WHARF FATALITY EVIDENCE AT THE INQUEST

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 78, 2 April 1914, Page 8

WHARF FATALITY EVIDENCE AT THE INQUEST

The death of a waterside worker named Thomas Cauldwell was enquired into yesterday afternoon by Mr. D. G. A. Cooper, S.M. Senior-Sergeant Mullaney represented the police, Mr. E. J. Fitzgibbon appeared for the widow of the deceased, Mr. H. F. yon Ha-ast for the Waterside Workers' Union, and Mr. V. Levi for the Union Steam Ship Company. Dr. Hugh W. Pidgeon in his evidence said that he found on visiting the s.s. Maitai that the top of deceased's skull was crushed in. The cause of deatli wasi laceration of the brain. Herbert Bastin, wharf labourer, residing at Kilbirnie. said that on Tuesday morning he was employed on s.s. Maitai. He was working in the same hold as the deceaspd. He heard a warning noise, and on looking lound saw the bags on the deceased. The,, warning came from the deck ou top of the hatch. Another man named Bradley was also struck by the falling sacks^ He could not say what caused the rope to break. ' It looked sound when he saw it before the accident from where he was working. Each sack weighed over lewt, and there were eight sacks of superphosphates, as far as he knew, in the sling which broke. To Mr. Fitzgibbon : Tt was what was known as an endless rope sling that was used. There »vas great pressure where the lower rope fastened over the goods, -i rid pressure also on that part of the lopo which rested on the hook. To Mr. yon Ha-ast: They usually got instructions from the Union Company's foreman as _ to how many sacks they should put in a sling. When 'the sling in question left the hold it was well loaded. He could not say if anyone from the Wharf Labourers' Union inspected the gear used on the wharves. To Mr. Levi : It was usual for the man at the ton of the hatch to give a warning us the sling went up. When he heard that warning it was his duty to be under cover. Cauldwell had no right to go out until lie knew that the hold was clear. Witness presumed that deceased ventured, oub to pick up a rope to get | ready for the next sling. Edward Bradley, wharf labourer, said ho was working with the deceased at the time of the accident. Witness was struck by the sacks and rendered unconscious. If any warning was given witness did not hear it. The rope produced was that which caused the' accident. In handling the sling prior to the accident he did not notice zuy defects in the rope. The winchman was an experienced man. He had no idea what i caused the accident. A sudden jerk on (■•he winch might have caused it. Personally he considered" no blame was attachable to the winchman or the hatchman. To Mr. yon Haast : He (witness) completed the sling. Both he- and deceased stood under cover until the sling was up. They came out from under cover to prepare another sling, thinking that by that time the sling had been hoisted from the mouth of the hold and across the deck. The only instruction they received was to make a full sling. There wore eight or nine sacks on this particular load, each bag weighing from 1401b to 1601b. The enquiry was resumed to-day. Victor Batson stated he was a member of the gang in which deceased was working. The first witness saw of the accident was a "dark mass" coming down the hatchway. He was standing on the opposite side of the hatchway to deceased. Ordinary care, he considered, had been taken. If the rope were defective it would account for the accident. To Mi 1 , yon Haastl Just when witness saw the sacks they were very close to deceased. There was a shout of either " Stand clear ! " or " Stand from under ! " The hatchman on each occasion gave warning when the sling went up and when it came back again. At this stage Mr. yon Haast put in a copy df the wharf labourers' agreement, clause 28 of which states that the weights and constitution of slings be left to the discretion of employers. Continuing, witness, in the course of cross-examination, said that one warning was given when the feling went up and another when it gave way: In reply to a question by Mr. Fitzgibbon, witness said that while descending into the hold after the accident ho saw some new slings 'tween decks. Thomas Kerwin, hatchman, said that he had seen several slings break, even after they had been inspected. Such accidents were always happening, a-nd this was the reason" why men should never stand underneath. To Mr. yon Haast : The load was a reasonable one. To Mr. Levi : It was a standing order not to use gear about which there was any doubt either on the ship or the shore. The accident did 'hot indicate any want of care on the part of any man engaged in the Work. Witness cu'fl not know if it was the duty of a sailor down in the hold to overhaul the slings, neither did he know whether the slings were made by the sailors. Alfred Hay wood, wharf labourer, stated that the rope broke about 35ft or 40ft above where deceased was working. Just as the bags broke away he called out " Under ! as loudly as ho could, Senior-Sergeant Mullaney : Who supplies these ropes? — The man in charge of the hold. Does he belong to the ship? — Yes, I think he does. • ' • In the course of cross-examination by Mr. yon Haast witness said the rope was doublo and broke momentarily. At this stage Mr. Levi asked permission io rail Captain M'Arthur to give «xperh i-vidence as to the rope. He axplainod that the prospective witness vas not connected with the Union Steam Sliip Company. Mr. Fitzgibbon objected to this pro- j posal, remarking that if expert evidence j was to be allowed he desired to call Mr Forbes or Mr. Stewart, the official hemp graders at the port/ of Wellington, who had had many years' experience. He did not think, however, that such evidence was necessary at present, and was not justified under section 5 of the Coroners Act. " I only ask you to find that deceased met his" death while employed on the s.s. Maitai through sacks falling on him," said Mr. Fitzgibbon. He added that proceedings apart from the Workers' Compensation Act would be taken against the Union Company, and although the verdict might not interfere with any subsequent actions a great moral effect would result from the Coroner's finding. Mr. Levi explained that his object in calling expert evidence was to repel any statements of negligence. It was perfectly clear that if anyone were to blame for the accident the Coroner was at tiberty so to indicate in his verdict. The section of the Act, he submitted, allowed the Coroner to do so. The Coroner remarked that if anyone was to blame it was the "poor man, through his rash act in stepping out without looking tip." Mr. Fitzgibbon emphatically contended that no recommendation coukl be made under the section of the Coroners Act. The Coioner returned the following veidict : "That deceased accidentally met his death from fracture of the skull and laceration of the brain caused by bags of superphosphates falling on him through the rope of a sling breaking."

Mr. J. If. Eslill, Superintendent of the Port of London Authoiity, who is at present in Wellington. 13 returning to the. Old Countrj . via Vancouver, by the Niaguia, leaving Auckland on Saturday week.