ARAHURA CARGO CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVIII, Issue 89, 14 April 1917, Page 6

ARAHURA CARGO CASE.

NONSUIT ASKED FOR. QUESTION OF RESPONSIBILITY. Argument on nonsuit points was hoard yesterday afternoon by Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court in the case of Archibald Clark and Sons v. the Union S.S. Company and Huntly Drydon, master of the steamer Arahura. The plaintiffs claim £81 in respect of damage to certain cargo shipped to Napier by the Arahura in May, 1016, through 6ea water finding its wa}' into the hold, allegedly by way of the anchor chain pipes. Mr. J. P. Campbell, for the Union Company, submittted that section 293 of the , Shipping and Seamen's Act absolved a shipowner from any responsibility for the negligence of its servants aboard a vessel, provided that the vessel itself were seaworthy, and properly manned, equipped and supplied at the time of leaving port. The plaintiffs alleged that the chainpipes were not properly plugged, but there was no evidence to show that the company had failed to supply the material required to plug them, or had failed in any duty. Mr. M. G. McGregor, for the plaintiffs, stated in reply that this defence was an affirmative one, and that the defendant company had yet to show that all the necessary materials had been supplied. He quoted authorities to show that apart from supplying the ship and its equipment the owners wore responsible for the exercise of due care and diligence by the master and crew. Dr. 11. D. Bamford, for Captain Dryden, also applied for a nonsuit on the ground that only personal negligence had been alleged against his client, and that as the j duty of seeing to the plugging of the i chain pipes was delegated to subordij nates, the master himself could not have |boen personally negligent. There must !be discipline aboard a ship, and if , Subordinates failed to carry out orders the master could not be charged with their negligence. Mr. McGregor, replying submitted that after water was first discovered in the hold the master should have ordered such an investigation as would have discovered the cause of tho leakage. lie failed to do so, and it was only when the vessel was docked antl found to have her bottom intact that Captain Dryden's theory of the mishap was disproved. His Worship reserved his decision on the points raised, and further hearing was adjourned until Monday.