TO-DAY'S EVIDENCE

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 119, 21 May 1914, Page 8

TO-DAY'S EVIDENCE

On resuming to-day, ' Richard Fredericksen, a permanent hand in the employ of the Harbour Board, gave evidence as to seeing one of the bags of superphosphate Unloaded from the Maitai put on the scales. It weighed over 2 cwt, the average weight. To Mr. Wilford : Superphosphate had thp effect of giving a rope a frayed ■appearance. Cecil Edward Byron Wood, another employee of the Harboui* Board, gave ■evidence on similar lines to that of the previous witness. John Passmore, rope and twine maker, said_ he had ( had over forty years' experience at hie trade, and stated that the new rope (produced) was si Manila rope, "with a dash of flax." iThe olcl rope, which witness said was almost too far gone to say what it was made of, was also a Manila 'rope. The itope was "done" — "rotten." Any 'man who had a glance at the rope could see it was "done." _ ♦ Air. Gray : Would any sailor splicing that rope be 'able to tell it was "done"? Witness : I would siiy it was not .worth splicing. Continuing, witness said that the rope liad done too much work. Mr. Gray : Was that rope immediately_ before it broke fit for use? Witness : I wouldn't use it. In t the course of further evidence wiishess stated that the breaking strain of a new 2-ifin rope, like the one that .had been in use, was 1 ton 15 cwt, but only a third or a quarter of that weight would constitute a proper load. The Admiralty regulation was aboi>t a sixth of the breaking strain. "They are always safer than the merchants," added witness, referring to the Admiralty. To Mr, Wilford : Witness had never tested a rope for the breaking strain. He would say that 2 ton 5 cwt was a, reasonable breaking strain for a 2fin v rope, _ James Stewart, hemp grader at Wellington for the Government, said he liad ium 35 years' experience — off an on. In his opiiiWi the olcl rope had had a good deal of rough usage. When he examined it afc the police station he found 'that several strands and other parts had perished. Chemical action or exposure to 'the weather had, to his mind, caused the fibre to perish. If the rope were used in a ship's hold with 12 or 14 cwt on it he would not like' to stand under it. To Air. Wilford ; If the rope that was left were now tested he ditf not think it would lift 13 cwt, Mr. Gray (re-examining) : In its present condition would you stand under the rope with any weight on it ? Witness : A baby's "pram" or anything like that. (Laughter.) Adam Welsh Hall, flax grader, in the employ of the New Zealand Government, who made an examination of the rope in company with the previous witaiesß. said the rope was decidedly perished and worn out. It had evidently been subjected to some corrosive. Strands were broken in several places, and On bending the sti'ands back ho had found the rope prejudicially impregnated with some ( substance— by the smell lie would say it was manure. Mr. Gray : Would you stand under it .with a weight of 16 cwt? Witness : Not half that weight. William Henry Ferris, a fibre expert j.n the Agricultural Department, gave ■evidence as to the quality of the rope j and said that he would not triisl it to •carry more than a ton in its present state. Mr. P. Levi opened the case for tho defendants, and moved that the „ plaintiff should be nonsuited on the grounds that tfhe had failed to nhow that the defendants had been negligent. "No one is expected to do more than was ipguJated by the ordinary practice of mankind," he quoted as one of the guiding principles in estimating negligence. His Honour* asked whether in this case it was not necessary tf» find authorities on the question whether employer* should inspect and guard against the deterioration of their appliances. It was suggested by the plaintiff that an inspection was needed and that the defendants had provided for none beyond the casual sight of the employees. , Mr, Leyi said that the test was the custom of the trade. His Honour asked what in that case ■would be the position with regaul to a

company which pursued a bad system over a series of years, and thus established a trade custom. There must be some responsibility in regard to appli-ances-wearing out. Tho faster tackle wore out, the more frequent must the inspection be. Mr. Levi proceeded that the plaintiffs must show not only that the defendants were negligent, but must prove that the accident was due to their negligence. He also contended that the deceased had contributed to the accident by contributory negligence on his part, sufficiently to justify a nonsuit. The points raised by Mr. Levi for a nonsuit wer'o noted by his Honour, and were reserved for argument. Mr. Wilford then addressed the jury and outlined the defence. He said he would call further evidence to show that the men knew that it was their duty to keep from under the hatch when tho sling was going; that the "dumping"' process was- not a speeding-up process, but one_ which made the work easier. Not a single witness, said Mr. Wilford,' had said that he did not know men were supposed to keep_ under shelter ; not one of them had said that there was any need to go out. (Proceeding.)