A WATERSIDER'S DEATH.

Auckland Star, Volume LI, Issue 40, 16 February 1920, Page 5

A WATERSIDER'S DEATH.

FALL BOWK HOIB. WIDOW CLAIMS £2.000. Al.l.MttTe*,!.. The widow of a waterside worker, , Walter James Readiord, who died , through falling down the hold of the s steamer Ayrsmre at~Aucklaiid, early last *; year, brought an action in the Supreme Court to-day to recover 2,000 damages from the local agents for the vessel, , Messrs. A. H. Nathan, 1/td., alleging neg- , ligence and breach of duty. The case was heard i>y Mr. Jiistiese Chapman and _ a jury of twelve. Mr. P. J. OMiegan appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. H. P. . Richmond for the defence. s The agents were sued under provisions ", of the Shipping and Seamen Aert. The New Zealand Shipping Company, whie*h was doing the stevedoring by arrange- . ment with the agents when the accident occurred, was struck out as a defend- j ant, roundel reserving the right to take separate proceedings under the Workers' ( Compensation Acs against this company. , Mr. O'Regan state*d that the diseased was working cargo on the Ayrshire on February 7, 1919. He had been with a gang in No. 5 hold (the aftermost hokl), j but just prior to the accident he was working in No. 4. The dirert method of | entering or leaving No. 4 hold was by ■ means of a vertical ladder through the , hatchway, but it was a common thing for the men to go through two 'bulk- . heads on the shelter-deck, past No. 5 ( hatch, through another bulkhead, and . up a companion ladder on to the , main deck. The gang in No. 4 hold stopped work for tea at 5 p.m., and resumed an hour later. Readford was . then missing. He was found the next morning lying at tbe bottom of No. 5 hold, and died two days later. On the . evening when the accident happened, «akl counsel, the top or main deeak hatch of No. 5 hold had heen closed, but the shelter deck hatch below it was left open. The presumption was that Readford, in passing this hatch, feU down it. TJNLIGHTED OPEN HATCH. It was claimed, Mr. O'Regan went on, that in failing to provide this open hatch with a light, the defendants were guilty not only of negligence but of a breach of a statutory duty imposed by the Harbours Act, 1908. This A<rt required the master of a vessel to have a light placed by every open hatchway that was not properly lighted by daylight, and to maintain it so long as the hatchway remained open. The defendants, he claimed had also broken a regulation of 1918 under the Shipping and Seamen's Act, which required the master of every vessel to appoint a member of the crew to have charge of the opening and closing of each hatchway. Oliver Noakes, waterside worker, who was workinsr in No. 4 hold on the day of the acrident, said that he and others went along the shelter deck and np the companion. Others went up the No. 4 vertical ladder, bat he did not like doing so because there was a loose rail at the 1 top. No. 5 hatch was dark, the only ' light 'beins. what came through a door ' in the bulkhead leading to No. 4. To Mr. Richmond: He took aU his in- ' structions frejm the foreman of the New Zealand Shipping Co., which was doing the stevedoring. James Nash, wbo had 'been working with the deceased in the afternoon, said that he last saw him on thp -wharf a I little before 0 pjn., when work resumed. He used the gangway route himself, and no objection was made by anyone in charge, e-ther before or after the accident. He believed that this was the easiest and safest way at the time, and assumed that the hatches we*re» on. At six o'clevk on thp evening of thp aevielent one of the other men warneid him that they wre off. After that he went very earefullv. Tlie <-ase is proceeding.