CALLIOPE DOCK DISASTER.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 153, 28 June 1907, Page 2

CALLIOPE DOCK DISASTER.

ACTION FOR DAMAGES. . CONCLUSION OF E-VtDENCE.

i The Shaw, Savill, and Albion Company's claim for £15,000 damages against the Auckland Harbour Board was continued in. the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon, when, evidence in support of the defendant's case was concluded.

Continuing his evideriee yesterday afternoon, Mr. W. H. Earner, Engineer to the Harbour. Board, said the resisting power, ctf the timber used in the blocks was greater than the power' put upon it. It was quite ■ immaterial whether the .capping piece had an eccentricity of one and a half or not. It was sometimes necessary for engineers in constructing walls,' etc., to have them'eccentrically loaded. ..Witness: had. himself designed dozens of ecceaitrically loaded walls.That was always the case in\dock walls. The, rule of a safe limit, for eccentric loading, was that the result of all forces whether. vertical, horizontal,, or at any angle, must fall upon the middle third of the base of the wall. That was well the c/ase with the blocks,- as there were no diagonal forces and no horizontal fol-ees. The camber was, if anything, an element of stability. The height of the 'blocks made absolutely no difference, because the loading was vertical. 1 He had known -blocks used up to sft. In Lyttelton and Melbourne they pni them higher. A recommendation bad been made to tbe President of the Institute of Civil Engineers-- that no blocks should be less than five feet high. The most recent dock constructed in Great Britain had- sft. blocks.. There was no necessity to increase the size of the base when blocks were altered. It was -impractical, and be had never- known, it dene even.' with, the biggest vessels in the world. He saw no objection to sft. centres, between the blocks. Tbe spacing at Tilbury Docks was 4ft. 6ins. The Thames Ironworks Dock — ane of the biggest, in 'the'"world—had sft_ spac : ■ing. -The dock_at Bremerhvaen (Germany) , which was specially built to take the German" Lloyd" vessels, which had a displacement" of 30,000 tons and over, had 4ft. 6in. centre. The Royal Albert Docks,- in London, also had 4ft. 6fn. : Shorter centres were used for men-of-war, by reason of their enormous weight. There could be.ao possible question 'tis "to the"stability- of the wedges. Tho friction, -would pfeyiail their slipping under any ..eireuicstaiices. He had-neyeriseen-br heard:-of/diagonal bracing p nor -had he -seen: -such ; carei taken as with tne blocks : liere. It was not the "practice of dock- engineers .to provide -against a lateral pressure of a ship.; It -was impossible to make such vision! - Had witness inspected the; "hlocks he would certainly haye. consiaered them sufficient to rest - the Maaiari- on, always , assuming she was pro-, perly placed and shored.

The standard crushing strain of jarrah across the grain, Mr. Hamer said, was about 1.9 tons per square inch; iron bark ■about, the same, and. of pobirfcukawa 2.1 tons per square inch. A tier of ".blocks, as constructed in Calliope Dock would bear a strain of not less than from 700 to. 750 tons. . The Mainari.,tested on 77 blocks- SBe had 91 blocks under her, but only chore "to"- Use 77:' 'TBe : "blocks -Used was equal to support: an equally distributed weight of'over 18,000 tons. His Opinion of the cause of the disaster wast that at a critical stage of the docking a forward pull had;:been given to the vessel, -and that her after blocks -had been drawn into a position of forward' instability; "and "that that, coupled with insufficient, shoring,, and the effect of her overhang making itself felt a*-ihe- warter--tv»s~tLnrwir array, combined to result in the disaster. The forward pulling action, .under ail the circumstances, could have-taken place-during a period of half-an-hour from, the time of tdie ship itoiiehmg the'last block aft. He j had made test of the pull necessary to [ puE the Minneapolis through water, and j the pulling power necessary to move that 28,000 tons raried from 2-J to 34 FTi<l estimate -of the breaking strain of the kindjaf hawsei , used in the Mamari ["was* Iβ to"l 8 Ttbns." That rope-was sufE ; i cient to -exercise the pulling-power during the period mentioned. The over"nahg of tne'lHaihaii forward" was 44 .feet .-.'iadiatt '27 feet. -The effect of the overhang -forward (possibly some 500" tons)." suspended introduced "an entirely different system of pressure, to a straight keek ' The greatest " pressure would be exerted-on %he "few" forwardi the ceptre,"and some o«f the aicer, blocks. The most pressure of the.forwiird^overhang would probably; be on. few forward blocks. He had no doubt upon the subject. That theory was accepted by the Chief- Constructor of the British Navy. Mr.fGully-(sotio voce): "We hove'nt got -him here." Continuing, the witness said the over-: -hang of the Mamari >was of such an extent that provision 3houid have been made for it. The flexibility of ships was" an important factor in regulating the distribution of weight upon the blocks. To illustrate his theory the witness introduced an interesting mechanical contrivance which "he described to the jury. Continuing, the witness said it was uirnsual for docks to Be -unwatered-after a vessel had been floated out, before ad-jmLtting-an other, vessel. — Cross-examined by Mr. Gully, Mr. Hamer-. said -the bulk of the weight in most ships was amidships, varying in distribution- He formed a positive -opinion- of the canse--of-the "accident at an .early ..stage- His evidence was called late"3H::"tlre""v:6ronial inquiry proceedings. He was not present at the whole of the coronial inquiry. He had discussed - the .matter wifh his own people. He carefully "considered"every" point ■ and formed his opinion the day after the accident. He confirmed his evidence at the inquest as to the rope being the cause of the" accident. He

