Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1957), Saturday 25 January 1890, page 13


THE RAILWAY ACCIDENT AT

OAKLEIGH.

CONCLUSION OF THE INQUEST.

ENGINE-DRIVER NIXON FOUND GUILTY OF CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE.

The inquest into the circumstances attend-ing the death of a Chinese, named Ley Bo Leung, who was killed in the recent railway collision between two good trains at Oakleigh was concluded yesterday, before Mr. Candler, the district coroner, at the Oakleigh Junction Hotel. Mr. E. Guinness, of the Crown Law department, appeared for the Railway depart-ment. Mr J. Westley represented Nixon, the driver of the 11.10 train from Warragul.

Mr. J. Moloney appeared for the guards of the trains ; and Mr. Wallace (of the firm of Gaunson and Wallace) watched the proceed-ings on the part of the Fireman's Associa-

tion.

George Alfred Hall, stationmaster at Dandenong, who was recalled, stated that he

had cautioned Driver Nixon for running into the Dandenong station at an excessive rate of speed, but did not report him as he ought to have done in accordance with the regula-tions. Rule 206 provided that no train must be started before the time stated in the time-table, but it had been the practice neverthe-less for the stationmaster to allow train to start before the time specified. Witness could not say whether the practice was sanc-tioned by the department or not. The practice had been in vogue for 18 months. Witness admitted that it he had not trans-gressed a clear rule laid down by the depart-ment the accident could not have hap-pened

George Alfred Robinson stated that he was the guard of the 11.10 train from Warragul.

His actual time of leaving Warragul was 11.27, owing to the engine being engaged in shunting operations. A stoppage was made at Berwick for four minutes, and Dandenong was reached at 1.5 a.m., though the train should not have arrived there according to the time-table until 2 o'clock.. The train overshot the points by about 80 yards, be-cause the porter at the station signalled with a white light, though he should have signalled with a red light as soon as the train was over the points. The train entered Dandenong station at the rate of about 20 miles an hour. Witness was authorised by the stationmaster to leave Dandenong at 1.15 and the stationmaster gave the driver the staff to permit him to start. At Springvale the train overshot the station by about 10 yards, and had to put back for the staff. They arrived at Spring-vale at 1.22 and left at 1.25. After passing through Clayton's road station witness noticed the distance semaphore of the Oak-leigh station showing a pale red light, and shortly afterwards he saw the home signal showing a white light. When about 80 yards from the home semaphore the light suddenly changed to red. When the train was coming over the hill witness saw the three tail lights of the other goods train, which he supposed to be standing in No 2 road as it was on the previous Thursday. As soon as the red light was shown at the home semaphore the accident happened, and

witness was rendered insensible

To the Coroner.— Witness did not hear anything said about putting signals up after the accident. The Westinghouse brake was applied about two minutes before the acci-dent, and the driver sounded his whistle about a quarter of a minute before the crash. Steam was shut off on passing the distance

signal.

At this stage the witness complained of great pain in his head consequent on in-juries he received in the accident, and had to

be carried from the room.

Alfred Thompson, locomotive inspector of the eastern system of railway, said that there was no report in the books to the effect that the Westinghouse brake on the engine of the 11.10 train was defective. To the best of his knowledge it was in perfect working order.

Nicholas Darcy, inspector of permanent ways, residing at Oakleigh, said that on the morning of the 5th inst. he heard a train coming into the station, and heard it give three distinct whistles, and immediately afterwards there was a loud crash. Witness went up the line with the stationmaster and

looked at the debris.

To a Juryman.— To the best of witness's opinion, judging from the state of the debris, the 11.10 train must have been travelling at

from 15 to 20 miles an hour

Benjamin Phillips, stationmaster at Spring-vale, said that the 11.10 train arrived at Springvale at about 1.20, and left at 1.26. The distance between Springvale and Oak-leigh was five miles. If a train left Spring-vale at 1.26 and arrived at Oakleigh at 1.32 it must have been travelling at nearly a mile a

minute

Edwin Nixon said that he was the driver of the 11.10 train from Warragul on the 4th inst. He arrived at Dandenong at about 1 o clock. After leaving Dandenong; he stopped at Springvale, and got the start from the stationmaster. He then started for Oak-leigh. Both the distance and the home signals were right for the train to come into Oakleigh. As he was going past the distance semaphore he saw the tail lights of another train standing in the station. Seeing both semaphores down-as happened on the pre-vious Thursday-he thought that the train in front was standing in No 2 road, as it was on the former occasion. On getting closer to the train he found out his mistake, and immediately applied the brake, but the wheels skidded. To release the brake, and set it again occupied 15 seconds, and before it was re-applied the 11.10 train came into collision with the stationary train. The starting semaphore at the Oakleigh station

was also down.

