The Courts.

Alexandra Herald and Central Otago Gazette, Issue 361, 9 April 1903, Page 5

The Courts.

| WARDEN'S COURT, ALEXANDRA. Monday, April 6th, 1903. (Before F. J. Burgess, Esq., Wardeii,) ADJOURNED FROM LAST COURT. Alexandra Coal Mining 00, coal lease, 61a Or 3p, near Alexandra.— Forwarded for consent of Minister; royalty 6d, dead rent ss. James Norton, residence site, 1 acre in Manuherikia Valley, 1 mile from Alexandra.—Granted for 42 years. A Williamson, special dredging claim, 100 acres on the Manuherikia river and beaches.—Adjourned for completion of survey. Clyde Dredging 00, special dredging claim, 55 acres, being part of section 57, block 1, Fraser.—Adjourned for survey to May 11th. Robert Campbell, jun, exchange of title for water iace No 203 a, granted under " Otago Waste Lands Act, 1872."—Exchange granted. E Appleton, special alluvial claim 75 acres on Galloway.—Preliminary hearing disposed of; ground ordered to be surveyed by Mr Blair Mason. Same, special site, 5 acres on Galloway.—Granted for 42 years. Last Chance 00, amalgamation of special alluvial claims Nos 609 a, 231 a and 144a.—Adjourned till May 11th. NEW BUSINESS. Thomas Jackson, ordinary alluvial claim, 1 acre on Tucker Hill.—Granted for 42 years. L Ryan, special dredging claim, 11a 3r 35p, being section 6, block xvii, Cairnhill.—Adjourned. Robert Ballantyne, branch race, near Poverty Beach.—Struck out at applicant's request .

Same, branch race, near Poverty Beach.—Struck out.

Same, branch race, near Poverty Beach.—Objected to by F. Smith and Wallace Carr.—Application refused. Same, branch race, near Poverty Beach.—Objected to by F. Smith, W Oarr, and William Nicholson.—Race granted up to boundary of Carr's resideece site, but no farther. Costs £1 lis 6d allowed to objectors, costs of court 6s.

J E Thompson,' surrender of expended alluvial claim, license 468 a. Surrender accepted. Clyde Dredging 00, surrender of special dredging claim, license 384 a.— Surrender accepted. George Simpson, surrender of license for claim.—Accepted. A Williamson, extension of time for survey of special claim.-—Granted for three months. Angus Kennedy, application for Warden's authority to register a receipt from the Bank of New South Wales.—Order made accordingly. CLAIM FOK DAMAGES. Unity Gold Dredging Company v Davis Bend Dredging Company; claim .£SO for damages caused by the defenjdant's dredge, owing to the alleged negligence of those on board, fouling the stern line of the plaintiff's dredge and carrying away the tail chute. Mr,W. C. Macgregor (of Dunedin), with him Mr J. R. Bartholomew, appeared for the plaintiff company, and Mr C. C. Hutton for the defendant company. Mr Macgregor opened the case for plaintiffs, and called J. H. Thompson, secretary of the company, who produced correspondence between the parties relative to the accident. The cost of the new chute was £32 16s 3d.

Thomas Barry, dredgemaster of the Unity dredge, said that on November 14 he saw the Davis Bend coming down the river about 150 yards away. He let his lines go as far as they would go. Had no notice of any kind that Davis Bend dredge was coming. It is customary to give such notice. After crossing the bow line, the ladder was dropped. Wnen the dredge got way on again she fouled the line, which carried away the fastenings of the tail chute and broke it. Then gave orders to cut the line. to save the chute but could not. Maso£ told him afterwards he worked the winches himself. Witness did not think the man in charge should be at the winches, but on the look-out. If the buckets had been laced, would not have fouled the stern line. Other dredges had passed safely under similar circumstances. Certain the line was on the bottom. Did not signal the Davis Bend to come on. * At the request of defendant's solicitor the evidence of W. Kane and J. Blair Mason was taken on behalf of the defendants. William Kane said he was dredgemaster of the New Vincent dredge when the Davis Bend dredge passed. He did not know of any precautions that were neglected. J. Blair Mason said he was in charge of the Davis Bend dredge at the time of the accident. When nearing- the Unity he waited till that dredge signalled him to pass. He anchored the dredge after passing the bow line, as he was not satisfied the stern line was on the bottom. After making examination he lifted the ladder. Lifted it himself, and quickly. The buckets came in contact with line well back from bottom tnmbler. Could not have been more than 3ft of sag in the belt. Was at the winches himself, but could see fore and aft. Accident was caused through line not being low enough. Did not consider he was responsible for the accident. It was not necessary to lace the buckets, as.it was advantageous to have them for motive power in eddies. Cross-examined: Would not agree with the public if they said he was not a competent dredgemaster. The Btern line appeared to be slack. Did

