More Defence Evidence In Salvage Claim

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 29068, 3 December 1959, Page 18

More Defence Evidence In Salvage Claim

(New Zeauina Press Association) DUNEDIN, December 2. Defence evidence in the Otago Harbour Board’s £25,000 salvage claim continued in the Supreme Court today, when Captain David Norman McLeish, a retired master mariner, of Lyttelton, said that the Holmlea could have been brought to the safety of Port Chalmers or Otago Harbour quite easily. The case should enter its fourth and final day before Mr Justice Henry tomorrow.

The Harbour Board is represented by Mr A. G. Neill, Q.C., with him Mr A. C. Stephens. Mr A. J. H. Jeavons is appearing for the master and crew of the tug Otago, and Mr A. N. Haggitt represents the defendants, the owners of the Holmlea and its cargo.

Captain McLeish said that if he had been master of the Holmlea he would have done as its master did, and, with a tug so close, asked for assistance. If a tug had not been so close he would have pushed the engines along as fast as he could until they seized—if they did seize. The Holmlea had plenty of canvas on board. A 1200 sq ft square sail could have been set if necessary, and he estimated that the vessel could easily have made three knots. He thought the passage through the heads could have been managed unless the tide was too strong. Estimates of Draught The witness said he had been amazed to hear one of the claimant’s witnesses, Captain J. B. McGowan, estimate that the Holmlea had a draught of 33ft Bin while being towed. He thought that this was far too high, and then worked out that a weight of 690 tons at the after end of the ship would have been needed to put the ship down so far. Using a method he had applied over many years’ experience, he estimated that the ship’s draught would have been 20ft lOin with the tngine-room completely filled with water.

To Mr Neill, the witness said that he could definitely say that water would never have reached the top of the belting of the ship. Before stranding the ship had a draught of 14ft. He estimated that 150 tons of water—if the water was over the engine—would put it down a further 4ft 3in, making the level never above 18ft 3in. “I would back my figures against anything," said the witness. The Holmlea would still have had plenty of buoyancy even if down to 24ft, the witness told Mr Haggitt in re-examination. “Contained Errors” Andrew Allen Mack Taylor, a naval architect, of Wellington, said he believed Captain McGowan's calculations of . the draught contained errors. His experience led him to believe that 33ft could not have possibly been correct. He worked out the draught by several other recognised methods and obtained a figure of about 21ft 4in aft, and Bft fore, with the engine room full of water. The method used by Captain McGowan was a recognised one, but was usually avoided by naval architects because -of liability of error, he said.

The method used for Captain McLeish’s estimation was recognised as “near enough for' all practical purposes,” and he could not fault his calculations “except in quibbling.” The service rendered by the tug was a straight-out tow, in his opinion. Pumping services had been a precaution, but were not essential.

Bruce Anthony White, an engineer, of Dunedin, said that he surveyed the damage to the Holmlea on November 12, 1957, for the agents of the Salvage Association. The engine-room bulkhead would never give way because of water in the engine-room. Asked how long he considered the Holmlea's engines could have been run, the witness replied: “Had I been chief engineer I would have run those engines for at least six hours. Salt water is, after all, a lubricant.” Damage To Holmlea

The damage to the Holmlea consisted mainly of buckled and torn plates on the bottom. The hole in the bottom was about 2in wide, and extended about 2ft. To Mr Jeavons, the witness said that sea water affected the efficiency of engines, and he would run them in this way only in an emergency.

The witness appeared under lubpoena.

Frederick Shottan Parker, marine surveyor for the Marine Department, said that the Holmlea was surveyed annually by his department. The bulkhead scantlings were heavier than those required by Lloyds. He had been at sea as an engineer, and seen a ship’s engine run for eight hours while it was shipping salt water. Chief Officer’s Evidence Kevin Richard Joseph Betty, chief officer of the Holmlea at the time of the grounding, said that at no stage had he heard any request made to the trig for increased speed. If there had been any such request he would have known of it. To Mr Neill the witness said there had been Morse signal apparatus on the bridge. The messages sent had come from the master. Aldis lamp signals had come from the tug. Mr Neill: You are not in a position to deny that there was a message from the tug concerning speed?—No, I am not. Re-examining, Mr Haggitt asked the witness if an increase in speed would have placed an additional strain on the tow line. The witness: Yes.

Fred Oakes Ball, chief engineer of the Holmlea, said he had had no apprehension for the safety of the ship or crew after the vessel had left the reef. He had been told by the master to stop the engines when he thought fit. It had been impossible to stop the leak which was allowing water to flow into the engine-room. The engines would have run for about an hour longer than they did, but after that they would have been completely wrecked.