THE HUNTLY HOLOCAUST

NZ Truth, Issue 508, 13 March 1915, Page 8

THE HUNTLY HOLOCAUST

EX-MINE MANAGER JAMES FLETCHER ON HIS TRIAL

FACES HIS PEERS OE A HAMILTON SPECIAL JURY

If there was any deep-seated interest taken m the trial, on a charge of manslaughter, of James Fletcher, extnanager of the Huntley Mines, which commenced at Hamilton on Monday last before Mr. Justice Cooper and a Special Jury, then, at any rate, Hamilton failed to give any inkling of its grave concern. Times surely must be out of joint, when the trial of a man to whoso alleged negligence is attributed the deaths of over 40 men, excites not as much attention as would a street dog-flght,' or something just A TRIFLE MORE EXHILARATING. Perhaps this particular lack of interest Is what undoubtedly was a very Important trial, was due to the more or leas pertinent (to Hamilton) fact, that further on, up the line, at Te Aroha, a race meeting was m progress. Such, perhaps, accounted for the absence of those, who, with a little leisure time on their hands, might have felt tempted to look into the Hamilton Supreme Court, and see how things were going, and also of availing themselves of .tho British privilege, "an Open Court of Justice." Perhaps, and "Truth," naturally, is not expressing any opinion on the point, this lack of interest may bo attributed tq the faqt that Hamilton has heard and read so much of the Huntly disaster that it was quite satisfied that a r'Special" Jury could be depended upon, to see that those SACRIFICED TOILING MINERS would receive' Justice, or that the accused mine-manger would receive justice at the Specials' hands. It might possibly have occurred to Hamilton, as it has occurred In other parts of New Zealand, that the manager, or exmanager of the Huntly mines, James Fletcher, was the wrong man charged, and that It was never anticipated that Fletcher would tie convicted of manslaughter. " "Truth" must not, however, be taken as inferring that the trial In question was of a farcical character. Nothing of the sort, it was' Invested with all the solemnity of. a criminal trial, all the paraphernalia of the Supreme Court, all thoße little niceties and attention to small details for which our boasted system of* British jurisdiction Is noted. 'Moreover, one could not expect that the austere, almost reverent, or reverend, Mr, justice Cooper, could lend hlmselfvHo a judlcal farce. But when all is, said and done , can even a Judge help himsilf if he presides over a trial, the result of which is regarded as a foregone conclusion?' It 1b only fair to Hamilton; K wlffch has ever-risen nobly .to tho occasion when aggressive Labor threatened, tojsay that when-all the circumstances are considered, any other jury from any other town m any other .portion of the Dominion would find Itself In much the same position as a Hamilton Special Jury. The story oft the Huntly disaster has BEEN TOLD IN MANY FORMS. We got a skeleton of it when the inquest was hfelfl on the victims, and it must be borne m mind that the set-ting-up of a Royal Commission of Inquiry, upset "nmriy calculations. Then we got the truth, or at any rate we got an inkling of things connected with the Huntly mine. But, and It Is a mighty big BUT, what was permitted .to be said and done at the Royal Commission, is not permissible m a criminal trial, which has still attached to it vestiges of fairness; to an accused person. The rules pr law*) of evidence are inexorable. Wiere this not so many and grave would be the miscarriages of justice. A Royal Commission of Inquiry is not bound by. the ordinary rules of evidence. A Royal Commission will get at the trut^i,, because the legal barriers are .dismantled. . In a trial of a criminal nature the legal barriers to thß' truth are' high and unsurmouritable. Paradoxical as it may seem, this is an It flhould be: It shows tho Imperfect nature of our legal system, it is Arue, but let those legal, barriers be once battered down, and then goodbye to an important trial. Thus is was , that the trial of James Fletcher, ex-manager of the Huntly mine, was almost totally devoid of interest. On Monday, when the trial started, it was Intimated that it would probably occupy four days, and the Judge .made It clear that It would have to be over by Friday, as on that day It would be necessary to leave for Gisborne. Later, eventu, however, indicated a trial considerably less m duration. Tho empanelling of tho Special Jury (and the word Special is not inseparable from Hamilton), was accomplished without much difficulty, not one "stand liisido" coming from the Crown, or a "challenge." from the defence. Tho gentlemen of the Special were: Arthur Edward Manning (foreman), Thomas Ponnlket. John Dalgleish, John Shitty, Ewon McGregor, Edward James Mears, Robt. D. Durflcld, Edward Hall, Frank F. McGulrc, Ernest C. B. .Davy,

