CALLIOPE DOCK DISASTER.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 154, 29 June 1907, Page 6

CALLIOPE DOCK DISASTER.

." : ACTION FOR DAMAGES. fT _____ ' ADDBESSES BY COUNSEL. "The Shaw, SariU and Albion Company's action for £15,000 damages against the Auckland Harbour Board was continued at the Supreme Court yesterday, when Counsel addressed the jury. MR SKERRETT'S ADDRESS. In addressing the jury this morning, Mr. Skerrett said the jury had listened attentively to the evidence, and he could add but little. It would be impertinent on his part to express his opinion, on the way the case had been conducted by his learned friend. He (Mr. Gully) had conducted with perfect fairness. The Tnain issue was: 'Ts it proved that these blocks were insufficient and improper to support the ship Majnari? It was practically admitted that the Harbour Board did not undertake the placing of ships in the centre of the blocks or the shoring of ships. They had throughout taken up that view of their duties. !No greater duties could be expected from the Harbour Board owning such a dock as the Calliope. To undertake greater duties would mean the creation of a large skilled staff constantly at the dock, at a large expense, and they would Toe for a considerable extent of the year idle. No Harbour Board in the world would guarantee the stability of their keel blocks unless they had a large staff and were prepared to undertake the whole of the operations themselves. It must have struck the jury as significant that in the Tilbury Docks the cost of docking a ship was £63 for 24 hours. In the Calliope Dock it was something like £50 for three days of 24 hours. Surely it was impossible to reasonably contend that the Auckland Harbour Board should have undertaken any greater duties than it had done. No care or caution had been exercised by the captain of the ship. More care would have been taken in the docking ©f a ten-ton launch than in docking this ship of 10,000 tons, worth over £100.000. It was an amazing and extraordinary fact that the captain of the ship remained calmly on board, and although he arrived in port on Saturday at one o'clock, he did not concern himself as to the docking of the ship. He (the captain) was asked for a plan showing the shape of the ship, and the doekmaster told brm that if be did not obtain a plan he would assume that the Mamari was of the same shape or of the same lines as the Kaikoura.

Continuing, Mr. Skerrett urged that the position of the Calliope Dock was different to other docks. The shape oi vessels had. altered since the dock was bxrilt, and might prove inadequate for some vessels. Alterations might hereafter occur in the shape of vessels which might render the Calliope to a more or less degree unsatisfactory. The greater responsibility rested, not with the Harbour Board, but with the ship and the ship's contractor. The company couid not complain if they ■ : (the jury) adopted the view that he suggested, and held that that issue was not proved. He would not, for a moment, suggest that ine jury should do anything to cut down or modify in the least degree the company's strict legal rights. He felt they would give the company ample justice. His only fear •was not that they would not do justice, but that they might be tempted rather to lean towards the Harbour Board for fear that it would be suggested, "\Here is an Auckland jury determining against an Auckland Harbour Board." He dealt exhaustively with the question of stability of the blocks, reviewing the evidence as to construction, material and arrangement. He also dwelt at length on the rope theory, insufficient shoring, and other items in the points- at issue. MR. GULLY'S REPLY. In. addressjng the jury, Mr. Gully ponied out that in this case, where only circumstantial evidence existed, all that the jury could do was to draw a reasonable aT>d a. mentally honest deduction from the whole of the facts. Although his friend had submitted as a. matter of law that the onus of proof rested on the plaintiff, it was only common sense to infer something from the total collapse of the docks, and to ask those responsible for their design and control to prove some sort of explanation as to iow they fell down- Either it was the result of inherent weakness in the blocks, or there was some kind of outside influence. None of the five theories advanced were as satisfactorily proved as the suggested weakness in the blocks. The defence had been artificially constructed, and the utmost assiduity had been employed in exploiting to lead to some other channel than that of defective blocks. Of the five theories advanced three at least were not founded on fact at all, and a strong probability in theory upon a basis of fact was not much use -when it -was found that the fact did not exist. The question of insufficient shoring, he submitted, might be disregarded unless it was shown that such shoring caused! the accident. Such a conclusion was not in accordance with the facts- Mr. Gully reviewed the evidence at length, and sought to discount the evidence and contentions of the defendants. There was no evidence, he said, to show that the ship was off the centre, and the suggestion that tbe ship went into the dock with a list had been disproved by several witnesses for the plaintiff, and also by the evidence for the defence. Any consideration of the overhang or peculiar shape of the vessel was futile unless it could be proved that such were factors in causing the accident. The keel of the Mamari was a-oommon design in modern vessels, and there was nothing to show that the keel had in any way caused the accident. The Court then adjourned until ten o'clock this morning.