The CORONER, in summing up the evidence, said that there could be no doubt that the deceased Chinese, Lay Bo Leung, died from injuries received in the collision. It was for the jury to decide whether the collision was accidental, or was the consequence of care-lessness, negligence, or recklessness on the part of any person or persons, or whether it was brought about by wilful intent. If the jury were satisfied that there was gross dere-liction of duty on the part of any persons, it was for them to decide who those persons were. Assistant stationmaster Fraser was in charge of the station at the time of the occurrence, and therefore in charge of the stationary train, thereby releasing the officials of that train from responsi-bility. Neither the driver, fireman, nor guard had received instructions from the stationmaster to go on, and therefore they could not be implicated in the disaster. It was the duty of Porter Clyne to see that the signals were changed on the arrival of the in-coming tram, so as to prevent a subsequent train from coming in. He did so according to the evidence of the stationmaster, who was therefore the sole person responsible for the train being at the station at that time. The most important point rested on the state of the signals, and it would be for the jury to decide whether the home and distance lights were against the succeeding train, or in favour of it.

On this point there was direct conflict of testimony. The persons on the station and connected with the 10.15 train distinctly stated that as soon as the train entered the station the red lights were put up. This was borne out by the statement of an independent witness named Richardson, who happened to be on the spot at the time of the accident The three witnesses connected with the in-coming train stated that the home light was white, although there was a difference of opinion as to the state of the distance signal,, two stating that it was a mixed light, while the driver said that it was a white light. The jury would have to balance these contradic-tory statements, and determine to which statements credence should be given. It was clear to his (the Coroner's) mind that there was wilful perjury on one side or the other, and the jury would have to decide upon which side it rested. If semaphores were wrongly set by persons in a station, with criminal negligence, it would be manslaughter. Negligence might be criminal, culpable, or excusable, and the jury would have to decide which, if any, degree had been shown. The three men on the incoming train would not be likely to take the risk of a collision it they had seen a red light on the home semaphore, but, on the other hand, no fewer than seven witnesses swore that the red light was exhibited Although the stationmaster at Dandenong might have been in the wrong in allowing the train to leave that station at a much earlier hour than was specified in the time table, still he was not responsible for the accident, because the persons on the train stated that they ran into the Oakleigh station because they saw a white light up, and the accident was therefore not due to the train starting: before its time The evi-

dence shows that the train left Springvale at or about 1.25, and that the accident took place between 1.28 and 1.30. The distance between Springvale, and Oakleigh was five miles, and the time occupied was according to the evidence, five minutes, which went to show that the speed was excessive, and that the driver was guilty of direct disobedience to orders. There might have been laxity in the administration of the Railway depart-ment, and faults of omission in station-masters who did not report derelictions of duty on the. part of engine drivers, but these things had no direct bearing on the point at issue. It appeared that at whatever rate of speed the train was travelling, that rate was excessive, although the opinions of witnesses varied between 60 miles an hour and 12 miles an hour, it would be the duty of the jury to point out who was to blame, and in what degree. It any person or persons were in their opinion guilty of criminal negligence, it would be their duty to

find that person, or those persons, guilty of manslaughter. There was no loophole of escape from the conclusion that the evidence on one side or the other was false, and wilfully false, and the jury would have to decide which set of witnesses they would

believe.

After 10 minutes' deliberation the jury returned a verdict to the effect that the deceased, Ley Bo Leung, was killed in the accident at Oakleigh station on the 5th inst., which accident was due to the culpable negligence of Driver Edwin Nixon. There was no evidence to prove disobedience to orders or negligence on the part of any other

official.

The CORONER intimated that the verdict did not amount to manslaughter, and that as far as that court was concerned Driver Nixon was discharged.