not think it necessary to give notice to other dredges. Did not know it was customary to do so. He fouled two lines on his way down. Was unfortunate in the treatment he received. The Court adjourned till the following morning, when plaintiffs case was . resumed. Hans Olsen, winchman on the Unity dredge, corroborated the evidence of Thomas Barry with regard to what took place on the day of the accident. The line must have been lying on the bottom of the river. William Annan, winchman, also gave corroborative evidence. Duncan Bringans, dredgemaster of the Dunstan Lead dredge, said he was on board his dredge when the Davis Bend dredge passed. Did not get any notice from Mason that he was coming down. When he saw the Davis Bend preparing to lift the ladder, witness shifted his dredge to the west side of the river, leaving a clear passage. The Davis Bend dredge sheered right over on to the west side, and he then shifted the Dunstan Lead back to the eastern side. His opinion was that the Davis Bend dredge had charge of the master, and not the master of it. He was about six hours getting away. Mr Anderson and Mr Schaumann brought down dredges on a lower river, and had no trouble. Got notice from them. Think it reasonable that notice should be given. The buckets should have been laced. Mason could not -reduce the sag of the buckets to 3ft by telescoping the ladder. It is impossible. A sft sag is a very tight belt. Henry Schaumann, dredgemaster, said the Davis Bend dredge fouled the Ngapara dredge's stern line, which had to be cut. Mason sent no notice that he was coming. It is customary to give notice in similar cases, and this is a proper thing to do. It is not safe to take a dredge down the river without having the buckets laced. A master' in charge of a dredge should be in a place where he could see all round—not in the winch-room.

Louis Anderson, dredgemaster of the Manuherikia dredge, said he had experience in shifting dredges. He always laced the buckets, so as to avoid catching lines or obstacles. Always gave notice to other dredgemasters when he was coming. It is customary to do so. It is impossible to reduce the sag of the buckets to 3ft. If the ladder was dropped between the bow and stern lines., it could not be lifted quickly enough to clear the stern line. If he wanted to lengthen a line he would put a reef knot in it. A knot might catch on anything if run out quickly, and would carry away whatever it caught. Robert Ross, dredgemaster of the Alexandra Lead dredge, said he remembered the Davis Bend dredge passing him. No notice was sent him by the master of the Davis Bend. It was customary to give notice. The Davis Bend dredge carried away the stern line and one of the fair-leads off the Alexandra Lead. He would not take a dredge down the river without lacing the buckets. The master of a dredge in motion should not be at the winches, but where he could see all round. The sas of thej buckets could not be reduced to less than six feet. This closed the plaintiff's case. Mr Hutton opened the case for the defendant company and called William Baird, engineer, who said he was on the Davis Bend dredge when she came down the river. The ladder had been telescoped to lessen the sag of the buckets. When the ladder was raised the lowest bucket was only eighteen inches below the pontoons. It was a matter of opinion whether buckets should be laced. No precautions were omitted, other than giving notice. Got a signal from the Unity dredge to pass. The ladder was dropped after passing the bow line, to allow us to see if the channel was clear. The ladder was lifted quickly, and caught the Unity's line. The line could have been on the bottom. Saw the line turn the tail chute round, and they then dropped the ladder till the line was cut. Considered Mr Mason a competent dredgemaster. Gregor M'Donald, dredgemaster of the Davis Bend said when he was dredgemaster on the Ngapara Extended dredge, Mr Anderson took a dredge down the river, but he (witness) did not get any notice. If the knot in therope caught the sand chute it would carry it away. If the line was slack at both ends, would consider the line was on the bottom. Think notice should be given when dredges are being shifted. The man in charge should not be at the winches. It is a safe plan to trice up the buckets, William C Nicholson, dredgemaster of the Moa dredge, said he had experience of dredges passing him. On such occasions he sees that his lines are loose, and if they are fouled through not being on the bottom he takes the risk.

Thomas Barry (re-called) said the stern line of the Unity dredge was lying in the paddock.

This closed defendant's case,

After counsel had summed up, His Worship, in giving judgment, said he was satisfied from the evidence that the Unity crew could not be? charged with negligence. They did everything they could in view of the short notice. He thought the Davis Bend master should have given notice of his intention to pass, and that the buckets should be laced. No doubt the accident was caused by the ladder not being lifted high enough, and there was no sufficient reason why the ladder should have been dropped. He held that the negligence was shown on the part of those in charge of the Davis Bend dredge, and they were therefore liable. Judgment would be given for £32 16s 3d (cost of replacing the chute); witnesses' expenses and court costs, £l3 6s j professional fee, £7 7s.