THE TIMARU HARBOR BOARD CASE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1566, 17 March 1887, Page 4

THE TIMARU HARBOR BOARD CASE.

WEliLiEGtxojr, M»rcb 14. Ik the fupreme Court to-chy, before Jucge Richmond and a apeoia). jury, the cues Shaw Havill and Albion (Jorupmuy v. the Tioaru Harbor Board was ooiomenccd. It ia so action brought to recover from the Tjcaaru Harbor Board £32)802 ISt 8d on account of the lost of tho ship Lyttelton and

her cargo in Timam Harbor on Juno 12th, 1886, while the vessel was in charge of Eoht. Storm, whom the plaintiffs allege to have been the servant of the Board, Mr GK Harper (Christchurch), and with him Mr H. D. Bell (Wellington) and Mr W. V. Million (Christchurch), appeared for the plaintiffs • the Attorney-General, and with him Mr Joyut (Christchurch) and Mr Chapman (Wellington), lor the defendants. The plaintiffs allege— That on June 12th they were the owner* of the ship Lyttelton and the following cargo : —651 bales wool, 49 bales rabbit-skins, 13 bales sheepskins, 840 sacks flour, 966 tacks oats, 7 cases, 34 kegs, 90 casks oil, 23 casks tallow, 21 qr.-casks whiskey, and 9096 carcases mutton. That on June 12th, 1886, the defendant Board, in pursuance of its regulations and bylaws, caused the vessel, while in the Timam harbor, to be taken charge of by its servant, Eobert Storm, for the purpose of taking her out of the port. That on June 12th, while the vessel was under the control of the said Eobert Storm, she was so wrongfully, negliently, unskilfully, and carelessly unmoored, moved, navigated, guided, piloted, and removed by Eobert Storm, that she was sunk and stranded, becoming a total wreck, and the vessel and goods were lost. That at the time of the mishap the vessel was of the value of £15,500, the cargo being of the value of £17,302 I6s 84. That at the time aforesaid the said Eobert Storm was not a licensed pilot, as the Board well knew, and the plaintiff Company was not aware that he was cot n licensed pilot.

The statement of defences set forth— That the alleged acts and defaults took place after the passing of " The Harbor Act, 1878/'and after the Act came into operation, and no notice in writing, signed by the plaintiff Company or its solicitor, of such intended action, specifying the cause of such action, was given to the defendant Board one month before the action was commenced, pursuant to the provision of section 227 of the said Act. That the action was not commenced within three months after the commission of such alleged acts and defaults, pursuant to the provision of section 227 of the said Act. That the defendant Board denies that the plaintiff Company was on June 12th, 1886, the owner of the vessel, or of her cargo. That before June 12th, 1886, the vessel came into the said port or harbor, but was in no wise under, subject to or liable to the care and government or control of the Board, its Harbor-master orgiervants, either under or in pursuance of the Act mentioned, or any by-laws or regulations made or adopted by the Board, or otherwise howsoever, except that the masters and owners of vessels were subject to penalty in the event of their failing toi obey the lawful orders of the Harbor-master si to the removal of the vessel from one berth to another, or as to the plaoo whore the vessel should be moved to or anchored on entering the port, or as to the time when the vessel should be unmoored or quit anchorage. Neither the Board, its Harbor-master or servants had the care or control of the vessel in any way whatsoever in respect of the navigation thereof, or in determining what measures if any, should bo taken for the safety of the vessel. That the Board did not cause the vessel to bo taken charge of by one Eobert Storm. That, if the said Eobert Storm professed to and was allowed by the plaintiffs or its servants to take charge of the vessel, ho did so for the convenience or benefit of the plaintiffs or their said servants, and on their behalf, and in no vise as an officer or servant of the Board.

That compulsory pilotage docs not exist at the port of Timaru, and no pilots have ever been licensed there, or pilotage rates fixed or charged for their services. That when the vessel was wrecked tha Harbormaster was absent from the port, and the said Robert Storm was performing the duties of Harbormaster, under verbal instructions from the Harbormaster ; and any power which the said Robert Storm possessed in respect to the vessel was solely derived from such instructions.

That it has been the practice at the port of Timaru for the Harbormaster or the said Bobt, Storm, who was called pilot of the Board, to render gratuitous services to vessels entering and leaving the port other than and beyond those which properly fell within the scope, of the duties of the Harbormaster. That plaintiffs and the master of the vessel were fully aware, both at and before the loss of the vessel, that there were no pilots. That the said Robert Storm is a master mariner, and a; man of groat nautical skill. That the vessel was handled by the said Robert Storm with ordinary core and prudence, and in a manner which met with the full approval of the master of the vessel. Tbat the immediate and proximate cause of the sinking of the vessel was the negligence of the master and crew, and of Captain Hill of the s.s. Grafton, which vessel was hired by the plaintiffs to tow the Lyttelton out of port. That the vessel was entered outwards at the Port of Timaru for London, but the owner did not upon so entering her insert in the form of entry, delivered to, the Collector of Customs at the said Port of Timaru, a statement in writing of the distance in feet and inohee between the centre of the disc, required by Section 225 of “ The Shipping and Seamen’s Act, 1877,” to be marked upon each of the sides of the vessel amidships (or as near thereto as practicable) and upper edge of each of the lines indicating the position of the ship’s deck above the centre. The vessel was sunk while engaged in an illegal undertaking, that is to say, whilst proceeding on the outward voyage to London without her owner having complied with the provisions of Section 227 of 11 The Shipping and Seamen’s Act, 1877," by inserting in the form of. entry, mentioned in the last preceding paragraph, the statements therein also mentioned;

That the venae! and her cargo might have been naval after the vessel had sunk by the exercise of ordinary cere and prudence on. the part of the plaintiff and its agents and servants.

That the vessel and cargo were not of the value of £32,802 16s Bd. That the master of the Lyttelton and the plaintiff Company had express notice that there were no Pilots at the port of Timaru at the time when the vessel entered, and were fully aware that such was the case up to and at the time of the sinking of the vessel. Mr Harper, in opening, mentioned that the real plaintiffs were the underwriters of the ship and cargo and some owners of cargo not insured. The claim was really below the actual value of the property lost. The first witness called was Edward Tregear, surveyor, who put in plans of the harbor. The remainder of the day was taken up with til's evidence of Chpt. Boorman, of the Lyttelton. The case is exnooted to last at least throe days, Jan. 15. The evidence in the “Lytelton ” case on Tuesday principally related to the value of the cargo, which went to show that the amount mentioned in the claim was b?low its actnal value. The second officer of the Lyfc. telton was examined at length ao to the circumstances connected with the loss of the ship. Ton witnesses in all were called. It is understood that whatever is the result of the present trial, appeal will be made. The case may possibly be taken after that to the Privy Council.