HARBOR COLLISIONS.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2368, 8 December 1908, Page 5

HARBOR COLLISIONS.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. THE WAIRUNA —MINTARO COLLISION. United Press Association. Copyright (Received Dec. 7, 10/5 p.m.) SYDNEY, Dee. 7. In the Vice-Admiralty Court to-day judgment was delivered in the cases arising out of the Wairuna-Mintaro collision on October 7tli. Both parties claimed £6OOO. The Judge said that a mistake had been made on board the Mintaro in not keeping a proper look-out. The ""Captain, by exercising ordinary care, would have avoided any risk of collision. The Judge thought therefore that his negligence was one of the proximate causes of the collision. He was further of the opinion that the captain of the Wairuna was guilty of neglect and of omission to take such reasonable precautions as the circumstances of the case required, whieh to some extent were tlie cause of tho collision. He should have taken more than the usual precautions to warn vessels towing up behind him. Had these precautions., which were no more than-were required by the exercise of ordinary care, been observed, tlie collision could liavo been avoided. He should have kept ia proper look-out astern. The Judge hqkl both vessels to blame, and decided that the party whose vessel sustained the smaller damage would have to pay the other tlie balance of a moiety of bis own loss and a moiety of the loss of the other. Each party must pay his own costs.

THE WAIRUNA —MOON AH

COLLISION

[Pbess Association.]

AUCKLAND, Dec. 7

The rehearing of the action against the Union Steamship Company by tlie Northern Coal Company for £1946 6s 2s daamges as the result of a collision in Auckland,harbor on the night of March 10th last between tlie defendant company’s steamer Wairuna, of 4000 tons gross register, and plaintiffs’ 86 ton ketch Moonali, was opened before Mr. Justice Edwards and a special jury this morning. The claim is that the accident, which resulted in the sinking of the Moon ah, was occasioned through the negligent and improper navigation on the part of the defendant company’s, servants. The defendants on their part denied the allegation, 'and submitted that the cause of the accident was the negligence and carelessness of tlie plaintiffs’ servants. Tlie. case has not concluded.