IMPORTANT SHIPPING CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIV, Issue 7896, 15 March 1887, Page 5

IMPORTANT SHIPPING CASE.

fBY TELEGBAPH.— PRBS3 ASSOCIATION.! Wellington, Monday. In the Supreme Court to-day, before Jndge Richmond and a special jury, the case of Shaw, Savill, and Albion Co. v. Timaru Harbour Board was commenced. It is an action brought to recover from the Timaru Harbour Board £32,802 16s BJ. on account of the loss of the ship Lyttelton and her cargo in Timaru harbour on June 12, 1886, while the vessel was in charge of Robert Storm, whom the plaintiffs allege to have been a servant of the Board. Mr. G. Harper (Christchuroh), and with him Mr. H. D. Bell (Wellington), and Mr. W. V. Milton (Christchuroh), appeared for the plaintiffs; the Attorney-General, and with him Mr. Joynt (Christohuroh), and Mr. Chapman (Wellington), for defendants. Plaintiffs allege that on the 12th of June they were owners of the ship Lyttelton, and the following cargo : - 650 bales wool, 49 bales rabbit akins, 13 bales sheep skins, 840 sacks flour, 966 sacks oats, 7 cases, 34 kegs, 90 casks oil, 23 casks tallow, 21 qr. -casks whisky, and 9906 caroases frozen mutton ; that on the 12th of June, 1886, the defendant Board, in pursuance of its regnlations and by-laws, caused the vessel, while in Timaru harbour to be taken oharge of by its servant Robert Storm, for the purpose of taking her out of port; that on the 12th June, while the vessel was under the control of Robert Storm, she was so wrongfully, negligently, unskilfully, and carelessly unmoored, moved, navigated, guided, piloted, and removed by Robert Storm, tbat she was sunk and stranded, beooming a total wreck, and the vessel and goods lost; that at the time of the mishap the vessel was of the value of £15.500. the cargo being ot the value of £17,301 16s 8d ; that at the time the aforesaid Robert Storm was not a licensed pilot, as the Board well knew, and the plaintiff company was not aware that he was not a licensed pilot, The statement of defenoe set forth that the alleged acts and defaults took plane after the passing of the Harbours Act 1878, and after the Act came into operation, and no notioe in writing signed by plaintiffs, or its solicitor, of euoh intended aotlon specifying the cause of such action was given to the defendant one month before the action was commenced, pursuant to the provisions of section 227 of said Act; that action was not commenced within three months after the commission of such alleged acta and default, pursuant to the provisions of seotion 227 of said Act; that defendant denies plaintiff was on 12th June, 1886, owner of the vessel, or of her cargo; that before 12th June, 1886, the ve; sel came into the said port or harbour, but was in no wise under, subject, or liable to the care of or control of the Board, or its harbourmaster, or servants, either under or in pursuance of the Acts mentioned or any by-laws or regulations made or adopted by the Board or otherwise howsoever, the master and owners of the vessel were subject to penalty in the event of their failing to obey the lawful orders of the harbourmaster as to the removal of the vessel from one berth to another, or as to the place where the vessel should be moored or anchored on entering the port, or as to the time when the vessel should be unmoored or quit the anchorage; tbat neither the Board or its harbourmaster or servants had the care or control of the vessel in any way whatsoeverin respect of navigation thereof, or in determining what measures, if any, should be taken for the safety of the vessel ; that the Board did not cause the vessel to be taken oharge of by one Robert Sturm ; that if the said Robert Storm professed to and was allowed by plaintiff or its servants to take charge of the vessel, he did so for the convenience or benefit of the plaintiff or its said servants, and on their behalf, and in no wise as an officer or servant of the Board; tbat oompulsory pilotage does not exist at the port of Timaro, and no pilots have ever been licensed there, or pilotage rates fixed or charged for their service ; that when the vessel was wrecked the harbourmaster was absent from the port, and the said Robert Storm was performing the dutiee of harbourmaster under verbal instructions from the harbourmaster, and any power which the said Robert Storm possessed in reepect to the vessel was solely derived from such instructions ; that it has been the practice at the port of Tiaaaru for the harbourmaster or the said Robert Storm, who was called pilot ot the Board, to render gratuitous services to a vessel entering and leaving port other than and beyond those which properly fell within the scope of the duties of harbourmaster; that the plaintiff and the master of the vessel were fully aware, both at and before the loss of the vessel, that there were no pilots ; tbat the said Robert Storm is a master mariner, and a man of great nautical skill £ that the vessel was handled by the said Robert Storm with ordinary care and prudence, and in a manner which met with the full approval of tho master of the vessel ; that the immediate and proximate cause of the sinking of the veesel was the negligence of th» mastor a:-d crew, and of Captain Hill of the s.s. Graiton, whioh vessel was hired by the plaintiff to tow the Lyttelton out of port ; that the vessel was entered outwards at the port of Timaru for London, but the owner did not upon so entering her insert in the form of entry, delivered to the Collector of Customs at the said port of Timaru a statement in writing of the distance in feet and inches between the centre of the diso required by section 225 of the Shipping and Seamen's Act, 1877, to be marked upon each of the sides of the vessel amidships, or as near thereto as practicable ; that the vessel was sunk while engaged in an illegal undertaking, that is to say, while proceeding on the outward voyage to London, without her owner having complied with the provisions of section 227 of the Shipping and Seaman's Act, 1877, by inserting in the form of entry men - tioned in the last preceding paragraph a statement thereinal«o mentioned ; thatthe veseel and her cargo might have been saved after the vessel had sunk by the exercise of ordinary care and prudence on the part of the plaintiff and its agents and servants ; that the vessel and cargo were not of the value of £32,502 163 Sd ; that the master of the Lyttelton and the plaintiff company had express notice that there were no pilots at the port of Timaru when the vessel entered, and were aware tbat such was the case up to and at the time of the sinking of the vessel. Mr. Harper, in opening, mentioned that the real plaintiff? were the underwriters of the ship and cargo, and some owners whose cargo was not insured. The claim was really below the actual value of the property lost. The first witness called was Kdward Tregear, surveyor, who put In plans of hatbour. The remainder of the day was taken up with the evidence of Boorman, captain of the Lyttelton. The case is expected to last at least three days.