TELEGRAPHIC NEWS.
(From Our Own Correspondent.) Dunedin, this day.
CHILD BUN OVER. BY MORNINGTON CAR.
Cyril Kelly, five and a-.half years of age, was knocked down and killed by the Mornington cable car yesterday. It is understood he suddenly ran in front of the car. -Lake Wakatip Mail, 17/6/1924.
STREET ACCIDENTS.
MORNINGTON TRAM FATALITY.
DEATH OF A SCHOOLBOY.
INQUEST ON CYRIL KELLY CONCLUDED.
The adjourned inquiry into the cause of the death of the High Street School boy, Cyril Victor Herbert Kelly, aged five years an four months, was continued at the Courthouse yesterday before the coroner, Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M. The boy left the High Street School at about 2.20 p.m. on June 16, and after walking down the footpath as far as William street was seen to run in front of a car which was proceeding towards the city. Mr John Wilkinson appeared for the father of the boy, Mr W. E. Barrowclough represented the City Council, and Sub-inspector Fraser conducted proceedings on behalf of the police.
Mrs Violet Ethel White, residing at Mornington, said she was a passenger on the Mornington car which left Mornington for the city at 2.20 p.m. on June 16. She was sitting on the right hand seat, second from the end. As the car approached the William street intersection she noticed a boy on the footpath. He suddenly crossed in front of the car, and as the driver did not apply his brakes she came to the conclusion that he had crossed safely. The boy was on the city side of William street when she first saw him. She felt a bump on the car, but she did not think the child was underneath. Just beyond Maitland street she heard someone call out for the ear to stop. The car was going slow. She did not remember the car coming to a stop between William street and Maitland street. She could not say whether the gong sounded as the car came to William street.
To Mr Wilkinson: The boy was by himself when she saw him first. He was then just jogging along. The boy ran right in front of the car. The carrier was down in front, and that helped the accident, she thought. The gripman usually rang the bell approaching William street, but she could not remember whether the gong was sounded on this occasion.
To Mr Barrowclough: She could not say whether the gong was sounded at all. The boy seemed to be playing about on the footpath when she first saw him, and at this time the car was level with him. The boy then simply dived in front of the car. She was quite sure the boy never saw the car. He apparently had his attention attracted somewhere else. The boy ran from the footpath in front of the car. She suggested that it was the carrier that struck the boy.
Mrs Annie Ada Gardiner, residing at Mornington, said she was standing in the rear compartment of the car, just inside the right-hand door. Before the car reached William street she saw two children running along the footpath. Just at that time the conductor came to collect the tickets, and she had to turn round. She felt a little bump first, and on looking back she saw something on the line, which she now knew to be the skull of the child. The car did not stop between William street and Maitland street.
To Mr Wilkinson: She thought the two children were playing trains to race the car. She did not see the child again. The up car passed about this place. She heard the bells of both cars. The cars passed near William street, but she could not state the exact locality.
To Mr Barrowclough: The boys must have been pretty well near the rear end of the car when she saw them.
To the Coroner: She did not remember the car stopping dead. It was going slow. She would not swear that the car did not pull up. The gripman’s statement that he pulled up might he correct. She felt a bump, but they often felt a bump on the car — it was nothing unusual.
James W. Hepworth, residing at Mornington, said he was a passenger on the car. He felt a distinct jerk after the car passed William street. He thought it was just an ordinary slack rope that had caused the jerk. This slackness often occurred. He noticed that the gripman started to work his brakes. The car slowed down considerably, but he could not say it came to a dead stop. At Maitland street somebody called out “Stop the car. You have run over a little boy.” The car was pulled np in an incredibly short space — he had never previously seen a car so quickly pulled up. The up car passed them exactly at William street. The gripman was not talking to anybody. There were no passengers standing in front of the cabin.
To Mr Wilkinson: He was sure the up car passed them at William street — he thought right at the intersection. He remembered the incident of the passing well, as he heard the gong of the down car and shifted his legs because he thought he might be struck by the up car.
The conductor, Alfred James McDermott, recalled, said the car came to a dead stop just near William street, without any signal or bell from him. He immediately looked to see why the car had stopped and saw no one get off. He then noticed the gripman looking back to him for the signal, and he gave him the signal to go ahead. He thought the gripman stopped because of the rope. He blew his whistle to give the signal to go ahead. He thought the car had remained stationary long enough for a passenger to get off. He thought he had given Constable McCartney full details of the accident. He had no idea where the accident had occurred until he got off at Maitland street.
