AN EXPENSIVE PICNIC.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVII, Issue 238, 5 October 1916, Page 7

AN EXPENSIVE PICNIC.

XAtracK Bxnis nrro boat. ! DAMAGES £40 ALUOWKD. tDecksion was giwm at the Magietrate'* Court by Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.M., yesterday afternoon, in a claim made by the Waitemata Boating Club (Mr. M. McGregor) to recover the sum of £40 as damages lor a four-oared gig which bad been run down by a motor launch owned by Mr. Alderton, but on the occasion in charge of Mr A. V. Fraer. The ividence was heard in July, when Dr. Bamford appeared for the defence. Yesterday afternoon Mr. McConnell represented Dr. Bamford for the purpose of 'talcing judgment;' Mr. Kettle eaid lie was eorry he had not been able to give judgment earlier, but ihe Ibad been delayed from going to visit the scene of the accident. . He men tioned that it had already been decided the owner of the launch wae not liable, as he wae not on board at the time of the accident. When the lsuadh left the Parnell wharf with a picnic party, Mr. Fraer was in charge, and steering. Mr. I Alderton's son was attending the engine. The gig was coming back to the shed owing to some difficulty with one of the oars. The rowers in the gig had their backs to tie launch, which should, however, have been eeen by the cox. The first question was what was tiiej duty of the cox, and of the steersman | of the launch? Mr. Kettle said he had looked up a. number of authorities, and was of opinion that the collision regulations applied to the launch in co far as they could be applicable. It was the duty of the launch .to have given warning when backing out from the wharf, but at that time Mr. Fraer had not taken the wheel. It was certainly the duty of the defendant when, he took the wheel to keep a good look oat as he was passing through moorings. Of conrac il was also the duty of the coxswain, of the gig to keep a sharp look out. A steersman must exercise skill and care. The defence was that the coxswain wae guilty of negligence in not keeping a proper look out. Mr. Kettle said he h»d come to the conclusion that the coxswain was to a certain extent guilty o! some neglect in not. keeping a look out, but after carefully considering tile evidence, he must hold that the defence of contributory negligence could not be sustained, and that therefore the plaintiff was entitled to judgment. It wu defendant's duty to have taken ihe proper coarse to avoid a collision, *a a motor launch was more completely under control than a rowing boat. The course could be altered more quickly and readily in the case of a launch. It was on defendant's evidence he really decided the case. Mr. Fraer admitted he saw the gig when it was twenty yards away. He should then have altered his course so ac to avoid a collision. When he did alter his course, it was too late, and the damage was done. The defendant had the laet chance of avoiding the collision, and was therefore liable. Judgment was accordingly given for the plaintiff for £40 with coete. Mr. McConnell said ac he was only representing Dr. Bamford he mat aak for leave to appeal, as judgment' had been given for the full amount claimed. Mr. Kettle pointed out that ac the amount was under £40, he had only power to grant leave to appeal on law points, which was accordingly done;