THE LATE ACCIDENT AT WESTPORT WHARF.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1396, 21 January 1873, Page 2

THE LATE ACCIDENT AT WESTPORT WHARF.

[WES.TpORI TIMES.] At the Resident Magistrate's Court, at Westport, the other day, the following case was dec'ded : — Band of Hope Gold-mining Company vi John Symonds.— Mr Fisher for plaintiff; Mr Home for defendant.^ This was an action to recover L 56 10s damages caused by steamer Charles Edward coiniri'g into collision with Bright street wharf, whereby certain quartz crushing machinery, lying on the wharf for facility of loading, in upr river boafajj had beeif aubmergecl in ; tj}e river and only recovered at the cost now sought to be obtained. • After referring to the facts, and hearing the evidence, at length, the Magistrate Slid :— lt was a matter of regret thatthe evidence on the part of the defendant was not more complete, especially as to the incidents connected with getting the vessel clear from har mqorings. 4 n attempt had been made by defendant's counsel to show that the wharf was unfit to carry the goods, but the evidence was not clear. There was some evidence to show that danger was apprehended, but none that the wharf was in a peculiarly bad or rotten state. The principal points raised for the defence were : — That the Harbor Regulations, had been disregarded, and that damages could not be claimed. That the accident had been caused by any negligence on the part of the defendant, and that the goods were on the wharf at risk of owners, who, leaving them there, had contributed to the accident. That the owner of the wharf had received compensation, and that such jvas in full- for all damages! Upon the first plea the Court ruled that the Harbor Regulations made any persons leaving goods on the. wharf for more than twentyfour hours liable to a penalty, but did not preclude action for damages sustained. Secondly the evidence showing that the wharf } was fit for its office as a wharf r \$ did not follow that it must, of necessity, be strong enough to bear collision with a steamer. Then as to contributory negligence, the evidence showed none.* The plaintiffs took their own risk of any accident a3 far as concerned their relations with the owner of the wharf, but not necessarily with outside parties. Then as to the cause of the accident, it appeared that the lines were foul on board the steamer, and that the accident was not altogether unavoidable. The vessel

being unmoored deliberately, and the accident occurring from some hitch on board, and not by reason of the fresh iri the river. Hence the owners could not escape the responsibility, although there was no evidence as to want of skill on the part of the captain of the vessel. As to the posilion-oLthe gdoda on the wharf , it had notT^en shown that they .had been placed; in any peculiar position exposing them to danger, but had been placed on a properly-buihrwjiarf, and so far as defendant was concerned he had no legal right to maintain that they should riot have been so placed. Then as to the owner of the wharf having appa- > rently given a clear receipt for all damages arising from the collision, that was a matter between himself and the defendant, dnd . did not concern '; the .plaintiff. Judgment was therefore, given for the full amount claimed and costs. . . Mr Home intimated that his client would appeal.