COLLAPSE OF A ROOF.

Evening Post, Volume LXXVII, Issue 73, 27 March 1909, Page 5

COLLAPSE OF A ROOF.

THE PETONE ACCIDENT, EVIDENCE AT THE -INQUEST* x — . The adjourned -inquest on the body of- * Samuel Wilson, who succumbed to in- ' juries he received on Tuesday through the collapse of the steel roofing frame of the new manure works building 5 in course of erection at Petone for the Gear Meat Company, was held to-day, before Dr.. . •M'Arthuv, district coroner. . The following were the jury.: — Messrs. A. Atkinson, G. T. Estale, A. H. Wafckins, J. W< •• tClint, A. Boone, and T. H. Wolfe. ' Mi*. T. F. Martin was present watch- j iing the proceedings on behalf of the •Gear Company, and Mr. Wffford 1 on be- j vhalr/bf the widows of dect&s&i. Mr./ , F\ /Browne, secretary of" the BuiHieis'-'! LHDourers' Union, and* Mr. R. A* 801-"' fend, inspector of scaffolding, also aUJ tended. v Sergeont Foster, of Petone, represented the police. v ENGINEER'S EVIDEJSCE. '"■ William George Lodder, ei^ineer to^ the Gear Company, deposed 1 that rre was ' .m charge of the erection of thes-bnilding, ' which had brick waits wfth steel principals. One of the two sale walk -was . -'new; the other, the side of foe taHow, -department, was seven or eight years old. There were eleven steel principals iormmgthe roof, having a 70% span, and~ resting 18 inches on the walls. Witness . described the method by which *he ' principals were erected. He was on the -' job between 4.15 and 4.30.; the accident ■occurred at 4.40. Cross and Wilson-rtere not- on the roof at the time. He-thouriitf 'everything was quite safe at 4.30. He conld not account for the principals com- i ; mg down, but he knew now what would nave prevented their coming down. The ' braces to the principals had been re.moved, and this caused the accident Ifcey were not removed by his instructions.; in fact, he did not know they ' had been removed unta the next day r l;ree other workers -besides Wilson were injured. v "SOMETHING WAS WRONG." To Mr. Wilford : The braces to thtf ' principals were put on under "Mr. Duncan s d.rection, but he did not kno^ ' who supervised tho work. Witness was responsible to the company for the carrying out of the work. The men did . nol ook to him directly for instruc- ' turns; they received them from the man ' immediately in charge of a particular i work The bricklayers would look to , Mr. Duncan, draughtsman and superintendent of works, who was a practical man. If air. Duncan wished to consult any one, Se would consult witness. WiU : ness was four times on the job that .' j\ ? •' was sure ihat between 2.30 ' and 3.30 that day, when he went through the bmlfling, the braces of the princi.pals on the north end were in position, '-' He was -not sure if they were in posi-' - tion on the south end. Those on tho . north end may have been in position,, out loose. The braces were both nailed, and bolted. He was absolutely sure ofi this. If the braces were loose, they.' ' were no use for strengthening purposes. Ho had not given any instruction to haosen them, and they should not hava ,tocen loosened unless Mr. Duncan was .consulted. ' • Mr. Wilford: Plainly, then, Mr.-Lod-vider, something was wrong? \ Witness : "Tftat is admitted." He ' could not account for the accident. He -. thought that the principals should have stood. The foreman bricklayer, he had ascertained, had remoyed theshracos-from the south end. The foreman bricklayer did not tell him that he removed one brace, the carpenter another because it was in the road of a purline, and the • bricklayer another. Witness liad ascertained' since the accident that the braces at the north ?'i d . ha< £ beeu loosei ied at the top end. If the braces at the north end .had not been loosened the accident would not have happened. The carpenters on tho job were experienced men in the work of staying principles. Brown was in charge, and he was a capable man. The day after the accident he saw Mrs. Wilson— her husband had died thai morning. Knowing her circumstances, he enquired if she had any money, aad she replied that she had not a penny. The sum of £10 was sent from tho company's office. He drew the receipt for the money, but he did not know, that it restricted her claim for general damages and limited her to the workers'-, compensation. On the receipt were tha words, "In part compensation for damages in connection with the accident to your husband;"' or words to that effect. As far as he was concerned, he would' hand the receipt back to Mrs. Wilson. It was now in the company's office. Mi*. Martin stated the company would hand the receipt back to Mrs. Wilson, but would retain a "copy of it. SUPERVISION OF THE BUILDING. George Duncan, superintendent of works and draughtsman to the Gear Company, gave evidence to the effect that he- supervised the erection of the building under Mr. Lodcier. He- visited the works at 3.15 p.m. on the day of the accident. Brown was in charge ofthe work. Witness supervised! the«erection of the principals, braces, and purlines. The deceased was engaged -on the work as general labourer. He-de-scribed tiie erection of the irailtling, . and! said! -that he thought the- accident happened by reason of the -Eemo-val of th« braces. The> structure fell to the north. To Mr. Wilford- — Ha was pot consulted' about the disconnecting of tho "braces, and. he did know they had- -been ; Joosened. One could .not tell if the braces were fastened unless he went up to the top to see. He did.-y.not go up, to see. If he had noticed^ the bracesloose, he would have given orders for them to be fastened. To Mr. Brown. — W-ilson .had! been engaged on similar work before. Witness should have been consulted if it was necessary to remove the braces. To Mr. Marfin.-^He had had, experience on simiJan* buildings. He had! been with the Gear Company for sixteen, years, and there had' been continual building comg on. T-o the Foreman. — He- could! not sa-y what first put the principals, out of pUimJ}. The further hearing was adjourned until 2.15 on Tuesday afternoon.