THE WRECK OF THE LYTTELTON.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1560, 26 March 1887, Page 3

THE WRECK OF THE LYTTELTON.

At the Supreme Court, W elliogton, on Wednesday, the great case of the Shaw, Savill and Albion Company v. the Timaru Harbor Board was concluded in favor of the plaintiffs with costa. Among the new evidence was that of Captain Sutter, who, on being recalled, stated that ships like the Lyttelton would not fetch more than £6 or £6 per ton at auction. Launoelot Holmes (Wellington chief pilot), also gave evidence, and after the Attorney-General (for the defendants) and Mr Harper (for the plaintiffs) had addressed the jury, His Honor summed up. He said 'each side assigned a particular cause for the disaster. The plaintiffs asserted that the wreck was caused through the vessel overriding her anchor. The defendants asserted, or at least suggested, that the ship foundered through the negligence of some of the ship’s men in leaving some of the valves in connection with the freeaing machinery open. If the ship went out of the place in a water-logged sinking condition he thought it was a matter of no consequence whether or not the anchor went through the vessel afterwards. It was asserted that the foundering was due to a valve being left open, but there was no positive evidence of anything of the sort. As the Attorney.Generalhad noticed, the engineer of the ship had not been called, and of course they did not know what valves were working. His Honor then reviewed the evidence adduced on both sides, as to the vessel’s trim. The diver Lennie had found an anchor right through the ship’s bottom. If the ship really foundered through the valves being left open, and under those circumstances the ship’s draught was increased, then, in his opinion, that being the primary cause of the disaster, it was of no consequence that the anchor bad subsequent'y gone through the vessel’s bottom. If the accident was contributed to by Captain Hill’s negligence, the jury must treat him as a servant of the plaintiffs, and deprive the plaintiffs of recovery. If the accident was due to Captain Hill taking the ship out of position that was sufficient for contributory negligence on his part, but if due to a false start made by the pilot’s direction, they could not attribute the accident to Captain Hill. He was of opinion, as regarded the law, that defendants wonld.be answerable for negligence on Storm’s part, inasmuch as he was not a licensed pilot. He considered that the services rendered by Storm were not gratuitous services. Money was received fpr harbor tee.B, and tfost was enough to prevent the services being gratui’tpqs. He would the jury to say whether there was any gross negligence. It might be useful in future as to the point whether shipowners could sue for cargo. He would rule for the present that it was legitimate and it could be done. The jury retired at 5.6 p.m.,.and returned with a verdict for the plaintiffs for £14,490 damages fop thp ship, and $17,302 16a fid for the cargo.

The Attorney-General obtained leave to move for a nonsuit on the points men* tioned in his argument on Saturday, or for a verdict to reduce damages by value of ship, the Court to refer to the Judge’s notes of evidence, with laave to draw Suob infetences as the jury might draw. Judgment was entered up with costs

according to scale, and for a second counsel mi i- pei iil jury. In reference to the question ol “gross” negligonre, the foreman of the jury, in answer to His Honor, stated the jury were unanimous in finding Captain Storm guilty of "great” negligence. The Court then adjourned.