Acquitted of Manslaughter

William Ward, F. L. Ward, and Sydnew 1 Tombs. Perhaps, it is essential to mention that a Special Jury is generally selected because the issues involved are highly technical and intricate, requiring a special and extraordinary intelligence to understand the ramification of things. A miner, for instance, would not be considered a Special, and could not be expected to understand the intricate nature of things; It takes Btock-agents, drapers, etc., etc., to fully grasp how a coal-mine "should be worked. GREAT AND WONDERFUL is "Special" intelligence! • The conduct of the case was m the hands of Mr. H. H. Ostler, of the Crown Law Department, Wellington, while the defence was entrusted to the still more capable hands of Mr. C. ' P. Skerrit, K.C., of Wellington, and Mr. C. J. Tunks (Auckland). Lawyer Tunks, it might be mentioned, is the legal representative of the Taupiri Coal Mining Company. 'Fletcher, the accused, Is a short, blue and bright-eyed, clean-shaven young man, and he, of all persons, seemed the most concerned which, when all the circumstances are considered, is not to be wondered at. He did not, as is' usual m most cases of such a grave character, occupy tho dock, but was permitted, on the application of the learned King's Cousel, to take a seat at the rear of counsel. The charge preferred against Fletcher, as read out by the Court registrar, was as follows: — James Fletcher, manager of Ralph's colliery at Huntly, m the Provincial District of Auckland, on or about the twelfth day of September, m the year of our Lord, 1914, did omit, without lawful excuse to observe his legal duty inregard to the safety of the lives of miners employed m Ralph's colliery aforesaid, m oonsequence of such omission did cause the death of William Burton, and did thereby commit manslaughter. To this indictment, FLETCHER PLEADED "NOT GUILTY." It will, however, simplify matters somewhat by setting out* the grounds of negligence alleged by the Crown. They were: I That it was his practice to allow miners to go into old workings with naked lights to remove rails, m. spite of the fact that gas was constantly found there by the de-puty-inspector. ,2. Knowing of the presence of gas m the mine and of the ignitions ' and explosions that had taken place, and that the mine was a dusty .one, and that coal dust is highly explosive, he did not order safety lamps to be used m the mine. 3. That contrary to special rules he did not keep the door leading to the old workings locked. 4. That he did /lot carry out the watering of the mine. as instructed by the Government Inspector. 5. That he did not cause a daily inspection of all parts of the mine to be made as required by the special rules, nor did he cause an adequate inspection of. the .old workings to be made. All tho. decks having been cleared for action, Crown Prosecutor Ostler, at some length, outlined the nature of the case against Fletcher, and indicated the evidence which would be tendered. Tho Crown Prosecutor was scrupulous, ly fair, and more so, it seemed to, "Truth." However, it was refreshing, almost an innovation, to hear the Crown Prosecutor impressing on the Special Jury the necessity of giving the accused the benefit of any doubt that existed m their minds. Surely, m ■ these enlightened days, it is altogether unnecessary to so remind Juries, especially Hamilton Common or "Special" juries, because of recent months Hamilton Juries have not hesitated, particularly where the Labor element is concerned, to give THE FULL BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT, and also "full damages." However, Lawyer Ostler deserves a word of commendation on the concise nnd clear manner m which he placed the case before the Jury- He had marshalled his facts well. He told a plain, straight-forward story, extenuated nothing,* nor set down aught m malice, but did his duty as all Crown Prosecutors should, fearlessly frankly, throwing on the Jury tho responsibility of deciding tho grave issue before them. Incidentally,' it might be mentioned that maps and plans, ad. lib, wore provided for the guidance and assitance of the Special twelve good men and true. Also, but not for tho Special Jury (oh, dear, no) were on hand numerous copies of the evidence of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, and as tho case proceeded, many and often harmless little excerpts were read from this "Blue Book," but it was only when an endeavor was made to trip up a witness for the Crown, who had, or seemed at any rate, to «o back a bit on what he had previously stated, either nt the Royal Commission or th«- preliminary proceedings m the Magistrate's Court, Whore at tho Royal Commission Mr. Frank Reed was tho nio«t important and certainly the most sensational witnesH, the fact remains that whatever Mr. Rood then said was not admissible as ovldonce before Judge nnd Jury, and. accordingly, the most Important witness for the. Crown was lioyd Kennte. the Inspector of Minos. Ho wan the llrst witness called ufter tho Crown l'roHocutor had concluded his oponlni; address, and tho taking of his evidence occupied the boat part of the iluy'H proceedings. Ills evidence, also, was not as voluminous as that Klven by him at tho Uuyul Commission. In the strict legal sense all of the evidence Klven by him that was ailinl."Hibli' wns that part of it where he dealt directly with Fletcher hh mnnaK<r °f tho mine, Klutcher's answers t<> him. etc. Hennle. looks a practical num. speaks like ii practical nmn, un<l n<> doubt Ik tt practical miner, kimwini; lv« business. Aw It has been held that th«ACCUMULATIONS OF INI'LAMMATORY COAL-Dt?ST were really responsible for the tragedy,

