£15,000 CLAIM

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22406, 30 April 1936, Page 14

£15,000 CLAIM

/ MILL FIRE SEQUEL 'ACTION AGAINST THE CROWN EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENCE Further evidence for the defence was given in the Supremo Court yesterday in connection with the petition for £15,070 damages brought by the Morningside Timber Company, Limited, against the New Zealand Railways Department. The action, which is being heard before Mr. Justice Callan and a special jury, .is a sequel to an extensive fire in the company's premises on December 1, 1934, which, it is alleged, originated from a spark from a railway c-ngine passing the premises, which adjoined the railway line at MorningBide. 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. Hubble for the Crown. The fireman of the railway engine in question, Herbert Atkins, said ho stoked the fire, which was partially burnt through, on leaving Kingsland. The next stoking was made about 500 yards over the bridge past the Morningside ,mill. To Mr. Finlay, witness said that on iapproaching Morningside the engine was throwing off smoke, but not a considerable quantity. William Henry Augustus Hill, subforeman fitter at the Auckland railway locomotive depot, said he was in charge of the repair staff which looked after about SO engines. On November 27, 1934, the whole of the centre portion of the spark arrester cage of the engine in question was renewed. On December 8, after the mill fire, the engine came into the sheds for inspection, and witness found the spark arrester in good condition. Had witness desired to send the engine out on December 3 he certainly would have done so.

David'/ Gamble, locomotive foreman,

corroborated statements that repairs ' were made to the engine late in Nov vember and that on December 3 the * spark arrester was in good order. Laurence Winton Robertson, locomo- ' tive engineer for the Railway Depart- ' ment in charge of the North Island, said that after the mill fire an examl ination of the engine was made, but no defects were revealed, and he allowed r it to return to ordinary working serJ vice. The engine was burning Waikato * coal, and the probability was very I remote that it lifted any sparks going ; out of Morningside. « In reply to" Mr Finlay, witness said J he agreed' there was danger from sparks * from any railway engine at any time. i However, there was nothing to draw * his attention to danger of fire at Morn- » ingside in December, 1934. In October, 1 1934, the Railway Department received i a letter from suppliant company r alleging that a signboard had been set * on fire by a spark from an engine, but ? witness did not admit that fires in the I neighbourhood attributed to engines were actually caused by the engines. I The hearing will be continued this *