THE HUNTLY DISASTER.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVII, Issue 232, 10 March 1915, Page 4

THE HUNTLY DISASTER.

ALLEGED MANSLAUGHTER liy 1 olograph, Per Press Association mi. rr „ " Hamilton March tt. ' the Huntly manslaughter charge-was continued m the Supreme Court this morning. . Under cross-examination. by Mr. Skerrctt, Frank Reed, inspecting, engineer of mines, said that from, the position wiero the body of tlie miner. Martin was found ■he came to the conclusion that Martin was walking in. the., direction of the door from the winch level. The evidence witness had given. before the magistrate,, on which ho based. hi& opinion* states tW reason for this belief. Apart from the question of ventilation, the d,oor into No. G no element in the causation .of the explosion, which was brought about by an eruption of gas from a blow.ei; in No. 5 bord. Under re-examination fev Mr, Ostler, witness wid it was feasible for the deceased Martio, to have gone round by what was known as the little dip, which was aboufe ten chains longer than tha route taken by the othor men, but as he was a young man and alone he would travel faster. Two hundred cubic feet of gas of the ihost explosive mixture would cause a violent explosion. Further evidenoe was given by Freder- ' ick Berry, stableman, Joseph M. Brjwnley, harse-driver, Alexander Mcintosh, machine man, Patrick Kennedj), trucker, and Daniel Weir, who had carried out the inspection of the old working over a period of four years. The last three witnesses said they had known that small quantities of gas were in the mine previous to the disaster, arid on < one occasion a miner named Kelly was turned about the arms. All these witnesses were in the mine on the morning of the disaster.

" COLLAPSE OF THE PACT!, . THE ACCUSED DISCHARGED. Hamilton, Last Night, The ca3e came to an abrupt ending at the Supreme Court this afternoon. At the conclusion of the case for ttie Crown, Mr. Skerrett, for tho accused, submitted that there was no case to go to tlie jury. He raised the point, not with tlie least desire of wishing to avoid calling the accused and his witnesses, but under the circumstances he was of opinion that it would be a serious waste of time. On the main gro-unds lie held that filiere was no case to answer, and it was permissible for his Honor to ask the jury if they wished the defence heard. But, his Honor said, the matters must rest with the jury at the present stage, although he was doubtful if some of the grounds of alleged negligence had been supported by evidence. - ' On the Question being, put to the jury by his Honor, the-foreman asked permission to retire. The jury returned in ten minutes, when the foreman intimated that thejv were unanimously of opinion that the evidence of the prosecution did not sustain the charge of culpable* negligence against th e accused. " This wa3 tantamount to a verdict of not guilty, and the accused was discharged. /