CALLIOPE DOCK DISASTER.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 155, 1 July 1907, Page 3

CALLIOPE DOCK DISASTER.

■ACTION FOR DAMAGES CONCLUDED.

I -rnDG-MEN-T 3TOR DEFENDANT WITH • " COSTS.

At 7 10 o'clock on Saturday night, one fl f the most remarkable cases ever heard • -he Auckland Supreme Court was Snchded, aiter a hearing lasting twelve ?!T -This was the Shaw, Savill, and a <,ainst the Auckland Harbour in Connection with the accident ?*e Mamari in Calliope Dock on NohaL 37th last. Mr. Skerrett, K.C., for the defendants, and the Siff company was represented by Mr Gnllv. The case was heard before Vr Justice Denniston and a special jury. One interesting development of the proceedings was t£e increase of jurors £Tafter the first day from W to ,rl 1/ The ordinary fees are £1 for the first day, and 10/ a day for subseonent days. After the hearing had con- •' ijned for some days the jurymen asked •for higher remuneration, and counsel for Lth parties agreeing that such should form pa rt of the cost,s in the actlon ' thls aereed to. ■ The" terrible accident at the Calliope jiock on November 27th last through . ifce Shaw, Savill, and Albion Company's • fne steamer Mamari, by some means or other falling, a.ttended as it was with, juch fatal results to life and limb, will . stiD be fresh in. the minds of all- How ■ flic accident really did happen must for ever remain a mystery, but during the Clearing of the case a variety of theories 'were suggested. His Honor, in summing op. referred to the bow rope theory, ~(&(& both Mr. Hamer and Mr. Ware • stated in evidence was the conclusion ,£hey had arrived at the day following '■ the accident He said it was a brilliant deduction, and if sneb a. thing really did happen, such a deduction was one of the .triumphs of modern engineering. His Honor occupied four hours in summing up, and the jury retired at 2.55 pjn. to consider the points of issue, xlour after ihoar dragged wearily by, and towards five o'clock counsel for the plaintiff was jjjginiiiiig to look more jubilant, whilst a shade of anxiety was discernible on the cheery countenance of counsel for defendant. Both paced the corridors, and the suspense was undoubtedly beginning to tell. At sis o'clock the jury returned to their bos. There was a general rush fo the bar, and the ques.tioa eagerly asked by all and sundry was eZzve they decided?" The faces of the

jurymen were inscrutable, however, and there was not the slightest intimation L fo their countenances to indicate in whose favour their verdict tended.

Addressing the jury his Honor said iehalsent for them to intimate that to asastthem in their deliberations the Cocitirai prepared to receive a verdict of fee-fourths of their number. One 'jniyman lad been excused, so that there were only 11 instead of 12, but a three■fdmihs. of course meant that nine of

tieir number must agree. . Tne jury then again retired, and the suspense for the next hour was doubly .intensified. At precisely ten minutes past seven o'clock the jury returned. <mcc more and announced that on the ■Sist and third clauses of the points of issue they found in the affirmative; that is to say, they were agreed that ;(a) the blocks used in docking the Ma.mari were in design, construction and .condition proper and suitable for such dock, and (b) that it was proved that .jnci -blocks were proper and suitable *V docking the Mamari.

This decision of the two points in question rendered consideration of all other points unnecessary.

His Honor then thanked the jury, and said they had given such great attention to the case that he found his liabilities very much lessened. He could only regret that their remuneration could not be adequate in any degree to the f time, care and thought they had spent. •__ Jlr. Skerrett, K.C., then asked for judgment, which was given with costs. 31r. Gully raising no objection. Mr. .Skerrett further asked for the special jury's certificate of finding, and for a certificate for two extra counsel.

I Mr. Gully suggested that it was not a case where more than two counsel ■should be granted. He was not aware -of any case where a certificate was granted for more than two counsel.

Mr. Skerrett, K.C., quoted a case Fhere three Queen's counsel had been allowed, and in which case the Court of Appeal had refused to deal with the jndge's discretion. He quite admitted iiat no such case had come on in the polony before.

■llr. Skerrett further asked for a certificate for eleven extra days. The costs of the action, he said, were originally limited to £300. and he asked for that to be extended.

, Further discussion on the question of costs took place, and it was eventually P*cided to defer consideration o£ "at- question until a later date.