await the smash‘ that was inevitable. The gllal'd"s evideuce respecting brake failure corro-I borated the fireman’s, and oire otlicial stated that Welsh had said ‘that the pump would not work. Another expert witness said the brake was defective, also that the pump had stopped While the engine was in his charge. In his evidence the _Assistant Chief Mechanical Engineer frankly stated he was prepared to admit that the pump on that‘ fatal run possibly did stop, though the brke would stilltbe operative. But the evidence of the fireman and the guard seem to conclusively Show that there was not sufiicient pressure Of air to render the brake effective. Why was there not sufficient pressure? There seems but one answer possible, and the men on the train gave that anwer‘ in their sw-orn testimony: “The air " pump would not work.” The evidence of a train incident on the Rimutaka line rather favours the Corouer’s Verdict; why, when the driver on that occasion noticed his pump had stopped' did he not trust to the efficiency -of his brake to take ‘him to Upper Hu'tt instead of going downthe incline with hand-brakes and,‘ probably, reversed engine? His action is ~agains't' the theory that the brakes remain depend- ‘ ently efiective in cases of “pump ! failure. In the Rimutaka case ‘t.h.e_Stop- I page of the pump was discovered while the train could be -stopped, in the‘ Hihitahi case it was not, and in this fact lies the fatal -difference. The _ver- ‘ dict‘of the Coroner is supported by‘ evidence, which is virtually undeniable; no effort to throw the responsibility for ‘ failure of the brake on deceased can change ‘the fact that the brake was not ‘ workable, and no theory can establish any reasonable postiilate. that the rnen ‘wilfully; rode their engine to destruction. Hadthere been _an_ entire, absence of evidence of the ‘failure the.‘ nattural assumption .”would have been ‘ ; that lack of air pressure in the V'br='a:keg ‘ resulted from a 'defec.ti,ve-pump failing ‘ .to perform its work, But there seems ‘ample evidence to. establish the fact,‘ that the pump would not act, beyond, I all reasonable doubt.. Co:insel’s revision of the verdict might have suited ‘ the Department, but had the Coroner‘ adopted it he would have rendered hinl- ‘ ‘ self vulnerable to ‘the se'verest~ criticism. ‘ Ha-drthe Coroner given any other vex-~ ‘ dict he would, in substance, have said ‘he entirely disbelieved the evidence of the fireman, guard,‘ and the dc? ‘ceased—the three menwho were present: no theorem is possible of demon‘tration that can destroy the evidence ‘of the men. who passed through the ‘terrifying experiericee of that. night. ‘What cventuaated is "strongest evidence of the statement that there was only ‘eight pounds pressure in the brake, ‘when there should have been at least ‘ 70lbs; by what reason could only I be known to the deceased and the fire‘man. No immediate trial of the brake was made to verify -the statements that no defects were seen in the pump or bi-z=.l~:e when removed from the wrecked engine, therefore these statements lack ‘the virtue that could have been given ‘to them by such a trial. It seems he- ‘ yond doubt that the deceascd’s death I'o- - suited from scalding and being Cl‘llSllod ‘in a train smash caused by an engine loaVirlg the rails through the bl'€llio ‘which should govern its speed being‘: ‘from some cause. inopr-native. Then it ‘must be allowed ‘that "the tfol‘|‘H"ol'l3D.sl' ‘cause was the correct one for the Coroner to talge as being the cause of’ ‘ death.