75

I.—6a.

T. A. FOWERAKER.

152. We had it from Driver Bennie that while his engine was standing at the tanks he saw the distant signal, before he moved, standing at " Danger " : that is a distance of about 12 chains —262 yards? —Yes. 153. You xvould not consider it necessary to do anything under Rule 155 under those circumstances?— No. Mr. Kennedy asked me that question assuming there was a fog. 154. Mr. Kennedy is presupposing a dense fog, but he is putting his question as if there were an ordinary fog. Are your answers to Mr. Kennedy given on the presumption that he is referring in every case to a dense fog? —That is what they were, certainly. 155. And not to the circumstances that prevailed at New Lynn on the 28th May? —No, certainly not. 156. With regard to the alteration of the system of crossing Nos. 5 aud (>, is it not a fact that Tablet Porter Mooney himself altered this arrangement, because he found that one method delayed No. 5, and he adopted another method to get No. 5 away?— Yes. 157. Then he wound that that delayed No. 6, and as No. 6 was more important he adopted another ? —Yes. 158. On his own initiative?— Yes. 159. But the fact that he adopted that practice did not make it irregular under Rule 157 for Mr. Mortimer to follow out the practice that he carried out on the 28th May —that is, to pull No. 5 up to the platform and back her in from the north end? Under Rule 157 that was justifiable and safe?— Yes. 160. Always providing, of course, that the home signal was at "Danger"?— That is so. 161. With regard to the chances of collision being lessened if No. 5 were put in at the south end : suppose No. 6 were driving into the station recklessly, could not a collision occur no matter which way you put No. 5 ? —That is so. 162. Of course, if the main line were clear down to Avondale. for instance, the chance of a collision at Nexv Lynn would be still further reduced?— That is so. 163. With respect to the question of your control over the engine-drivers, you meant in the matter of duty, directing the driver to do something? —Yes. 164. If you saw an engine-driver disregarding a rule and jeopardizing the safety of the public would you report it?—lt would bo my duty then to report it. 165. Mr. Dickson.] With regard to that last question asked you by Mr. McVilly, you said that your answers were given on the assumption that Mr. Kennedy was referring to a dense fog and not to "the circumstances that prevailed at New Lynn on the 28th May." What do you know about the circumstances that prevailed at New Lynn on that day?—l know nothing; I was out of the district at the time. 166. Therefore you do not knoxv what the circumstances were?— Only by the evidence. 167. You do not knoxv whether those answers you gave Mr. Kennedy would apply to New Lynn or not?— They apply to Nexv Lynn under a dense fog. 168. The Chairman.] You do not know whether there was a dense fog or not? —No. 169. Mr. Mcl illy.] You know what the circumstances wen according to the evidence? —Yes; that is what I said. 170. Mr. Kennedy.] When Porter Mooney on the 21st or about that time told you that he had decided ill future to bring No. 5 into the silling at the first points, did you understand that both porters were going to do that? —I understood from the way in which Mr. Mooney gave the reply that it was in the plural—that they xvere not going to take any chances. George Edward Richardson sworn and examined. (No. 26.) 1. The Chairman.] What is your occupation?—l am locomotive engineer at Petone. 2. Mr. Dickson.] What xvas the date when you were transferred from Auckland to Wellington?—llth or 12th May.* 3. On the 10th February there was a matter about the Nexv Lynn Station in connection xvith Engine-driver Dobbie: did- you hold that inquiry, or did it come before you?—No, I had nothing to do with that inquiry. 4. You cannot tell us anything about it?—No; I do not remember anything about it. 5. I suppose the file xvould be in Auckland?— Yes, in the Auckland office —part of the papers. 6. I understood from Mr. Boxvles that you dealt with the matter?—'lhere was a case —I do not know the dates. 7. I will tell you what it was. Engine-driver Dobbie refused to back his train at New Lynn in the way they were doing, as he said it was contrary to the regulations—that he was fouling the main line. I asked Mr. Bowles about it, and I understood him to say that you dealt with it, and he quoted part of a letter?—lf it was reported by the driver to me I reported it to Mr. Boxvles. 8. Mr. Bowles could not tell us anything about it, as you dealt with it. I want to know if you can give us any information on the point. Was the driver right in making that objection? Did you uphold the engine-driver or did you find fault with him? —It is hard to remember things that happened so long ago. I can remember something about a report. I remember getting a report from the driver, but Ido not recall that it was Driver Dobbie. I thought it xvas another driver. 9. Was it objecting?— Pointing out something at New Lynn. I could not tell you now what it xvas, except that it was something to do with coming up to the station in that way. I could not tell you the details with certainty.