BENZINE CARGO.

Taranaki Daily News, 8 March 1922, Page 6

BENZINE CARGO.

A QUESTION OF DAMAGE. CLAIM AGAINST SHIP. SUPREME COURT ACTION. The case of Newton King v. the ship C. S. Holmes, a claim in respect to a damaged cargo, was concluded in .the Supreme Court, New Plymouth, yesterday. Mr. R. H. Quilliam appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. C. H. Weston for the defendant. The next witness called by plaintiff | was the harbormaster at New Plymouth (Captain Waller). He recalled circumstances connected with the C. S. Holmes in July, 1920. From time to time he noticed the unloading of the cargo, and observed that a considerable portion was damaged. To His Honor: He had seen other cargoes of equally large size brought by sailing vessels, 'but this was the only occasion in which he had seen, one brought in a deck-house. Continuing, he said he made a survey of the vessel, and the opinion he formed was that the damage was due to the faulty construction of the deck-house, which allowed the water to get in underneath the combings. The deck-house was a recent addition. He had surveyed the vessel in 1918, when the house was not then erected. The house was attached to the floor of the deck, which would mean that when the vessel rolled the house Would “work,” and the caulking underneath the sill was sprung. The proper method would have been to have fixed the house to the beams. The deck-house would work if the ship rolled heavily. It would have been all right for the stowage of perishable cargo if it had not leaked. From his examination of the vessel at New Plymouth he did not think the ’tween decks had been l swept out before the cargo was loaded, as there was a lot of rubbish about. He attributed the blocking of the scuppers to 'this debris being washed into the pipes. CONDITIONS ON BOARD. To Mr. Weston: He had made a survey of the vessel in 1918 for a Wellington firm. His survey at New Plymouth was made nineteen days after the vessel’s arrival, when a good deal of the cargo had been unloaded. He made the survey acting on instructions from Newton King, the plaintiff. Lumber carried on the deck was stowed between the deck-house and the bulwarks, and this would have the effect of strengthening the deck-house. When he went to survey the vessel he found the deck-house and hold in a filthy condition. The water had found its way into the deck-house, damaging the lower tier of cargo, and through the scuppers being blocked the water got into the hold. Frederick Watson, director of Newton King, Ltd., and the manager of the shipping department of Newton King’s business in 1920, said that Newton King was the consignee of the cargo of benzine brought by the C. S. Holmes, and was agent for the vessel. The firm had been agent for other sailing vessels carrying case oil, but they had not previously experienced trouble with the cargo. The Ysabel, which had made two trips with benzine, turned out clean cargoes on each occasion. William Groombridge, wharfinger at the New Plymouth port, said the bottom tier of the cargo in the deck-house of the C. S. Holmes was waterlogged, and the cases practically collapsed, wheu handled. The lower hold was also affected. There were about 1300 cases concerned, and the tins leaked so badly that the benzine ran out of them in the railway' trucks, which caused the department to raise an objection to the carriage of the cargo. The C. ■B. Holmes’ cargo, in his opinion, was the worst that had been landed in New Plymouth.

John H. Duffin, wharfinger for the railway department at the breakwater, also gave evidence as to the bad condition of the C. S. Holmes’ cargo. He said the department had to refuse to take some of the cargo, and the slings landed on the deck and leaky cases taken out.

This concluded the evidence for the plaintiff. CASE FOR THE DEFENCE.

The evidence for the defence, Mr. Weston stated, consisted of that taken in New Plymouth before the Registrar of the Court, and also the evidence taken in San Francisco. During the course of evidence it had been mentioned that the captain had made a protest. The case for the defenc was that the plaintiff had not proved that the ship was not seaworthy. Counsel quoted clause B of the bill of lading, which reads: “The shipowner shall be responsible for loss or damage arising from any unfit state of the vessel to'receive the goods or any unseaworthiness of the vessel when she sails on the voyage. But any latent defect in hull, machinery, equipment or fittings shall not be considered unfitness or I’nsea worthiness, provided the same do not result from want of due diligence of the shipowner. The facts of the case were that the captain had been in the ship for three years, and there was no evidence in his testimony of there having been any trouble over the ship in that time. In fact, he had stated she was a good ship. Immediately before the voyage commenced on May 1, and before the ctyrgo was shipped, the C. S. Holmes was drydocked, overhauled and caulked. The captain deposed that he had personally superintended these operations, and that bp had inspected the ship before loading. The ship was also surveyed by Captain Mills, marine surveyor, of San Francisco, who passed the vessel. Evidence taken in San Francisco showed that the cargo was well-stowed, and this was not contradicted. The voyage was commenced on May 1. and on' or about the first week in June weather was encountered which the defence submitted amounted to a peril of the sea. With regard to this there was the evidence of Captain Anderson, the mate, N. K. Hale, and the bo’sun, Fodslund. In connection with the weather, counsel asked that His Honor should note that the result was more severe on the ship because she was rolling in a calm, whicli caused a strain. At one o’clock on May 30, when heavy weather prevailed, all sails were lowered. The vessel continued to roll with poop rails under water, and the next day water was discovered in the ’tween decks. The rolling was exceptionally violent on June 7, 8 and 9. It was admitted, of course, that leaking did take place and found its way into the ’tween decks and lower hold, but counsel submitted that the onus of proof as to where the leak occurred was on the plaintiff. Whatever the location of the leak, tlie defence held that the cause of the damage was the entry of water into the interior of the ship, and that the point about the scupper drains was really immaterial. In connection with these it was contended that the purpose of the ecuppers was not to deal with

such an influx of water as occurred in this case, but merely to cope with sweepage, for surely it would not have been contemplated by any sane shipowner that such quantities* of water would be shipped. The shipowner’s care was to keep water out of a vessel. As to the cause of the stoppage of the scupper pipes, the evidence of the captain must prevail. He said he found the pipes clogged after unloading, and attributed the cause to the benzine dissolving the tar in the caulking and mixing with sawdust. Everything possible was done on the voyage, as shown by the log. CONDITION OF THE OIL. Mr. Weston remarked that the defence was in a somewhat unhappy position, as it could not produce witnesses to personally give evidence before the court, as the plaintiff had done. They had to rely on written testimony taken at New Plymouth and at San Francisco, and naturally this did not leave the same impression. Counsel directed His Honor’s attention to the line of cross-exam-ination adopted by the plaintiff, and contended that the witnesses h d not been examined with any force as to the points which were now brought out by the witnesses for the plaintiff. It was to be noted, also, that this particular shipment of oil was a, bad one, and a lot of leaky cases were rejected when the vessel was loading. Out'of one batch of 4964, 69 eases were leaking. Continuing his argument. Mr. Weston quoted the clause in the bill of lading which protected the owner from the result of any latent defect, and urged that if His Honor considered the deck-house defective this would come under the clause mentioned. His Honor thought that it might be a structural defect. The suggestion for the plaintiff evidently was that this vessel had been engaged in trading to New Zealand previously, carrying cargo, and that during the war there was such a good thing in it as to make it worth while to carry largo at any risk, hence the addition of the deck-house to increase the capacity of the vessel. It was contended that it was not built in a proper manner.

In the course of further remarks, counsel quoted an endorsement of the bill of lading, which stated that the ves-

sel would not be responsible for any leakage of the gasoline. His Honor announced at the conclusion of the argument that he would reserve decision.