The Coroner said there was nothing inconsistent in the conductor’s evidence as compared with his previous evidence. There were more details in his evidence now. Continuing, the witness said he felt no unusual bump. The car bells were rung as they passed each other. It was the gripman’s duty to ring the bell at all times, and it was an almost invariable practice to ring the bell at crossings.
To Mr Barrowclough: He had made a statement to the tramways inspector about 2.30 on the day of the accident.
The Coroner said it was as well to clear up the matter. The conductor’s statement was quite a valuable one, given immediately after the accident, and before he could have known the exact place of the accident.
CORONER’S SUMMING UP.
The Coroner said that the careful inquiries made by the police had resulted in all possible information being obtained in connection with this particularly distressing fatality. The exact spot where the accident had happened — where the car struck the boy — had been definitely fixed as being the intersection of High and William streets — about the centre, but somewhat nearer the Mornington side. As to the lad’s movements immediately before that it was impossible to state with precision, owing to the naturally varying accounts of different witnesses as to what really happened. He thought the proper inference to be drawn from the evidence was that the boy was running down the footpath and that he then suddenly ran across at an angle immediately in front of the cur and was knocked down. The question arose how the boy was not seen by the gripman. The gripman had given a quite candid account from his point of view as to what happened. He stated that at the intersection the up car was crossing his car, and that immediately before approaching the intersection his attention was particularly directed towards the up car. His evidence was confirmed in several very important particulars by that of other witnesses. It had been conclusively shown that the up car had crossed just at the intersection. Mr Hepworth’s evidence was very valuable in fixing that point. As to the car stopping at this intersection the gripman had given his version of what had happened. Now, that account had been quite borne out by the account of the accident given by the conductor to the tramways inspector immediately afterwards and before the importance of the different points in connection with the case could have been apprehended. Assuming that there had been any collusion between the gripman and the conductor the importance of these various points would not have arisen at that time. He was not suggesting that there had been any collusion, but the circumstances were such that there could not have been any, even if there had been an intention or desire. He was not saying that the evidence was otherwise than truthful. All the facts showed the evidence by the men to be quite honest and truthful. Whether the car actually stopped or not, the gripman and the conductor swore that it did stop. The other witnesses could not say whether it did or not, but they slated that at all events it went very slow. They could hardly expect passengers under the circumstances, to say whether the car stopped or not, and there was no reason why the evidence of the gripman and the conductor could not be accepted on that point. Now what was the position they had regarding the cars crossing? The cars were crossing and the gripman had his attention particularly directed, in accordance with his duty, on the up car. The gongs were sounding. It appeared that the lad must have run out just about where the cars crossed. He was apparently looking down hill, and saw the up car approaching, and paid no attention to the car coming down. He rushed across to clear the up car. The lad was only 3ft 3in in height, and the apron on the down car 4ft, 2in in height. It was quite understandable that the boy should have got under the car without being seen by the gripman, apart from the other car approaching. The circumstances seemed to explain quite reasonably and properly answer why the boy was not seen. At first impression it seemed rather extraordinary that the boy should have been dragged 150 yards without anybody being aware of it. They had, however, the evidence of the passengers on the car, and no one seemed to have noticed anything unusual in the nature of a bump. Some of them said there was no bump at all, and others that there was just an ordinary jar or jerk which happened on this line. Other passengers said that the boy ran in front of the car, but they had not been apprehensive that the boy had been run over. There had not been anything to call their attention to the fact that this accident had happened. These circumstances, therefore, in his opinion, showed that the accident could have happened and that the body could have been dragged this distance without there being negligence on the part of the gripman, or without there being something in the running of the car which would have directed his attention to the fact that something had happened. It was satisfactory to know that the school authorities wore very alert in educating the children in the need for care in connection with the line, and that everything was done to make them careful, and also personally to look after the children attending the school. His verdict would be that, death was due to injuries caused by being accidentally knocked down and run over by a cable car at Dunedin on June 16. -Otago Daily Times, 1/7/1924.
No comments:
Post a Comment