SPARK FROM ENGINE

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXVI, Issue 111, 23 April 1936, Page 5

SPARK FROM ENGINE

Railway Department Sued for Damages MORNINGSIDE FIRE (By Telegraph—Press Association.! > AUCKLAND, April S 3. Arising from an extensive fire at th* premises of the Morningside Timber Company, Auckßd, in December, 1934, a petition for £15,070 damage*, brought by the company against the Railway Department in the Supreme Court this morning, alleged that the origin of the fire was a spark from a passing railway engine.

Mr Justice Callan presided and < special jury was empanelled. Counsel for the company are Messrs G. P. Finlay, J. Stanton and H. Mackay, nd for the Crown Messrs H. F. O’Leary (Wellington) and V. N. Hubble. The petition, under the Crown Suits Act gainst His Majesty the King, set out that on December 1, about 1,47 p.m., a passing railway engine caused a fire in the vicinity of the railway line which spread to the company’s pro perty. The damage to buildings, phinl and stock was £12,070, and there was further loss by disorganisation of business of £3OOO.

It was alleged that the engine wa. fitted with an inefficient spark arrester that the fuel used by the engine, lig nite coal, was liable to give off mor* sparks than certain, other available coal, that the driver and fireman fails., to perform their duties properly and ro caused sparks, cinders and ashes to escape from the engine, and that the ashpan of the engine was defective. The respondent denied all the allegations, also that if there was any neg ligence by servants such was not the cause of the fire. Further, that if tho fire was caused by acts of railway servants, which was denied, such acts were in the performance of statutory authority. Additional alternative defences were that the fire was caused or contributed to by the negligence of the company in allowing grass and highly inflammable rubbish to remain between the railway and its premises, that it failed to summon a fire brigade as soon as the fire was discovered, and that the fire-fighting plant at the mill was inefficient or negligently used. (Proceeding),