CROYDON AIR DISASTER.

King Country Chronicle, Volume XX, Issue 2067, 15 January 1925, Page 5

CROYDON AIR DISASTER.

A SERIOUS CHARGE. TAMPERING WITH WITNESS. (Press As9ociation. —Copyright.) (Received 12.34 p.m.) London, January 14. A sensation occurred at the reopening of the inquest on the victims of the Croydon air smash. The solicitor representing the relatives of the victims alleged that the Imperial Airways, Ltd., had tampered with a witness. A representative of the Imperial Airways, Ltd., denied ihe allegation. The witness concerned, Henry, a clerk employed by the Imperial Airways, Ltd., gave evidence that he knew nothing of the alleged tampering. He said Eskell, the traffic superintendent, asked him why witness had not told him of a conversation he hud heard between the deceased pilot Hinchcliffe, and Hall, the mechanical superintendent, when Hinchcliffe said: "The oil pressure is low," and Hall replied: "If so, the engine should be thoroughly tested and, if necessary, changed." Witness replied to Eskell that he did not think it sufficiently important to repeat the conversation. Eskell advised him to be most careful in what he said at the inquest, and not to advance any theories or say anything that was not in his line. Counsel for Imperial Airways, Ltd., suggested the withdrawal of the outrageous statement. The solicitor who had made the charge said he was glad the matter was not so serious as he had thought, but it was unfortunate that Eskell had sought to advise the witness in regard to evidence.