WHAT IS BALLAST?

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 109, 8 May 1912, Page 3

WHAT IS BALLAST?

THE TONGARIRO'S COLLISION. ADVERsiTvERDICT. (From Our Own Correspondent). LONDON, 29th March. In October last the New Zealand Shipping Compiuiy'e Tongariro, having beeu up to Newcastle for coal for the voyage to Now Zealand, was returning to London to clear lor tho voyage, when she bad the misfortune to collide in a. fog with the British Petroleum Company's pier at Purfleei, doing great damage. The Petroleum Company, of course, sued for damages, and the New Zealand Shipping Company put up the defence that the vessel was afc the time under compulsory pilotage, and that the accident was solely the fault of the pilot. The plaintiffs contested this on tho ground that tho Tongariro, being merely in balltvst, was_ exempt from the compulsory pilotage provisions. Mr. Justice Bargrave Deane found for the Petroleum Company. The question, he said, was whether a vessel which was carrying more than enough coal to take her from one port to another was really m ballast. The Tongariro wag only down three-eighths of her dead-weight — 355 (Items out of 10,000 ton6 — and there was nothing on board earning freight. Sho had taken the coal on at Newcastle for her voyage to New Zealand, but she had to clear from London. Bunker coals must surely be classed as stores. Am a natter of fact, she would require moro than Bhe had takon on board to carry her all the way to Port Chalmers. The coals were not merchandise earning froight. Suppose a sailing ship had a duplicate sot of Bails and xm-tnade-up canvas on board. Could these be said to be anything but stores? From any point of view could thiis ship be said to be carrying cargo? If not, she was in ballast. It wae not laid down how much ballast she must have; he prosumed she inisrht be loadod down to tho load line. Those extra ooak of the Tongariro were all to be consumed in her own furnaces, and he hold her to be in ballast. Judgment was therefore for the plaintiffs.