CALLIOPE DOCK DISASTER.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 152, 27 June 1907, Page 4

CALLIOPE DOCK DISASTER.

ACTION FOB, DAMAGES CONTINUED. EXPERT EVIDENCE, The Shaw, Savill, and Albion Company's claim for £15,000 against the Auckland Harbour Board was continued in the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon, when further evidence was called in support of the defendant's case. Continuing his evidence under crossexamination by Mr Gully, John Travers, a Sydney shipwright, said, in reply to various questions, that he was a. practical man; not a theorist. He was giving a common sense view of things. Improper shoring may have been one of the causes of the disaster. Mr Gully: Assuming that the vessel was properly centred and there was no perceptible list, would you still say the shoringhad any effect on the disaster? Witness: What do you mean by no perceptible list? There might be a very great list which would not be perceptible to the eye without mechanical appliance. In reply to further questions, the witness said the shoring might have been a contributory cause to the accident, even assuming the vessel was properly centred and had no list. Thomas Jenkins, dockmaster of the Alfred Graving Dock, Williamstown, neav Melbourne, said that dock was under Government control. He had occupied that position for 17 years. He had had experience in docking in various docks in England. Altogether he had had 40 years' experience in docking vessels. In his dock the Government took the responsibility of docking, placing and shoring ships, all of which operations were under his personal supervision. The normal height of his blocks was 4ft 9in, with 4ft centres. The witness produced a model of his blocks, showing their construction, which he described in detail. His blocks were held together with dogs; there was no lateral or diagonal bracing. He sometimes had to increase the height to 6ft 3in. He did so by adding other blocks fastened in the same way with dogs, but no bracing. Mr Skerrett:' They -would call that a drunken block in Auckland. Witness: May be! Mr Skerrett: Is it the practice to disregard any lateral or horizontal motion? Witness: : I take good care I don't getany of that. Any motion of a vessel would capsize any block in the world. Continuing, the witness said that the number of shores used in docking the Mainari (16) was totally insufficient. From 24 to 27 shores should have been used in each side. A second tier of shores should have been put in on that ship to support her on the blocks. That was not an uncommon practice with him. He used his judgment, but he would certainly have done so with, such a ship as the Mamari, as she was a big-beamed ship, and there would be a great overhang on each side from the centre of the keel blocks. It was a great mistake not to have put in the forward shores before the pumping out started. Witness then proceeded to describe how he would have docked the Mamari. "H»e manner in which the Mamari was shored was a source of danger to the ship. Sixteen shores was next to nothing for a ship like the Mamari. The number of shores was insufficient, and the manner in which they were put in was wrong. The shores had a lifting as well as a supporting weight, and the deficiency in shores meant a deficiency in tonnage to support tlic vessel. Something was bound to give without sufficient shores to support her. Mr Skerrett: "What would be the effect to the vessel and the blocks by docking her as the Mamari was done ? 'witness: Anything at all might happens. You see what did happen? His "Honor: Do you think that this accident which you have heard described might have resulted from insufficient elioriug? Witness: Yea!

To Mr. Skerrett: Witness had seen the material, construction and arrangement of the blocks in the Calliope Dock. They were, proper blocks on which to dock the ilamari. They were stronger blocks than his own. He. never unwaiered tbe dock prior to admitting another vessel, unless he was sure that something was wrong with the blocks. Tie risk in not uirwatering the dock, might be disregarded. He would only imwater the dock if the previous vessel floated out with a list He had seen the capping pieces used for the llamari, and would certainly say she was not placed centrally on the blocks forward.

To Mr. Gully: WTtnes3 examined the -capping pieeea; some at the Calliope dock. He picked up one pic.cc which he took to be aft, which showed the keel mark in the centre, and from that he judged she was not placed centrally forward by the keel marks on other pieces. He could see absolutely nothing wrong •with the blocks in question.

Jiihn Stephen, a Sydney shipbuilder, said he had trad a long experience in docking vessels. He, agreed with the evidence given by Messrs. Pratt and Travers regarding the construction of the blocks at Calliope Dock, and the method which should be adopted in shoring.

