INQUEST CONCLUDED

Southland Times, Issue 20618, 17 October 1928, Page 3

INQUEST CONCLUDED

FINLAY McGILVRAY’S DEATH. LORRY DRIVER NOT TO BLAME. The inquest into the death of Finlay McGilvray, a young motor mechanic. 19 years of age, who was killed in a collision with a motor lorry on the corner of Bay Road and North Road on September 28, was concluded yesterday before the Coroner, Mr G. Cruickshank. The inquest was opened on Saturday morning. Mr Eustace Russell appeared on behalf of David Baird, the driver of the lorry, and Mr A. F. Hogg for the parents of the deceased young man. The first witness called was James George McArtney, a taxi-proprietor, who said that at about 6.15 on the night of the accident he was cycling along the North Road from Waikiwi and was about a chain from the lorry, on the north side of it, when the crash occurred. Previously he had seen Baird’s lorry turning into North Road. Baird was well on his left side and was travelling at about eight miles an hour. He had seen the motor cycles coming off the bridge just as the lorry came round the corner. They were practically abreast and he judged that they were travelling at fully 30 miles per hour. The other cyclist turned off into Bay Road and the deceased seemed to make a slight swerve to the right and then he lost sight of him. Witness knew Baird.

To Mr Hogg: Up till the time he lost sight of them, the cyclists were practically abreast. They might have slackened down slightly from the pace at which they crossed the bridge. He thought they were riding almost in the centre of the bitumen. To Mr Russell: When the cycle swerved to the right, the lorry Stopped almost instantly. He did not believe that the driver of the lorry could have done much else to avert the accident. Mr Burns’ taxi was a short distance behind him. If the taxi was on the correct side of the road and deceased swerved to the right, it would bring Burn’s taxi into his view. Henry Evan Rillstone, motor upholsterer, in his evidence said that on September 28 he was riding along the North Road on a motor cycle in a northerly direction. He knew deceased by sight. On the night of the accident, he was not travelling with him, but about 100 yards behind. He had followed him thus from Tay street right along the North Road, keeping about the same distance all the time. He was travelling between 20 and 25 miles per hour. He had no speedometer on his bicycle. He saw deceased run into the lorry and he turned into Bay Road and parked his bicycle about three yards around the corner. He could have pulled up before the corner if he had wanted to. He did not see deceased swerve at all to the right. He did not speak to Baird after the accident. To Mr. Hogg: Deceased would be about five or six yards from the motor lorry when it stopped. He agreed with the previous witness that the lorry stopped dead. He was at the end of the bridge when the accident occurred. He could have seen if any swerve had been made by deceased. When he saw the lorry turn out from Bay Road, he had expected it to continue into the North Road. If the motor lorry had not stopped, the cycle would have cleared the back of the lorry. What the witness McArtney had said about them travelling abreast was not true nor was it true that he had taken a complete circle in Bay Road. To Mr. Russell: He did not know that deceased was McGilvray until he read it in the paper. He admitted not letting the police know that he was a witness to the accident although he had known on the Monday that deceased was McGilvray. The first step he took was to see Mr Hogg after his advertisement in the paper. He had told Sergeant Abel that he was 300 yards behind deceased at the time of the accident. He afterwards came back to the sergeant and told him that he had made a mistake; he was 100 yards behind deceased. He denied that the lorry had turned, but was facing east and west at the time of the accident. He was there till deceased was taken away and he saw no motor cars pass behind the lorry, but there was room for them to pass. In his opinion deceased struck the lorry at from 20 to 25 miles per hour. Travelling at that speed, he estimated that he would be able to pull up in five or six yards.

The court then adjourned for a few moments to inspect the lorry, a heavy, threeton model. A metal tool box on the running board was badly dented and several long scratches were noticeable on the iron girder of the chassis. The front wheel of the motor cycle was completely destroyed, but the back of the cycle was almost undamaged. Recalled, Rillstone said in reply to Mr Russell that he had given a signed statement to Sergeant Abel in which a sentence or two were said to be passed between Baird and himself in which Baird said that deceased was travelling too fast. He had not replied and so had not denied the statement. His explanation of this apparent contradiction with his statement that he had not spoken to Baird was that it was Baird who had spoken to him. David Baird, a contractor, was next called. He gave evidence that on September 28 he was driving his right hand drive lorry at about 6.20 along Bay Road. When he came to the brewery corner, two motor cycles were just about to leave the bridge. As he crossed the road, deceased was riding on the right hand side of the bitumen. He gave a sort of swerve to the right and witness pulled up. Then he must have changed his mind and rode straight in. The other cyclist went round the back of the lorry and when he got out of the lorry, a young man was holding deceased’s head up. He went over to the other cyclist and said “You were going too fast” and he admitted it. That was the man he now knew as Rillstone. When he got deceased away, he looked round for Rillstone but could not find him. They put the motor cycle on the lorry and he brought it in to the police station. To Sergeant Abel: The motor cycle was about 10 yards off when he applied the brakes. The reason why he pulled up was that deceased began to take the wrong side. His wheels were on the right hand lock at the time he pulled up. Had deceased continued to the right and his lorry not stopped, there would have been a head-on collision. He estimated his speed to have been about six miles per hour. To Mr Russell: The marks observed on the side of the chassis and the running board were all made by the collision. His second lorry in which Butler was driving was three or four chains behind. He thought the cause of the accident was the speed at which deceased was driving. While his car was stationary on the road several cars passed in front and behind the lorry. On the following day, he went to the McGilvray’s home to express his sympathy. He was asked if he was insured and he said “no” because the instructions with his policy stated that no such admission should be made. He offered the use of his car and stated that his furniture did not belong to him. It was not correct that he had offered the car to McGilvray as compensation. He could not have done that as none of them were paid for.

To Mr. Hogg: He denied that he had said that another cyclist had passed in front of him and that he thought that deceased was going to do the same. He had merely offered the use of the car out of sympathy to save extra expense during that time of trouble. He had also offered to drive McGilvray’s friends to the funeral. When he was at the corner, he saw the two cyclists leaving the bridge. They were riding abreast. From the time the deceased went to the wrong side of the road witness thought he had lost his head. Thomas Kennedy, a police constable of Invercargill, said that on the night of the accident, he was called by Baird to inspect the scene of the accident. From the wheel marks it was seen that the lorry had taken a gradual swerve from Bay Road and was well on its correct side of the road. Richard Thomas Beadle, police constable at Waikiwi, gave corroborative evidence as to the position of the lorry. After inspecting the road he went in Baird’s car to the hospital and spoke to the deceased who was

quite conscious although his right arm and leg were very sore. Deceased told him that the man who had brought him into the hospital had informed his parents of the accident. Summing the evidence up, Mr Cruickshank said that a very full inquiry had been held and it seemed perfectly clear that no blame was attachable to the driver of the lorry. The finding would be that “Deceased died in the Southland Hospital on September 29 from shock and injuries received in an accident in which a lorry and a cycle collided on September 28, no blame being attachable to the driver of the motor lorry.” Mr. Hogg asked that, in view of possible civil court proceedings, the phrase “no blame being attachable to the lorry driver” be omitted as it was almost certain to influence a jury. Mr. G. Cruickshank: I see no reason to omit it.