A Juryman asked Mr. Smith if he had any other theories. Mr. Smith stated that he could provide other technical opinions, but they were pure surmise and taken on the whole he was in favour of the backfiring theory.
In summing up the evidence presented, the Coroner addressed the Jury stating that he was sure they would all endorse Mr. Smith’s remarks at the loss of Lieutenant Busk. Edward Busk was well known in his profession and had done good work for the country, and at such a time could be ill spared. He informed them that they had heard the evidence of the Foreman, Mr. Head and that of Mr. Smith, and he thought from their testimony that they were both experts.
As a result, the Coroner suggested and in an impartial and somewhat leading fashion guided the jury to what they should conclude. The Jury he said, …show more content…
He said that they might see the crank of a locomotive, which they thought to be perfectly faultless, and perhaps the train would come to grief because there was a flaw which no one could detect. In this regard, it was the same in this case.
There was no doubt he added that in all petrol engines there was a certain amount of danger from leakage of petrol and backfiring, and the Jury might safely take it that the two expert witnesses came to the right conclusion when they said that probably the accident was caused by a backfire.
The Coroner added that there might be ninety-nine backfires with no accident resulting. Yet, on the other hand, the hundredth might cause an ignition. The Coroner also stated that he had no doubt it was the same in this case. When the backfire occurred, either from inferior mixture or flooding of the carburettor it ignited the petrol, the fire flared up and destroyed the machine. Resulting in the death of Edward Busk. In the case of a motorcar a man could stop, but when he was 1000 ft (304m) in the air, he was perfectly
In summing up the evidence presented, the Coroner addressed the Jury stating that he was sure they would all endorse Mr. Smith’s remarks at the loss of Lieutenant Busk. Edward Busk was well known in his profession and had done good work for the country, and at such a time could be ill spared. He informed them that they had heard the evidence of the Foreman, Mr. Head and that of Mr. Smith, and he thought from their testimony that they were both experts.
As a result, the Coroner suggested and in an impartial and somewhat leading fashion guided the jury to what they should conclude. The Jury he said, …show more content…
He said that they might see the crank of a locomotive, which they thought to be perfectly faultless, and perhaps the train would come to grief because there was a flaw which no one could detect. In this regard, it was the same in this case.
There was no doubt he added that in all petrol engines there was a certain amount of danger from leakage of petrol and backfiring, and the Jury might safely take it that the two expert witnesses came to the right conclusion when they said that probably the accident was caused by a backfire.
The Coroner added that there might be ninety-nine backfires with no accident resulting. Yet, on the other hand, the hundredth might cause an ignition. The Coroner also stated that he had no doubt it was the same in this case. When the backfire occurred, either from inferior mixture or flooding of the carburettor it ignited the petrol, the fire flared up and destroyed the machine. Resulting in the death of Edward Busk. In the case of a motorcar a man could stop, but when he was 1000 ft (304m) in the air, he was perfectly