THE WRECK OF THE LYTTELTON.

Auckland Star, Volume XVIII, Issue 70, 24 March 1887, Page 4

THE WRECK OF THE LYTTELTON.

Damages Against Timaru liar

foour Board.

[by telkoraph.—press association.]

Wellington, Wednesday. The Lytteltoc case was resumed to day. After eoverol witnesses had been called,and counsel had addressed the jury, Hia Honor summed up. He said that each Bide had assigned a particular cause for tho disaster. The plaintiffs asserted that the wreck wa« caused through the vessel over-ridin? an anchor. Tho dofandante asserted, or at leaat suggested, that the ship foundered through the negligence of some of the ship's men in leaving open some of the ship's valves connected with tho freeziog machinery. His Honor then reviewed the evidence adduced on both sides as to the vessel's trim. Diver Lennie found an anchor right through the Bhip's bottom. How it got there in that particular way, or whether Lennie was right in describing its position, was a matter o{ little importance, if the jury were satisfied that the anchor was through the ehip"H bottom. As he had already said, if the ship had really foundered through the valves being left open, and under those circunv: stances the ship's draught was increased, then, in his opinion, this being the primary cause of the disaster, it was of uu consequence that the anchor had subsequently gone through the vessel's bottom. Tha,t miafortnne would be directly contributed to by the plaintiffs' servants. If the aociden.li was contributed to by Captain Hill's negligence, the jury must treat him as the servant of the Board, and deprive the plaintiffu of recovery. If the accident waadueto.Captain Hill taking the ship out of position, that was sufficient for contributory neglj. gence on his part, but if the accident wa»(iue to a false start, made under the pilot's directions, they could not attribute the aa< cide'it to, Captain Hill. Ho was of opinion, as regarded the law, that the defend* apts would be answerable for negligence on Captain Storm's part, inasmuch. as he was not a licensed pilot. He considered the services rendered by Cap. tain Storm were not gratuitous services. Money was received for harbour feeß, and that was enough to prevent Ber*ices being gratuitous. Pie would ask the jury to say whether there was any gross negligence j it might be useful in future. As tQ fua point whether the shipowner!) could euft tor cargo, he wou\d for the preeen,t that, it was legitimate, and that it could be. done. The jury returned a verdisfc for the plain. tiff for £14,49,0, damages for the ship, In, eluding machinery, and £17,302 16s 8d for cargo. Tho Attorney-Genoral reserved leave to move for nonsuit on tho point mentioned in bis argument on Saturday, or for a verdict to reduce the damages by half of the shipj the Court to refer to the Judge's note of the evidence, with leave to draw such inferences as the jury might draw. Judgment was entered with costs according to scale, and for a second counsel and special jury. In reference to the question of "grois1' negligence, the foreman of th'(j jury io answer to Bin Hoaor, etatfcd tbai£' with the exception 'of one man, the firjj wmd unanimous in finding Captain Stbruj guilty of " great. negligence,