Captain Sergeant, Assistant Harbourmaster for Auckland, gave the dimensions of the Calliope Dock, and said that at Lyttelton, the normal height of the blocks was 3ft. 9in. No braces or strapping were used, and the blocks were fastened together with iron Witness examined the blocks at CaUiopa Dock, when the Kaikottra was on them and did not observe any strain.

William Ware, a civil engineer, residing in AuckJa-nd, said he bad carried on business here since 1872. He had had practical experience in dock constrrKitioE. His firm constructed the Auckland graving dock, and also the Lyttelton Dock, und he was consulting engineer in the construction of the Ga\liape dock. He revised the plans and re-wrote the specifications. He •was resident engineer of the MiTford Haven Docks and railway in Wales. The Calliope Bock was originally intended for war vessel?, which were the heaviest vessels afloat. When the Calliope Dock was built the shape of vessels, was more wedge-shaped than at present. To dock the pi-esent cargo vessels, the hejght of the Hocks had ivo be raised. The blocks were designed to carry the weight of a vessel vertically. The braces and dogs were to keep the clocks together. He would not construct blocks to resist a motion forward or ait in them, if a vessel with way on touched the blocks at all she would knock them over with or without braces. The object of the blocks being made in sections was to enable them to be readily removed in the event of the bottom of the vessel requiring repairs. It was perfectly safe to raise the blocks to 4ft. lOin-, or even higher. There was nothing flimsy or improper in the construction of the raised blocks (produced). On the conteoy Grey <were iirrusuuHjj

strong. The cambre at the base of the blocks was so slight that he did not I think it gave any insecurity. ! At this stage the further hearing of the case was adjourned, until this morning-

TO-DAAY'S PROCEEDINGS.

Continuing his evidence this morning, Mr. Ware said that the capping piece being narrower than the lower blocks was not prejudicial to their stability. The pressure fell centrally on the blocks, and there would be no tendency to capsize the blocks. Anything wrong with the blocks should have been easily noticeable while the Kaikoura "was on them. He knew of no timber stronger or more suited for the blocks than pohutukawa. He knew of no other wood that would stand the same strain owing to the fibre being so interlaced. The strappings or diggings would not be affected a bit by the Kaikoura having stood on them for three days. The number of blocks the Mamari was put on was quite sufficient; in fact there was a wide margin of safety. If the Mamari was moving forward at all when she touched the blocks she would pull them over. The narrow capping piece in conjunction with the camber would have no prejudicial effect.

Mr. Gully: Witness formed an opinion as to the cause of the disaster at the eoronial inquiry. Subsequently he was called as a witness. Mr. Hamer had given his evidence before witness was called. He formed his opinion as to the cause of the accident when he visited the dock the following morning. There was no other way to account for it; everything pointed to that. Firstly the blocks had all been pushed over toward the forward end of the ship. The top corner block was deeply indented with the keel on the after edge of the capping piece. He based his opinion on these reasons. No other force could have caused the same result. Mr. Gully: What does that prove except that the block's fell forward?— The blocks could not fall without considerable force being applied to them. Mr. Gully: Surely you are confusing cause and effect. How does thai prove the cause?— There "was a bow line straining.

Continuing, witness said he came to the conclusion afterwards that there must have been a forwafS pull on the bow which pulled the after blocks over. The blocks would remain in that position for some time. He made no inquiries as to whether there actually was a forward pall on the rope. He heard before the inquest that there was such a strain on the bow rope. He had been told so. Assuming that it had been proved that there was no such haul on the bow rope for some time before the vessel touched the blocks or after, he would say the assumption was wrong. The pull must have taken place directly the stern touched the blocks. If, it was proved there "was no such pull, then his (witness's) assumption must be wrong. He believed that the suggestion of hauling came from several of the Ferro-con-crete Company's men. He had discussed the matter with Mr. Hamer before the inquest. W\hen he gave his evidence he was absolutely positive that the cause of the accident stated by him was correct when tie gave evidence at the inquest. He was still positive. (Proceeding.)