THE WHARF TRAGEDY

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1147, 7 June 1911, Page 3

THE WHARF TRAGEDY

WIDOW CLAIMS £2000.

WAS THE CAPSTAN AT FAULT?

ENGINEERS DIFFER,

From the number and composition of tho audience behind the barrier at the Supreme Court all day yesterday, it was evident that the proceedings were of interest to workers on the waterfront. Tho case, which had boon commenced on the previous day, was that of Eliza Jane Haillio against the Wellington Harbour Hoard. The plaintiff claimed, under the Deaths ,by Accident Act, 1908, the sum of ,£2OOO in respect of tho death of her husband, John Patrick Baillie, who.lost Ins life in. an accident on the Glasgow Wharf last November. Tho deceased, who was a foreman stevedore- einploved by tho New Zealand Shipping Company. Ltd., was operating one of tho Harbour Board s hydraulic capstans when he was p-aught in a rope and whirled rapidly round the revolving capstan. It was alleged for the plaintiff that, had the capstan been in a proper condition, it would have stopped revolving immediately upon tho deceased removing his foot from the bulb with which it was started. Mr. Justice Sim was on tho Bench. Counsel in the case, werp Messrs. A. W. Blair and E. J. Fitzgibbon for the plaintiff, and Messrs. A. Gray and X. S. Weston for the defendant board. Expert Evidence. Evidence for the plaintiff was continued yesterday. Mathias Ellison, stevedore, George Webber, wharf labourer, and Charles Wadley, master stevedore, all stated 'in evidence that they had had trouble with the capstan sticking. Peter Brown said he was for sixteen years in charge of tho New Zealand Shippins Company's wharf work, and was now a stevedoring contractor on his own account. He had several times reported to the. authorities that the capstan was not working properly; To Mr. Gray: tie had known ths capstan keep going for half an hour wlicn they could not stop it. Charles ITenry John Anderson, engineer, said ho was a graduate in mechanical and electrical engineering of London university, and had been responsible for the hydraulic machinery of large vessels, besides having had experience of hydraulic appliances in dockyards, etc. In the East such appliances were often operated by native workers, and he had had a gang of such,under him for the purpose. Tho capstan concerned in tho present case was the first ho had seen in which the position of tho starting bulb had been altered. He would not have altered it, because ho would feel sure that the makers had put it'in the best place for safety and efficiency. In the original place t'no operator would bo outside the bight of the rope, which would be a great advantage. Notwithstanding tho fact that tho new position would place him further from the trucks, he thought tho advantage lay with the old position. Tho construction of the starting and stopping gear, as altered, was inefficient as compared with tho makers' arrangement, inasmuch as it would ■be possible for the pin to be driven under the decking and jammed there. Ihe alterations madp by tho Harbour Board had/added to the danger of using the capstan. • To Mr. Xiray: Witness was at present representative of the Australian Wireless Csmpany. He knew that trucks had to pass-closo to the capstan, and that projections, from the trucks.would overhansr the capstan, but a. man could get.out of the way, though he .would, in doiri» so take-his foot off the bulb and let' the capstan stop. If it was necessary to move the bulb, it would have been better to move the whole apparatus. As late as last Saturday, he pressed the button ■down with his foot, and it did not come-up. Charles Thomas Swnnnall. engineer corroborated, the evidence of tho last witness. This closed tho case for the plaintiff. The Defence. Mr. Gray submitted that there was no case to go to the jury. Proper notice of the cause of action had not been given. Ihero was no evidence of defect in the machinery. The deceased had been guilty of contributory negligence in putting his hand or leg, or both, inside a coil of rope attached to the moving capstan. His Honour said he thought it would be better not to go into the questions of law. Hβ would reserve leave, if necessary, to move that judgment be set aside, arid in the meantime the jury could be asked to determine the facts.

James Griffiths Gregory, chief wool clerk to tho Harbour Board, naitT he was called to stop the capstan at tho time of tho accident. Ho explained his theory ns to how deceased became entangled. Charles George Sylvester, mechanical engineer employed by the Harbour Board, detailed alterations mads to the capstan about twelve months before the accident. The result had heen to enable faster work to be done. It had worked satisfactorily, and he received no complaints about it after the alterations were made down to the time of the accident. Tho pin could not have jammed below tho decking of the wharf unless the button had received a sharp enough blow to separate the pin from the button. It must have been done by a sharp blow from a man's heel. The usual pressure could not have don© it. He had since tried to drive the spindle down and jam it, and he found he could only do so by stamping hard on it five times.

To ■ Mr. Blair: When the water was not turned on, there would be about thirty (instead of fifty) pounds of pressure, tending to push the pin up into its place. He did not know why it did not come up after it was pressed down last Saturday in the presence of counsel and others.

George Robert Pirie, leading fitter in the employ of the Harbour Board, and Nornian Jlacaulay, an employeo whosa duty' it is to attend to tho capstans, also gave evidence.

James Marchbanks, engineer to the Harbour Board, said the alteration to the gear was.made before his appointment. It was not practicable to'have, the button in its original situation. It would be dangerous. The capstans were in frequent use, and involved no risk to a careful man who knew his work.

Tho case was adjourned until this morning, when two more witnesses for the defence are to be heard.