GREYCLIFFE DISASTER

Hokitika Guardian, 14 December 1929, Page 5

GREYCLIFFE DISASTER

COUNSELS ADDRESSES. (Australian Press Association) (Received this day at 9.25 a.m.) SYDNEY, Doc. 14. Argument was continued in the Admiralty Court in the Greycliffe disaster. Air Manning for Sydney Ferries Limited submitted that tbe fact of the Tahiti being in charge of a plot at the time of the disaster did not exonerate the master or owners from liability. Doctor Brisenden, K.C., for the Union Coy argued on the validity of the various regulations relating to Svdnoy Harbour, also Mercantile Shipping Act land Stake and Federal Navigation Acts. He said lie could not assail His Honour’s findings of fact unless he assailed the question of speed. Justice Halsc Rogers interjected: A great part of the case turned on whether tho Greycliffe was entitled, in ,the eireumstamus to make her turn without warning. Air Brissenden submitted that she was not. He added that the master of any vessel was hound io know what was behind him before he turned. Mr Brissenden concluding kis address contended that any action of tho Tahiti must be supposed to have been taken by her with the knowledge that the Greycliffe was aware of her presence. Mr Manning in reply claimed the Harbour Trust regulations were valid. He also discussed the duties ant. functions of a pilot, and submitted tiie pilot was entitled to receive assistance from tho officers of the vessel and if tho captain knew he was travelling over eight knots lie should have told the pilot. Mr Manning insisted that the following vessel should, under the regulations, acquaint the leading vessel of its position. The hearing was adjournedw.