THE HARRINGTON POINT ACCIDENT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2604, 10 February 1904, Page 13

THE HARRINGTON POINT ACCIDENT.

FURTHER EVIDENCE AT THE

INQUEST.

THE FINDING OF THE JURY.

The inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the fatal accident to Mr IT. A. Joseph at ihe Harrington Point quarry on Friday, 29th ult., was resumed before 'Mr C. C. Graham, S.M., and a jury on the 2nd insit. in the Supreme Court. Mr A. C. Hanlon appeared .to watch the proceeding-, on behalf of the relatives of the deceased; Mr Sim appeared for the Otago Harbour Board; and Mr J. E. Sr n* the Times aud Witness Company. Mr T. H. Rawson, secretary and engineer to the Otago Harbour Board, stated that he superintended the blasting operations m connection -with the board at Harrington Point. Jle produced a plan of the quarry, showing the scene of operations. A drive was driven an 40ft into the face of the quarry, and then there was an offset of 10ft at right angles to the drive. A charge of 7751b of blasting powder was laid at the end of the offset, which was estimated to be 20ft from the southern face. •The cliff was from 60£t to 70ft in height. The drive -would be about sft by Bft, and the bags of powder would be packed as close as they would lie. The whole charge would not take up more than a few feet from the end cf the effset. Witness -waa not present when the powder was put in. Before the shot was fired he walked up to the face, and, as far as he could judge from an external examination, everything seemed to be in order. Witness remembered stating to some members of the party that if they stood back on the jetty they "would be safe. The nearest portion of the jetty was about 80 yards from the face. After the actual explosion, and a little fime before the fall, he glanced round, and saw distinctly a mass of rock travelling close to the ground in the direction of the jetty. At the same time he saw splashes caused by stones falling into the water. Some of the stones travelled as far as 100 yards. Deceased was standing on the jetty when he -was struck on the head by a stone, and must Lave fallen where be •was struck. As a shot, the blast was the best they had yet fired in the quarry. It brought do,wn between 7000 and 8000 tons of rock. Larger blasts than this had been fired previously, and similar methods had been adopted. On the former occasions there h?d never been anything more than an upheaval and a fall like a slip. The rule in firing a blast was for the man in charge to call out " Fire !" and then the quarry mien cleared out to a safe distance. As a matter of fact sorr.a of the quarry men on this occasion went on to the jetty. The theory witness had formed regarding the accident was that some bed stones were thrown out. A large block of stone struck the crane, and another large block was thrown into the water. He thought that owing to a weakness somewhere in the f ormation eoine of the bed stones were blown out. He was confident that it was not due to defective tamping of the drive, because it was tamped with small stones, while the one that struck the crane was half a ton or so. Further, if the tamping had been blown out the blast would not have been a success. Had the possibility of danger occurred to him he would have made the people stand further back.

To Mr Hanlon: Witness knew that Mr Joseph was the representative of the Otago Daily Times, and that he was present at the blast in pursuance of an invitation from witness on behalf of the Harbour Board. The quantity of powder was fixed by calculation and by previous experiences in the same quarry. Witness examined the drive before it was quite finished, and his examination of the formation was sufficient to enable him to judge as to the safety or otherwise of the blaat.

To Mr Sim: Witness had had a good deal of experience in blasting operations, .nd had fired off as much as two tons of dynamite at one time. The blast on Friday last was Ihe seventh which had been fired in the quarry. The first was fired in March last, consisting ef 10001b of dynamite, which was equal to 30001b cf blasting powder. A similar blast was fired in the same month, and others of 7001%, 6751b, and 8001b of powder followed it. One of the blasts was a failure, as the tamping blew out, but the charge was subsequently relaid and fired successfully Going by his previous experience there was nothing to lead him to expect the result which occurred on Friday. "Witness intended standing beside the crane, but at the last minute went to show one of the photographers a suitable spot for taking a photograph.

