COLLISION IN THE THAMES.

Press, Volume LXV, Issue 19670, 13 July 1929, Page 6

COLLISION IN THE THAMES.

PAKEHA AND DUTCH STEAMER. SHAW SAVILL OBTAIN JUDGMENT. teaox otra owx commspondent.) LONDON, May 18. Judgment in a case having to do with the collision between the Shaw Savill steamer Pakeha and the Dutch steamship Palembang, on May 26th, 1928, was delivered in the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division this week. The case had been heard by Lord Merrivale (President), assisted by Trinity Masters. Mr G. P. Langton, K.C., and Mr Alfred Bucknill appeared for the plaintiffs (Shaw Savill); Mr D. Stephens, K.C., and Mr K. S. Carpinael tor the defendants. The Pakeha, a steamship of 7899 tons gross, bound .rom Wellington to London with a cargo of general merchandise, was proceeding up Sea Reach, Eiver Thames, in charge of a pilot when it was decided to anchor on account of the fog. Her whistle, which had been used to sound the regulation fog signals at intervals, thereupon sounded a turning signal of four short blasts followed by two short blasts, in compliance with by-law 28 (e) of the Port of London River By-laws, 1914-1926. She then proceeded to turn round head to tide under hard-a-star-board helm. When she was sufficiently turned the Pakeha dropped her anchor and, as soon as the anchor held her, navigation lights were replaced by riding lights and -<jr bell was begun to be rung, which the by-laws required to be done by a vessel at anchor. In those circumstances the Palembang, a Dutch steamship of 7081 tons, bound from Dunkirk to London with general cargo, ran into the Pakeha. It was contended, inter alia, by the defendants, that the Pakeha should have continued to sound turning signals on her whistle until she had completed her turning. Judgment. The President, in a considered judgment, pronounced the Palembang alone to blame for her navigation in the fog. He held, applying the principle laid down in The Esk (L.R., 2 A. and E., 350), that from the time her anchor held the Pakeha was at anchor within the meaning of the interpretation clause (No. 5) of the by-lawa, and was not required to continue sounding turning signals under by-law 28 (e). He added that different considerations would have arisen if he had found that the Pakeha had steamed up to her anchor. He also was of opinion that even if the turning signals had continued to be sounded they would not have affected the navigation of the Palembang so as to avert the collision.