WHARF LABOURER'S DEATH.

New Zealand Herald, Volume L, Issue 15238, 27 February 1913, Page 5

WHARF LABOURER'S DEATH.

O - NOBODY TO BLAME.

The adjourned inquest touching the death of Ernest Alfred Bowles, a wharf labourer, who was killed by a falling sling during unloading operations on the steamer M&tatua on February 10, was continued before the city coroner (Mr. T. Greshani) and a jury of six, yesterday. Mr. Bagnall represented 'the Shaw, Savill and Albion Company, ' Mr. . Shorter appeared for the Auckland Waterside Workers' Union, and Mr, Hall Skelton for deceased's widow.

Dr. Aubin stated that at about four o'clock on the date in question he was called to see deceased, who was lying 'in one of the sheds on the wharf. He was then obviously dying, his head -having been badly injured. Ernest Edward Ganh&m, a wharf labourer, stated the lie considered the hock which was being used in the hold at the time of the accident was, - from its formation, " hopelessly unsafe." : Edmund Reimann, a carpenter, also considered the hook unsafe. The bill was too short, and stood too straight, the place where the sling rested was too shallow, and the opening to admit it too large. The same class of hook was largely in use. James Col let a wharf labourer, who was h&tchman in the hold where the accident occurred, said that after the accident he found that the sling had come off the hook and had fallen on the deceased, but lie could not account for its doing so. At the time of the accident two gangs were working on the same section. When the sling rose above the combings he saw that the rope of the sling was not resting on the bill of the hook, but he did not see the sling fall off the hook. _To Mr. Skelton, witness said that in his opinion not more than one gang should be employed in the same hold at the same time. - , John Knowles, ,i waterside worker, who was acting winchdriver at the hatch in question, said that to him the ■ simp appeared perfectly safe, and he could not account for the rope escaping from the hook. There was no jerk from the winch. James O'Donnell, a wharf labourer, stated that lie had complained to the foreman of the shape and awkwardness j of the hook. A jerk might, have caused j the rope to come off it. He did not, I however, complain that the hook was. dangerous. I William Patrick Dowling, foreman stevedore, contradicted the . statement of ] the last witness that he had complained j of the hook before the accident. Ho I could not account for the accident, and ' he had never in his experience seen a j sling com© off when it was in the air as ■ this"one did. In his opinion the deceased was to blame in being where he was when j he was struck. He should have looked up when the sling was being lowered. Evidence was also given by Thomas ••"v'v'nn. ana James Bertram Jacobs. A verdict was returned that death was duo to a fractured skull, the .result, of an accident to deceased whilst engaged in hoisting cargo from the Ma tat an, and that no blame was attachable to anyone.