R.M COURT.-Friday.. [Before T. Beckham Esq., R.M.]

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXIX, Issue 4931, 14 June 1873, Page 1 (Supplement)

R.M COURT.- Friday.. [Before T. Beckh am Esq., R.M.]

Uuviiam v. Uuidxeu.— Claim £11 Is. fid Mr. Hesketh for the plaintiff ; aud Mr. W. H. Killing for the defendant. This was a claim for wa^os, as master of the cutter ' Sydney, ' from Kaipara to A uckland, and for repamng sails. The defence was that the defendant had nothing to do with the boat, and that the agreement was mad 3 with, his brother.— The plain ti IT swore that ho agreed with the defendant to navigate the cutter to to Auckland for £S, and the defendant had offered him £5. Defendant had never stated that he was acting for his brother. — Tho defendant swore that he acted throughout as agent for his brother, with whom the agreement was made. He had sold the boat and beeu paid for her. —Mr. Rhodes, a clerk in the Custom-house, deposed that the owner of the boat was John Gardner, as entered in the papers at tho Custom-house.— Che defendant was recalled, and "stated that ho sold the boat without communicating with his brother.— The Court was of opinion that tho defendant, having sold the cutter and icceived payment for her on his own responsibility, was liable for the claim, and gave indgment for the plaintill Costs, £3 l()<s. Hoi.uks Dnoim.Ks v. North Shou* Fhrwy

Compam. — Tins was a claim for £20 damages, alleged to have been sustained by a collision between the ferry steamers ' l£nterpuse' and 'Takapuna' on the 2(Hh A pill, thefoimer vessel being the pioperty of the plaintiffs. Mr J. B. Russell appealed for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Hesketh for the defendants. — Befoie tho case was proceeded with, Iih Worship asked if it was not possible foi the rival factions at the Nonh Shoie, Mho, lominded him of the Montagues and Capulets, to come to an amicable agreement —Mr liusscll said that party feeling was ciiried to such an extent .is to endanger life and limb, lie ottered, on behalf of the plaintiffs, to .accept the average earnings of tho vessel for the time she was laid cp, and whatevei damage might be aw.uded by a competent and impaitial judge for the mliiiics done to the vessel. — Mi. Hesketb, ou behalf of the defendants, refused the terms ottered, and the case was then proceeded with — Mr. Russell called Thomas Clark, master of tho ' Enterpuse Mo 1,'viho deposed that the collision occuired between his steamer and the ' Takapuna ' on the 29bh Apnl, at 7 o'clock in the evening, at Ilolmes's Wharf, at the Noith Shoie He left tho vessel to go to tea. She had all the | lights burning, and was moored alongside the wharf. When witness returned to tho vessel she was jammed alongside the wharf. It had been always usual to leave the steamer alongside the whaif. The damage done was considerable. The port sponson was broken, and the flooring out in about 21m. — Oross-e\-amin«d by Mr. Hesketh There was nobody on board the < Enterprise ' when the collision occulted —John Landers, mate of the ' ICntei prise,' g,>ve s"inlar evidence lie said it was nofc expected that the ' Takapuna ' would call at the wharf that night, as she had not done so for a foitniyht picvious If she had beon expected the 'Entetpiise' might have been slacked oil"— l!y Mr. Heskoth : The 'Enter-pn-.o' was laid up for fwur days after the accident. — James Ilolmos, one of the plaintiffs, gave evidence as to the damage sustained. He said it would cost (."> to repair the injuiy done to the vessel, and she would have to lay up for three days, at a loss of C.i a day.— Mr. Hesketh asked the witness to produce his books, to show the amount of the vessel's earnings during the month of Apnl. — Mr. Russell objected to tho examination. It was sufficient for the witness to state tho amount of takings he was depnved of owing to the collision. Tho object of the examination was, that the owners of the opposition boat might ascertain what Holmes "Hrotlicis wpip doing, tor motives outside the question. — Mi. Hesketh contended that the examination was necessaiy in older to tind out tho c^act amount of loss sustained thiough the vessel having to lay up — His Wotshtp thought iliT examination could "ofc be avoided — The w lt-iess then stated that the vessel was dealing about «">(>3. a day. Her gross takings dining tlio month of Apnl amounted to about £00. Could not say what the profit for the mouth was. Was ceitain there was a profit, but had no means' of knowing the exact amount, owing to the accounts of the different steamers being mixed up — Peter Holmden, a passenger on the 'Takapuna' at tho time of the collision, stated that aftor it occurred he heard the captain say to the engineer, " You have made a mess of it." Before the collision the vessol fouled a line running out from Niccol's yard. — John Wilson Filder, .mother pas&enger, deposed that on approaching the wharf he heaul the captain of the ' Takapuiu' givo ordeis to " back her" and so forth, and presently he Iienid the order given to "go-ahead," and immediately atle. vaids a crash oceuned —John Noanng, manager for Messts. I To) . s Uiotheis, deposed that the captain f the ' Takapuna' had ollered to pay f portion of tho damage done. A survey - held on the vessol, at which Captain EH /as piesent ou behalf the company. Th )oi t made was that the injuiies weie the i ult of,* collision with tlio ' Takapuna' at an angle of 4 "5 degrees. He believed that tho ' .bnterpiiso' was paying. —This was the case foi the plamtifl. - — For the defence Mr. Heskoth t ailed Edward Tophain, who was engineer on board the ' Enterprise' at the tnno of the collision. He stated that when the ' Takapuna' used to oome to tho wharf the ' Enterprise' mvauably lay at the side of the wharf, and nofc m front of it. Tho 'Enterpuse' iau two trips afterwards* as if nothing had happened. She was boached that night, he believed for the purposo of a general overhaul. The engines were out of lopair, and Mr. Holmes told him the day before the collision that he intended to have an oveihaul. The vessel was laying up on Wednesday, Thuifeday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday. When witness left on Monday morning the sponson was in the same state <is it was when the vessel was beached, the time having been spent in doing other repairs. — By Mr. Russell : Was nol dismissed from Messrs. Holmea's employ for drunkenness. Had no hesitation in sweating that the boat did not run the day after the accident, although several witnesses might swear that she did. — John McDougal, captain of the 'Takapuna,' was next swoin, and deposed that on aniving opposite Niccol's Slip he eased steam to allow of a hawser being slacked which was fast to a bug, and which was across the usual line of approach to the whaif He then steamed slowly towaids the whaif. He saw x red light, which he took to be tho red light that Messrs. Holmes usually keep on tho whaif; but he saw the ' Eufcei prise ' , lying at tho whaif, and ho ga\e tho order for full speed astern, and way had very nearly stopped when tho collision occurred. The ' hhitorpriso ' was lying at an ruiglo of 13 degrees from tho whai f, with her stern pointing N. E. and her bow N.W. Her head was close to the whaif llio tide was half-flood. He cvpected to Tiud the ' ICnteiprise' at the side of tho wharf By exoicisnig reasonable cue and ekill he could not have prevented the accident. It was unavoidable. The ' Enteipiisc ' ran the noxt day. Did not shout out to the engineer aftei tho collision, " You have made a mess of it," oi anything of tho&oit. H.ul c died at tho in igstatl Whai f ficipiontlj dining the previous fortnight — sometimes three or four tunes a- week. Was obliged to do so according to tho tuiie-tible —('loss-examined by Mi. Iviissull : Had hie into tlm ' JOntei piiso No. 1' and ' Entorpi ise No. 2' bcfoiv, but in consequence of the wind and tide ; and had fouled a line attached to a dingy belonging to Messrs. Holmes, but thou tho wnul and tide were strong. It thu ' Ente'piiBe' had not been alongside tlio whaif, tho 'Takapuna' would havo run up alongside safely. Sho would not have run into thii wharf. The red light, which he thought was ou tho wharf, was ou board the ' Knteipnao,' and it was about 5ft. from w heie the sponson was struck. It was proper navigation to go so close to the light. If the ' Knteipnse' hid hud her mast-head light burning, and had been lying parallel with tho wharf, he could have gone alongside ' easily.— -By the Court : There is alw»ys *

