CALLIOPE DOCK DISASTER.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 151, 26 June 1907, Page 3

CALLIOPE DOCK DISASTER.

jiCHON FOR DAMAGES CONTINUED.

SSF-CASEFOK THE DEFENCE.

__ <-__w Savffl, and Albion ComJS for £15.00° «»*»' i 2 Board was continued yesterday after- * Xn further evidence was caned n0 ° n "!_. of the defendant's case. *SSB£__3tata»- dock engineer, reCaptain state- °- ce + v before th- e Kaikoura was i«_l The examination was a caw-JfS'-and everything was in perfect _, -Witness made another examina- ■ fh. day before the Kaikoura was *»**„* Tie weather condition/ for the floating off of O, GuUy" Witness looked after SaSryonthcdook. He had *** Stmenfc as deputy to Captain £-ir*Sut out the lattert m- ___&«. ! He worked the pumps on __ _»S question after Captain Duder ?» ftU 9-35 a_n. up to the time of f Sadcnt, according to instructions &• a SV * =hiD At one time an olheer to" to''reduce speed. He could whether it was the -IS. to stop one or both pumps soon •Se vessel took the blocks. He itei according to the instructions of SS&g contractor. He had never Calliope Dock one large yes- *?!_£ placed in directly after anblocks had been raised withWSSA: He bad never known jjeaecesaty for such a course until the " pEsn. case. " EXPERT EVIDENCE. ' Jofa Pratt, dockmaster ot Sutherland Jdßtooy Wks in Sydney aud he Cleea 16 years in his present position gears' in port's Dock previously. ■Si lid lad 30 years' constant expen-se-in docking undocking vessels. H e Voceeded to describe the methods Warn in {fiose docks in centrll ?S yeS " sSd.docki_g.them. The distance W\ stores were placed apart depended ■SrST-ctas of ship. Fifteen feet X-bout the average unless there was mm m* * T th <% en *** „ re «it closer. In dockmg a boat like to $___i he would place his shores m apart, which would take 27 shores '-i-sHe.- Considering the weight m aeMamari that number of shores would *« reaaired regardless of the shape of ier keeL His experience was that nine ont of ten vessels of her class had a &t"to one side or the The correcting of a list, however small, was one oi fte principal duties of a dockmaster. It -was impossible to tell with the naked eje ¥let__ a ship was perfectly plumb or-not Tie_nger of landing a ship ffle _e__-ari"irith her keel on blocks •Biti insufficient shoring tos that it Tronid "ire a tendency to the forward jari of tie ship to twist or buckle. H tie _ip had a list an undue strain would be pat on t_6.sb.ores and might have the effect ofupsetting the blocks. To put ra vessel frith a.list on Tbe centre of the blocks .conH only be done riy guesswork. He method used in shoring l tbe Mamari nras one he did not know. He did not i___.it" a safe one.

' /Sr. Skerrett: "Having regard to the . jsaffidency of shores, and the methods fevlich they were put up, do you think M condition was likely to produce a isffion of things which would be likely '. h'ssedaae ■ such an..; aeddents" —"I :; te_BsSV3ike t6~pfi£~a ship-in-str"few~ the danger is that the suppart c insufficient and you can't tell ariisisrill happen until it's too late." , omS____g, witness said, that if the 'Ijnpires not properly centred, and the •frigeslon the other side to where the ■"qgl_fwas, -would be loosened. PohutufcraWas at least as good a wood for tsl Hocks as ironbark. The material •_d_r_str_<__._n of the Calliope blocks, U arranged, was, in his opinion, suf&jat to aipport the Mamari. It was __ .practice, at his own docks, for own"tsiof .ships having an overhang to infant "him of the fact. He made it his IsHness-to find out himself as well. In Is jtaeks the owners undertook the &e__3g,shoring and undocking of ships; "Jmj was no intermediate contractor, took charge of the ships tenthe moment they entered the docks, we ore_bang,.snch as the MamaxCs, "was getting lugger and bigger of late years. He lad seen it growing gradually. , Asked as to whether he could expect to-latge an overhang in a cargo steamer ta&'as a»-Mamari, the witness replied h the affinnarfav c.

jCcataiiiiag, the witness admitted jfertfte-cverhaag of the Mamari was a n*--s<<>_e. He had not seen many over'■jsags. In his dock he examined the I'jwfa, and-secured the ship before letrag the water .in to float off a ship. mer the ship was floated out, it was ""Ins practice to pump out before ad™Jng another ship. He had taken out I*^men-of-war, and admitted the mail boat the same morning. «% vessel was docked without a list !*» *-*oa_d come off without a list, and ■»no &_mage. Assuming the Kaikoura ™ docked in the blocks for three days, TOttiey wexe examined and found all Wk)* -would not have hesitated to PMtie Mamari on them if the Kaikoura ttae ont upright. At this stage the further hearing of .j««a> was adjourned until this morn-

TO-DAYS "?3_OOE__Dl_\ T GS.

