THE CASE OF THE LYTTELTON.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXVII, Issue 8123, 21 March 1887, Page 5

THE CASE OF THE LYTTELTON.

|Ter Press Association.] WELLINGTON, March 20. The Lyttelton case was resumed at the Supreme Court yesterday. The jury were not present, having been discharged until Monday, as their presence was not necessary, the Court having decided to deal with law points only. The Attorney-General submitted the following nonsuit points:—That the incorporation of the Company was not proved; that no proper notice of action was given by the plaintiffs ; that there was no proof of Eitchie’s authority to employ Maude to serve notice on Moody, the then Chairman of the Board; that the authority of Eitchie to give notice of action was only so far as the ship was concerned, and had nothing to do with the cargo; that the owners of the ship could not sue for the value of the cargo; that, assuming the Board had authority to appoint a pilot, pilotage not being compulsory. Captain Storm became commander of the ship, and ceased for the time being to be in the service of the Board; that the Board had no power to appoint pilots, no pilotage district having been constituted at Timaru, therefore any appointment was ultra vires, and the corporation was not liable; that no actionable negligence had been proved; that Captain Storm’s services were gratuitous, and consequently he was only liable in case of gross negligence, which had not been proved ; that if negligence had been proved there was contributory negligence on the part of the master of the Grafton; that all that had been proved against Captain Storm was, to use the words of the leading counsel on the other side, in opening the case, ,€ an error of judgment,” which was not actionable. Mr Joynt followed, his argument being in relation to the application of the bylaws of the Board. Mr Harper was replying to the argument, when His Honor said he would consider 'the points raised, and inform counsel on Monday whether it would be necessary for him to reply. It was quite possible that notwithstanding the weight of the At-torney-General’s remarks, ho might not consider it necessary to call upon Mr Harper to reply. He considered the points raised as to negligence, and as to the right of the Company to sue, very important. The Court adjourned until 10 a.m. on Monday.