George Simpson, builder, said he went down specially to see the blast, and asked to be allowed to go. Witness was ii. the tunnel about three weeks ago. When the charge was fired he was standing on the jetty, about 100 yards from the quarry, and Mr Joseph was on Ids left. Mr Joseph was standing almost between two trucks on the jetty, with his right side exposed. Witness was about 2ft away. He saw some stones coming in his direction, one of them being a biggish stone. This was tha one which struck deceased. The stcne did not come str?ight from the quarry, it rebounded from the wharf, and he lost sight of it, as it •was too q\iick for him. It landed from 12ft to loft in front of them. Witness thought he could evade it as long as it was in the air coming towards them, but he wss afraid of the rebound. He felt the rush of the air as the stone passed him, and when he looked round he saw deceased lying on the wharf. ■Witness considered, from a blasting point of view, the shot was a perfect one. Witness heard someone call out, "Fire! Fire! Stand •well back."

~F. W. Macltean, district engineer to the Eailway Department, in the course of his evidence, said as far ?s he could judge the face was very uniform. The formation was a soft conglomerate. Witness was about 18 yards nearer the quarry than deceased. Witness did not see Jthe stones coming. He examined the wharf afterwards, and only noticed four stones on the wharf altogether. Witness made a rough mental calculation iipfore the blast was fired to see that they were out of the line of fire in the event of the stemming or tamping blowing out. This was the chief source of danger in firing a blast. The only conclusioa he could come to was that there must have been some unforeseen weakness in the lower portion of the cliff. Had there been any such weakness it should have been noticed by those who drove the tunnel. Had witness bsen superintending the work be did not think he could have taken any other precautions than were taken. As to the amount cf' powder, he could only say that it was evidently in pecordance with the standard practice. As far a-s he could judge about 5000 tons of stone came down.

Jacob Crow, foreman quarryman at the Obakou quarry, said he had been in charge far 12 months. The formation was very uniform right through the drive and the offset. Witness examined the end of the drive, and also put the powder in. He did not see any fault or crack, but there was a little hard bluestcne at the bottom of the drive. Witness fixed -the fuse and dovered everything up, making it spfe for the men to go in. The charge -was properly tamped, and the drive vas filled up to the face. Witness was satisfied that the tauipmg was not blown out. A

space of 2ft at the end of the drive was taken up by the powder. Witness had superintended all the blasts which had been fired in the quarry. He could give no explanation of the fact that the material blew out. Going by past experience, he thought they had not put in enough powder. To Mr Sim : He had had 3S years' experience of mining and blasting. John M'lnnes, quairyman in the employ cf the Harbour Board, stated m the course of his evidence that, the stones which blew out must have come off some crack or fault in the rock.

The Coroner, in addressing the jury, said . I think, gentlemen, you have a very simple duty to perform m this case. It is evident from the evidence of Mr Simpson, who stood on the wharf, that there can be no doubt as to the cause of the death of deceased, and that he was struck by a stone as the result of the blasting operations going on. The only question that you have rerlly to consider is whether there was any neglect or want of proper precautions on the part of those responsible for these operations. We have the fact that Mr Rawson and others stood closer to the blast than the deceased, and in what might have been regarded as a more dangerous position. From the evidence before you there was no reason to expect there would be any danger, and th?re does not appear to have been any evidence of want of caution on the part of those responsible. However, it is for you to form your own opinion. The Jury, after a retirement of some 20 mimites, returned to the court.

The Foreman stated : The verdict of the jury is that this man met his death through accident, and a majority of the jury are of opinion that there had not been sufficient precautions taken to keep people farther away.

The Coroner: Do you wish that embodied in your verdict, or is it a rider? The Foreman • We wish it added as a rider.

The Coroner . I cannot say that I agree with you, but I am bound to accept your verdict. It is certainly not m accordance with the evidence.

Th« Foreman : The evidence shows that Mr Rawson did not give anybody direct instiuctions to keep farther back. Seeing they were invited guests they should have been kept back, but evidently he let these people stand where they liked. The Coroner: As long as he saw they were in what he considered a safe position there was no necessity to give instructions. Mr Sim: I understand this is only the finding of part of the jury. The Coroner: I can ?.ccept a verdict from four, according to the act. The following verdict was then recorded: — " That the death of the deceased was caused by his being accidentally struck by a ptone thrown from a blast fired in a quarry at Otago Heads, and that the jury are further of opinion that not sufficient precautions were taken to warn onlookers to get back to a safe distance.''