naturally his evidence was led m that direction. He underwent a fairly long examination at the hands of Lawyer Ostler, and when at the conclusion Mr. Ostler resumed his seat and the learned King's Counsel, C. P. Skerrett, rose, it was anticipated that there would be something doing, but, generally speaking, everybody who expected anything was disappointed. It is true that frequent references were to the evidence given by the witness at the Royal Commission of Inquiry, but the K.C. was cute to know to make it clear that the only parts of the report admissible as evidence, i.e., that could go before the jury, were those parts or those questions which contradicted more recent answers o n similar points given, by Bennie. The mine, according to the witness, had- beer, worked with naked lights for 25 years, and had been regarded as a "safe" mine up till the time of the correspondence m 1914. Here tho witness refused to bo CAUGHT BY A CUNNING QUESTION. viz., whether It had not been considered safe up to the time of the explosion? Another bone of contentioarose over the point of whether it had" at any time been considered necessary by the inspector that safety lamps should be used m the mine, and Bennie thereupon drew attention to the fact that m one letter the likelihood of safety lamps being insisted on, which drew from counsel that it was just a chance observation. Later on, after a more or less animated discussion on coal-dust, the means used to remove it, and render it less inflammatory, counsel got on to the point concerning a suggested prosecution of Fletcher over breaches of tho Mining Act at -Huntly, and which Idea ot prosecution was abandoned because a Thames legal opinion was against it, and the witness mentioned that it was not suggested that Fletcher, or anybody connected with the Mining Company knew of his (witness's) desire to test the question of the safety lamp m the Courts of Justice. The witness further said that his desire was not to secure the use of safety lamps, but for other purposes. Another bone of contention which gave rise to SEVERAL SHARP PASSAGES occurred through the attempt to interpret what the witness meant when writing to Fletcher and requiring him to remove tho coal-dust and to adequately and efficiently spray the coaldust. When th<s witness was asked if he would not expect that Fletcher would regard the instructions as callIng upon him to consider a new method of dealing with coal-dust, the witness simply observed that he wrote and asked Fletcher to adequately water and remove the coal-dust, and that Fletcher as a professional man ought to have known what he meant. And added, the witness, "I have no right to dictate to him what he ought to do.*' The learned K.C. KEPT BADGERING THE WITNESS somewhat on thiß point, observing something about Bennie writing Fletcher two curt notes, whether he had the right to do Jt or not. "Did you want me to take off my coat and remove the dust," retorted the witness. Still the K.C. bounced a bit He invited the witness to describe to the jury how he would have tho coal-dust watered, and the witness oxplained how he would have'vit adequately watered, and which explanation drew from counsel that the witness, like counsel's countrymen were fond of a bit of blarney. "I thought" said the witness, "that you were referring to me as a Scotsman who answers a question by asking another one." Then counsel wanted to know why the witness had not In his letter to Fletcher suggested how the watering should be done, which drew from the witness a reference to the old man who had been employed m the mine watering the coal-dust from a kerosene tin. And once again the witness asked: "What more could I do, unless I did it myself?" Mr. Skerrett: We would NOT EXPECT A GOVERNMENT OFFICER to do any work like that. This sally of courso provoked laughter, and the witness gently, chided counsel, and reminded him that this was a se"rlous matter. Later on, towards the conclusion of tho witness's cross-examination, he several times, while referring to the watering of the mine, laid groat stress on the word "adequately," which drew from tho X.C: "Adequately seems to be a word which comforts you like that blessed word, 'MESOPOTAMIA.' " However, when all is said and done, the cross-examination brought NOTHING FRESH TO LIGHT, and tho witness after being briefly reexamined by the Crown Prosecutor stood clown, and Frank Reed was culled and answered to his name. After he had given his name and his qualifications, he was very briefly examined by Mr. Ostler. His evidence was short and summary, and among tho things that he said was that he had not seen a brattice m tho old workings of the mine, or no frames where any brattice had been. At the conclusion of his ovldence-in-chief the Court adjourned till the following morning. On resuming on Tuesday morning, Mr. Skerretl very skilfully eron«-exam-Inea the witness, and by skilful cross-