look-otft forward. — Captain Burgesi, Chief Harbourmaster, waa ne?t caUed, and dt\^<i that ib was usual for the boali to lio inside the T when they were w.'iiiPg, bin they had made mutual concessions, and sometimes landed passenger o\cv tli" dill'ercnt boats. When thu uilu lett the ' Enterprise' to go to tea lhe\ should have placed her on the east ot the T. The tide would be running imhore. Thoro \wn no imperative rule against steamer? lying I alongside. Vetjela lying at wharyes must not have side lights, but should scroen them until they started. They should have hoad lights. Knowing the wharf as McDougal did, witness thought he did not use sufficient precaution. — By Mr. Hesketh : 1 give that opinion based upon what I have seen and heard. — Neil Smith, mate of the ' Takapuna,' corroborated the evidence of the captain. He said the ' Enterprise' only had side lights. When he saw the light ho thought it was on the steamer, but thought she was lying parallel witli the wharf. Every precaution was taken to avoid the accident. — William »S. Cochrane, a passenger on board the ' Takapuna' at the time of the collision, deposed that he wa3 down below at the timo. The shock was very slight, and witness thought it was merely caused by coming alongside tho wharf. He only noticed the side lights on the 'Enterprise.' — William Hi own, a shipbuilder, deposed that he was also on board the • Takapuna' at the time j of tho collision. 'Jhe shock was very slight . in fact, he did not know there had been a collision until ne\t morning. He could have repaired tho damage, as it had been prepaied, m a day with two men. — This was all tho evidence. — Mr. Hesketh addressed the Couit for tho defence. He submitted that the cause of collision was owing to tho action of the plaintifls — first, in neglecting to have a head light burning on boaul the ' Enteipris»' when she wa-, alongside the wharf, as njqimul by tlie ILii bour Regulations, and in not obscming the side lights , anil, second, by tlio ' Enterpi lae' not being m her propor position. He also contended that negligence had not boon pioved on tho pait ot the c.tptam of the ' Ta.kaj.una ' — Mr. Uusaell replied, contending that the e\ idence showed negligence or incompetence on the part (if the captain of the ' Takjpaua,' aud that tho defendant should pay tor the damage done by hini. — His Honor reserved |iulgincnt until next Ooiut-d.iy. — 'ike Court rose at a quartet to G o'clock.