-fQrmEd__hi& .apinioiL. .entirely from., what. TCeT saw, and had it confirmed afterwards' by wha£;he"'-heard; ■ He wasv quite- : sirfe that'jn his evidence at the inquest' he mentioned- the overhang and- shoring-- as contributory causes to the accident. The strain-must have occurred after the *hip touched the after blocks. He had only had' casual experience of seeing ropes handled in connection with docking ves--sels. - He was satisfied that no weakness in shape or form of the blocks contributed to the disaster.

To Mr. Skerrett: Twice during, the coronial inquiry he had asked the captain of the Mamari * for a displacement plan, but the plan was not produced.

To a juryman: At no' time had the blocks sufficient weight on' them to crush them.

Frank McFarlane, dock engineer, recalled, s"aid the Mamari fell towards the port side of the dock. She afterwards righted herself somewhat. On the second docking the ■Mamari was at first shored with 14 shores on each side: Subsequently six extra shores were put in on the,port side. A number of extra, shores, were .also.put under the port bilge. Altogether there were 15 shores under the starboard bilge and 25 under the port bilge.

To Mr. Gully: The extra shores were put in the day after she was docked. Witness .knew there had been some cracking and splitting of blocks before the extra shores were put in.- The ship had a decided list to port on the second docking.

This concluded the evidence for the ! defence, and . the Court was adjourned until half-past ten this morning, when counsel addressed the jury. POINTS OF .ISSUE. ," Mr. Skerrett, having addressed the Court, ■ The following points of issue for the jury to decide upon have been settled between counsel and the judge:— 1. Is it proved that the blocks used in docking the Mamari were in design, construction, and condition proper and suitable for. dock? . ■ 2. Is it proved that such blocks were not thus proper and suitable? " 3. Is. it proved that such blocks were proper and suitable for docking the Mamari? ■ '4. Is it proved that they were not thus suitable and proper ? 5. If such blocks were not thus suitable and proper, is it proved that the accident to the Mamari was caused thereby ? 6. Is it proved that such blocks were sufficient and .suitable for docking the Mainari, but for the peculiarities of her shape and construction? 7. Apart from any detainer by the authorities, was it reasonable that the plaintiff should detain the Mamari until she was re-docked? 8. Were the blocks used for the docking of the Kaikoura proper and suitable for docking such ship? 9. Were the said blocks rendered unsuitable or insufficient for further use in. docking another ship by the weight imposed upon them by the Kaikoura? 10. Were the blocks on which the Kaikoura rested properly examined while she was docked ' and before, she was floated off the same? 11. Were such blocks found upon examination N tp be in good order and condition? ' 12. Is it proved that the defendant i should have unwatered the dock after the Kaikoura was floated off and have made a further examination of - the blocks before docking' the Mamari? 13. Would such further examination have disclosed that the blocks had been rendered unsafe to dijek the Mamari upon? ■-■ . •-.,.. . 14. Did the. dDckmaster apply to th> agenfc of the ship for information as'to the dimensions and shape of the Ma» nan?' 15. Did the agent of the ship promise the dockmaster, if possible, to procure such information.? .ley Did the dockniaster inform the agent of" the ship that ii he did not receive such information he ■would assume that the Mamari was of the same shape as" the Kaikoura?

17. Was such information as to the shape and dimensions of the Mamari supplied to the dockmaster?

18. Did the captain of the ship offer to give to the. dockmaster plans 'which would give him information as to the dimensions and shape of the ship?

"' 19. Was the shape and constrnction of the Mamari in some respects unusual in steamers of her kind—namely; cargo steamers-? .— .

20. Was the shape and constrnction, of the Mamari such that special precautions were necessary to shore her"?

21. Did the peculiarity of the shape and construction of the Mamari contribute to-the collapse of the blocks?

22. Was the Mamari insufficiently or improperly shored either as to the number of shores used or the method in which she was shored?

23. Were proper precautions taken ~to place the Mamari on the centre of the blocks?

24. Were proper precautions taken to see that the Mamari was placed on the blocks without a list?

25. Would the said blocks have been sufficient to dock the Mamari but for the want of proper precautions mentioned in the issues numbered 22, 23 and 24 or any of them ? " 26. Did the neglect of all or any of the precautions mentioned in the issues numbered 22,' 23 and 24 help to cause the collapse of the blocks, and, if so, which? -27. Was an undue tension on the rope leading- from the. ship. to. the capstan of the dock: the cause of ihe...collapse of the blocks?. .._ , 28. What in your opinion was or were the cause or causes of the accident? ".' 29. What damages (if 'any) is' the plaintiff company entitled to recover on the assumption (a) that .the Mamari was lawfully detained by the authorities, or (b) that it was reasonable that "th*e plaintiff company should detain the Mamari for docking?