his evidence this morning, •watt said he had examined the cap- ! gj?ieces represented to him as hayon the Mamari blocks. He H? have expected the greater prestheni to have been in the centre "*™g into the consideration the grade dock and the trim of the Mar*".>he vessel, he presumed, would gg oat on three or four of the blocks Sat 84 "? ° f the shi P- She would come down, taking three to-four "£*-> a*, the water receded, li the CM n K_ ted as to the of by the eccentricity of the RS. 2--ys TL ere COTxect ' he wotdd PW to fed the greatest depression bill fore P art of the capping pieces. £ wT Mtion ° f the <S Pieces c ? leatest de P«ssion D a ft of «Co? g f_ PleeeS * He saw tw ° i^di«£?sS_ flf i , ?i-»«« »°tte of «_1 - OUnd indications on ** _i "? Pieces tllat keel BSgE? foUnd of a >;4£g pfL.* the extreme °* & S*tt 5 f «"«** P iece to in- fchen P** 0 * ' by the jury. "wrf thTf_, tlle _' sitness 6aid h e recogde P as having 1 " ,ur y ad ionrned to _* <rf tt?k^ 4 "**?? Cted a aum-

Cross-examined by Mr Gully, Mr Pratt said the largest size vessel generally taken into tbe Fitzroy Dock was 4011 tons. The whole of the docking operations were controUed by witness. Shoring was done under-witness' direct supervision. He also controlled the pumping. For an ordiruu-y large ship shores were usually placed at an -angle determined by the shape of the ship, and was a matter of personal judgment. The general question of the stability of the block was not altered by the raising of the blocks to a reasonable height for docking a ship, if the ship was properly centred. Witness was responsible in his docks for the design and construction of the blocks. Beyond raising the blocks no alteration had been made in the design since he had been in office. In case of any sign of decay he ■would notify the Head of the Department, and would receive orders to remove them. In Fitzroy Dock the capping pieces were of soft wood. The reason was that witness considered soft wood was more of a cushion for vessels with no keel than hard wood. The capping pieces at his docks were the full width of the block. He had never known an instance of a capping piece less in width than the top block being placed on one side. Any list, however slight, would make it unsafe for any blocks in docking. A ship with the slightest possible list might bring the blocks down. He did not know the method of centring a ship and correcting a list adopted at Calliope. A slight list might possibly disturb the blocks without bringing them down. If the Kaikoura had had a slight list she might have disturbed the blocks before the Mamari came in. The photograph of the blocks after the accident was no guide as to whether they fell forward or not. The rush of the water would twist them about in all directions. If the vessel struck the after part of the block it would show an impression there. Mr Skerrett: Assuming the theory that the blocks gradually canted forward, do you think that would have been observed during the process of docking the ship?— Yes. Why?— There were no tackles on the ship to-bind her firmly. No evidence to prove the quarter-line was tight at the bow to stop the ship from going forward. The gangway being square of tbe vessel as-a rule, with traffic continually going over it, that gangway would have been put at least 3 feet 10 inches off the square before a block would fall."

Continuing, witness said he had never in all his experience known better or stronger blocks than those used at the Calliope Dock. There would be no tendency in the case of the Mamari docked as she was for the blocks to cant on account of the eccentricity of the capping pieces. The capping piece was not there for strength; merely as a cushion. They did not affect the stability of the blocks. John Travers, a shipwright, residing in Sydney, said he had had experience in docking ships. He was present at the construction of the Sutherland Dock blocks, and the docking of the first vessel there. He had had over 20 years' experience in docking vessels. On the evidence he had heard regarding the docking of the Mamari, he did not consider the docking or shoring was properly carried, out. The method of docking was ■ wrong, and the number of shores used ■were insufficient. About 27 shores should bave been used. It was a general principle that 75 per cent of the vessel should receive shorage. He did not think a vessel such as the Mamari could be secured without tackle. If the slack was not taken in from time. to time, there, the-ship -moving-about.. Witness, continuing, said the fact that the Mamari was soughed astern for 14 to 18 inches before the shoring commenced would indicate that she had soughed forward about 3 or 4 inches before the after shores were put in. In half an hour eight shores would be put in, so that at that time one-half of the vessel was "without shores, and he considered that a dangerous position for any vessel to be placed in. Especially one with a keel like the Mamari. The chances were extremely probable that the ship would buckle or twist, and seeing that no steps were taken in the first place to see that the ship was perfectly upright, the chances of an accident were accentuated. If a vessel was a little bit off the centre of the keel block, it was very difficult to remove the wedge from that side, and very easy on the other. In his opinion it was quite possible that the want of care in docking and shoring the Mamari referred to would be sufficient to account for the accident. It was impossible to say exactly what did occur. Mr. Travers said he considered that more care was exercised in the construction of tbe Calliope blocks than was the case in any of the Sydney graving docks. He would not hesitate to dock a ship like the Mamari on these blocks. Diagonal braces would be useless. He had come to the conclusion that the force oi a moving ship was irrisistible. Regarding the material of the capping pieces, he preferred pine to hardwood. A vessel would take her own line better, but he did not think it was any detriment. It was not the practice in Sydney docks to unwater them before bringing in another ship. If such were the case, the cost of docking would be considerably increased. Any- great disturbance to the blocks would be noticed while the ship was being docked. He could not understand blocks moving slowly under a ship. Once they started to move at all, they would collapse quickly. He agreed with .the previous witness as to the condition of the capping piece, and the inference drawn. In the case of ships with an overhang, the custom w*as to send a diver down to fix shores and blocks to support the overhang. To Mr. Gully: It was after the vessel was on the blocks that the diver went down to fix the shores. He did not know of any case where the overhang of a ship had disturbed the blocks.