A BROKEN LANDING HOOK.

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 134, 8 June 1926, Page 9

A BROKEN LANDING HOOK.

IS IT "UNSEAWORTHINESS?" POSER FOR APPEAL COURT. <By Telegraph.—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Monday. The Appeal Court reserved its decision on an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council in the case s.s. Port Stephens versus Inglis Bros. Mr. O'Leary, for the' motion, stated that as the amount claimed was under £480, there was no appeal as of right. The application was made, however, on the ground that the matter was one of great public importance. The Supreme Court held that a defect in the landing gear constituted "unseaworthiness" This was reversed in the Court of Appeal. The question, whether a defect in the landing gear constituted "unseaworthiness" had not yet been decided even by the. English Courts. Mr. Blair, in opposing the application, contended that the case could not be of great public importance since it was only very rarely that this position ever arose.

The original claim was by Inglis Brothers for damage to a motor-truck, which, through an allegedly defective cargo hook, fell upon the wharf and was damaged. Mr. Justice MacGregor, before whom the case was heard in the Supreme Court, held that a defect in the landing gear did not constitute unseaworthiness, and 'gave judgment for the plaintiffs. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision, and held that the only damages to .which Inglis Brothers were entitled was f 150.