£15,000 CLAIM

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22404, 28 April 1936, Page 14

£15,000 CLAIM

MILL FIEE SEQUEL EVIDENCE OF ENGINEER CASE FOR THE DEPARTMENT REPLY TO ALLEGATIONS The hearing of the petition f or £15,070 damages, brought by the Morningside Timber Company, Limited against the New Zealand Railways Del partment, was continued before Mr Justice Callan and a special jury in the Supreme Court yesterday. The action has arisen as a result of an extensive fire in the company's premises on December 1, 1934, which, it is alleged originated from a spark from a railway engine passing the premises, which adjoined the railway line at Morniiigside. Evidence called on behalf of the suppliant company yesterday was largely technical, and dealt with the construction of the engine from which tho spark is alleged to have been emitted. Fire-bars and models of \ r arious parts of the engino were produced as exhibits. The petition, brought under the Crown Suits Act against His Majesty the King, sets out that on December 1 1934. a railway engine passed the company's property at about 1.47 p.m., and caused a fire in the vicinity of the railway line which spread to ihe company's property. It is alleged that th* fire was caused by the negligence of respondent's servants. This is denied by the respondent. Mr. Finlay, Mr. Stanton and Mr. Mackay are appearing for the suppliant company, and Mr. H. F. O'Leary, K.C., of Wellington, and Mr. j Hubble for the Crown. Technical Expert's Evidence When the Court resumed, evidence regarding the manner in which fuel was burned in the grate of a locomotive, and a general description of tho functioning of engine A6Ol. were given by William Douglas Watson, an Australian Consulting engineer, who produced models of portions of the boiler of the engine. He dealt also with certain defects which, he said, he had found in the spark arrester fitted to the engine, and also in the ashpan. Witness said he was senior partner in the firm' of Watson and Wait, consulting engineers, of Sydney. He had had experience with engines at sea, and with boilers and engines while eraployed by the Government of Alberta. He had been mechanical superintendent at the Bankhead mines for the Canadian Pacific Railway, and everything mechanical, including engines, Was under his care. For the last 18 years he had been in practice as a consulting engineer. On April 22 he had begun an examination of engine A6Ol, and had found some unusual features in the tip or dump grate. About Ift. 9in. from the back end of the firebox he had found a series of wide openings partly between the edge of the grate and the-end of the fire bars, and between the ends of other fire bafs. Such an opening in the grate caused excessive dropping of the fuel and created a hole in the fire, con- , tinued witness. This caused an excessive draught to pass through certain portions. The burning of swiftly disintegrating coal was one of the worst things known of to cause sparks to be lifted. The Spark Arrester C "The value of the spark arrester on this engine, owing to defects in its construction that I have described, is reduced almost to zero," said •witness. Concerning the ashpan door, witness said that with such a door and the motion of the train he considered there would be a danger of sparks escaping from it. Witness was present at the tests of the carrying capacity of sparks and thought that sparks of dangerous proportions could quite readilyhave carried on to the mill property with the wind. This concluded the evidence for the suppliant. Case for Respondent In opening the case for the respondent Mr. O'Leary submitted three nonsuit points for His Honor's consideration. They were: (1) That there was no evidence that the fire at the mill was caused by railway engine A 601: (2) that section 10 of the Government Railways Act, 1926, gave the Railway Department authority to use soft coal and it was freed from all responsibility for damage resulting from the use of such coal, whether a spark arrester was used or not; (3) that there was no evidence of negligence on the part of railway servants in any of the particulars alleged in the suppliant's petition. , His Honor ruled that there was suf- > ficient evidence on the first and third points for the jury to consider. Mr. O'Leary said leading counsel for the company had made certain tions and criticism of the Railway Department, which in some cases were only partly correct, and in others absolutely incorrect. He intended to show how baseless these allegations had been. Dealing with tho point raised by | Mr. Finlay that in cases where the Railway Department caused damage by fire negligence must be proved, J» r - : O'Leary submitted that the provision was not an unreasonable one. The railways were a national undertaking, and if they were hampered by absolute liability' their operations might bo sen* ously embarrassed. Mr. O'Leary submitted that Mr. Finlay had given an absolutely false conception of the position when he said enpiue A6Ol was ola, and designed for using hard coal. w. was of a type designed in 1904 ror the use of soft coal, and actually bui.B in 1914. . .. Replying to the allegation that tne Railway Department noining in regard to fitting an efficient spare arrester to the engine, Mr. 0 Leary said that when A6Ol came haul in March, 1932, it was fitted with a new ashpan, and the latest type grid spark arrester available. ■ O'Leary submitted that the department had done everything reasonably P° sible to cope with the position, was not negligent on the general qu tion of spark arresters or ashpans. Counsel had almost completed bis an dress when the hearing was adjourn until this morning.