CALLIOPE DOCK DISASTER.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 150, 25 June 1907, Page 5

CALLIOPE DOCK DISASTER.

ACTION FOE DAMAGES CONTINUED, I THE CASE FOR THE DEFENCE. ! (Continued from pace 3.) j Captain Duder said it was very imjporta.nt that vessels should b- aocked I right in the centre of the blocks: ii not I there was a danger that owing to the ! eccentric strain on the block tat- blocks would strain there, and the wedge on the other side loosened and possibly be forced out. Then- was a danger "that . the block. owing to that improper I grounding, migiit collapse altogether. A I vesel having a bar keel was "a much 1 worse vessel to dock than a flat bottomed one. He had had one bar-keeied vessel in the dock before the Marnari. It was very dangerous to dock a ship with a list. It was sometimes a difficult matter to correct a list, but usually it was not. Assuming that the Mamari had not the overhang she would have Crested on about 90 blocks. He had never seen anything like the Mamari's overhang before. To Mr. Gully: He gave unqualified apjproval to the raised blocks as con--1 structed for the -Mamari. Notwithstanding all the evidence given, he was of opinion that tie blocks were stable in themselves. Whatever the cause of the accident, it was not the instability of the blocks. He may have been less derided on that point at'the inquest. He may also have said at the inquest that either the blocks o-r the shoring were at fault. He would not deny any evidence he gave at the inquest." Hγ' bad now come to the conclusion that the c-ause of the disaster was the improper roping of the ship coupled with insufficient --boring. By that he infant undue strain on the head line. That was first suggested during the course of th e coroner's inquiry. He was a master mariner before he heca-rne dock master, and had no engineering qualifications. During the fourteen years he had been dockmaster he had had a general duty to satisfy himself that the blo.-ks were good enough tor the work they had to do without being answerable for the blocks. The foreman of works was made responsible for the stability of the bloc-k-s some years ago. H.- "made the | blocks and witness used ihem. Witness ] had no authority over the foreman of \ works. Witness cave no instructions at all when alteration* were made. Ha might make suggestions, and would con- j suit the Engineers' Impairment. He ! took it there was a divided responsibii- ! ity in the matter between himself and j the foreman of works. Pie looked at the blocks used for the Kaikoura while they were being made by Mr. Taylor, i He gave no specific instructions, but'sug- j gested he should make a real good job of it. Witness had nothing to'do with supplying the timber for raiding the j blocks, although he and Mr. Hamer I agreed that the timber they !iad thera I would do. There was not suCcient po- | hutukawa to construct the blocks without jarrah, but if th.-re had bc-.-n they would not have come in anyhow. He approved of the 4in. top pieces when they were built. Captain Duder said that if he had not been satisfied with the blocks, he would ! have informed Mr. Taylor of the fact, j It wag at witness's request that Mr. j McFarlane accompanied witness to in- j spec* ths blocks to see that they in good order and were well put together. The blocks had been examined by the ship's representative prior to the docking cf other large vessels-, and instanced tbe Xiwarj, Buteshire. Rakaia and Aparima. He went aboard the Ma.mari at 10.U0 o'clock on the night before the docking. Witness was confident that Captain Moffatt said nothing about a cross section of the ship. Witness made no application for surh plan to Captain Moffatt. He saw Captain Moffatt fur sn short a time that a great dea.l was left undone that witness meant to have done. Some conversation took ! place about the quantity of the coaL If j he had had any information about the' cross sections anj plant, he would have realised that he had a very different ship to dock than he had ever docked before. It was m.t the weight of the ship: it j was the shape. If he had known Of the j special shape, he would probably have warned. Captain Moffatt. Regarding his statement in. the Lower Court that the keel of the Mamari was almost the same as that of the rCaikoura, Captain Duder said he should have stated that hf assumed it_ At the time that evidence was taken he had not seen uhe Hainan's keel. Had h-e known of the Mamari's keel he would not have interfered; he would have said something. Mr Gully: Then, you are of opinion that with a flat-bottumed ship the shoring would have been all right?— Yes. it would have been ail right, but it would have been light shoring. Continuing, the witness, said the Kai■coura. had no keel. She had an inch plate. Tbe shores of the Mamari did I =tand for about four hours, and she suddenly lurched forward. The Mamari •vas properly centred aft. and proper care was taken in centring her. There was ' no prreptitle list. He did not know j •vhen he first mentioned that, the numier of shores was insufficient. He obierved that 12 shores wore used. When ie went back some were broken. He did lot. count them when they were actually n use. He noticed nothing wrong with :he ship when h:> left her at half-past line on the inornins nf rhe arrident. He lid not see the ropes handled for renring the ship. He Irid seen Mr Brown lo a great deal of do,.king, had always j ;nown him to be a very rareful man, I mil wished to make no reflections one lim