AUCKLAND TRAGEDY.

Taranaki Daily News, 9 February 1922, Page 5

AUCKLAND TRAGEDY.

COLLAPSE OF SCAFFOLDING. WAS IT SAFE TO USE ? By Telegraph.—Press Association. Auckland, Last Night. The inquest on the death of the four painters killed at Endean’s Buildings on February 1 has concluded. George Burrows gave evidence, that the three beams on which the planks were laid were 6x4 Oregon placed on the flat, as the foreman, Charles Courtney, one of the deceased, said this would obviate the danger of rolling. Witness assisted to erect the scaffolding. The inspector came in and talked to the foreman, but witness did not hear the conversation, but gathered that it was about scaffolding. After dinner the foreman said: “All right, the scaffold has been passed; we will go to work on it.” Witness said Ken Taylor, one of the firm’s principals, visited the job after the bearer beams had been placed in position. When the scaffolding had been completed the mi?n were given other work pending the arrival of the inspector. Witness, with others, handled the beam which collapsed and saw nothing wrong, nor did he. hear the others make any comment. The trestles were placed on the platform after the inspector had left, but at the time of the visit were standing by ready for use.

Hugh Gresham, inspector of scaffolding, stated the foreman agreed to comply with his instructions, but from a subsequent inspection he was satisfied this had not been done. Witness thought the foreman, when leaving, asked if he would inspect, and he replied, “Yes, all right.” This was not in reply to a question by the foreman whether he could go on with work. He had not passed the scaffold, and could not say why the foreman had tola the men it had passed. For some considerable time he had not issued certificates under clause 3 of the regulations.

The coroner returned a formal verdict that death was due to a fall from a scaffold due to the breaking of a beam, which was obviously of not sufficient strength for the purpose, and had not been .tested. He regretted there had been a misunderstanding between the inspector and the sergeant as to whether the scaffolding had been passed. It was unfortunate that following the accident the inspector appeared to have said nothing about his instructions nor being followed, and he appeared to have made some remark suggesting to survivors that the scaffold had been passed.