DAMAGES AWARDED.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1148, 8 June 1911, Page 6

DAMAGES AWARDED.

9 THE WHARF TRAGEDY. HARBOUR BOARD TO PAY £1,250. LAW POINTS RESERVED.Mr. Justice Sim and a special jury of twelve concluded yesterday the hearing of the ease in which Eliza Jano Baillie claimed .£2OOO froni the A\ ellingtou Harbour Board. The claim was in respect of tho death of the plaintiff's husband, John Patrick Baillie, who was "killed by nil accident which occurred to him in operating a hydraulic capstan on the Glasgow Wharf last November. Baillie was a foreman stevedore in the employ of the New Zealand Shipping Co., Ltd. Mr. A. -W. Blair and Mr. E. J. Fitzgibbon appeared for the plaintiff, ilr. A. Gray and Air. T. S. Wc-ston for the defendant. Yesterday was the third day of tlie hearing, a. considerable number of witnesses having been called on both sides. Robert Fletcher, chairman of tho Harbour Board, said he inspected tho capstan with Mr. Marchbanks, after vne accident. It worked properly when operated with the ball of the fcot. After doing that several times, ho struck it sharply with his heel, and on the second occasion it jammed. It, was quite a simple thing to operate it correctly. He had had considerable experience with ropes and capstans at sea ana ashore, and could say that there should bo 110 need for. a man to put his hand or foot to a rope that was being wound round a revolving capstan, and it would be very unwise to do so. John Myers, storeman, employed by the board, said lie had known Baillie for many years, and had worked with him on several occasions. Baillie was a very steady, reliable man, of good, character, but was "a bit slow," and was sometimes absent-minded. Witness had warned him to keep away from the bight of the rope anil bo careful, as ho did not like to see a mate in any danger. . Verdjct for Plaintiff. The addresses of counsel and his Honour's summing up occupied considerable, tiroe, and the jury was in retirement for and hour and a half. The verdict was for the plaintiff, Following are the issues submitted to tne jury, and their answers:— 1. Did the Harbour Board take reasonable care to provide a capstan that could bo worked safely by the men employed to work it?— No. 2. If the board did not do so, was Baillie's death caused by the failure to do so?— Yes. 3. (a) Did Baillie strike the button of the capstan so violently as to force the spindle below tho decking of the wharf?—No evidence, (b) If so, was that negligence on his part?—(Not answered). (c) Was that tho cause of • Baillie's death?— No. 4. (a) Did Baillie allow his foot and hand or either of them to bccomo entangled in tho rope?—No evidence. '(b) If so, was that negligence on his part?—No proof of negligence, (c) Was that the cause of Baillie's death? — (Not answered.) 5. (a) What damages, if any, is plaintiff entitled to recover?—.£l2so. (b) If so, in what shares are the damages to be divided among the widow nnd three children of Baillie?— Widow, .£800; elder daughter, .£150; younger daughter, .£250; son, .£SO. The-jury recommended that the widow's share should bo devoted to the purchase of an annuity. In order to give Mr. Gray an opportunity of arguing the nonsuit points raised by him during tho hearing, his Honour granted an adjournment for further consideration.