CONCLUSION OF THE LYTTELTON CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIV, Issue 7904, 24 March 1887, Page 5

CONCLUSION OF THE LYTTELTON CASE.

VERDICT FOR THE PLAINTIFFS. (BY TELEGRAPH.—PRESS ASSOCIATION.J Wellington, Wednesday The Lyttelton case was resumed to-day, After several witnesses had been called, and counsel had addressed the jury, His Honor summed up. He said that each side bad assigned a particular cause for the disaster. The plaintiffs asserted that the wreck was caused through the vessel over-riding an anchor. The defendants a33erted, or at least suggested, that the ship foundered through the negligence of some of the ship's men in leaving open some of the ship's valves connected with the freezing machinery. If the ship went to the place in a water-logged and sinking condition, he apprehended that it was a matter of no consequence whether the anchor went through the vessel afterwards. It was asserted that the foundering was due to a valve being left open, but there was no positive evidence of anything of the sort. His Honor then reviewed the evidence adduced on both sides as to tho vessel's trim. Diver Lennie found an anchor right through the ship's bottom. How it got there in that particular way, or whether Lennie was right in describing its position was a matter of little importance, it the jury were satisfied that the anchor was through the ship's bottom. As he had already said, if a ship was really foundered through the valves being left open, and undor those circumstances the ship's draught was increased, then, in his opinion, this being the primary cause of the disaster, it was of no consequence that the anchor had subsequently gone through the vessel's bottom. That misfortune would be directly contributed to by the plaintiffs' servants. If the accident was contributed to by Captain Hill's negligence, the jury must treat him as tho servant of the Board, and deprive the plaintiffs of recovery. If the accident was due to Captain Hill taking the ship out of position, that was sufficient for contributory negligence on bis part, but if the accident was due to a false start, made under the pilot's directions, they could not attribute the accident to Captain Hill. He was of opinion, as regards the law, that the defendants would be answerable for negligence on Captain Storm's part, inasmuch as he was not a licensed pilot. He considered the services rendered by Captain Storm were not gratuitous services. Money was received for harbour fees, and that was enough to prevent services being gratuitous. He would ask the jury to say whether there was any gross negligence ; it might be useful in future. As to the point, whether the shipowners could sue for cargo, he would rule for the present that it was legitimate, and thbt it could be done. The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for £14,490, damages for the ship, including machinery, and £17,302 16a 6d for cargo. The Attorney-General reserved leave to move for nonsuit on the points mentioned in his argument on Saturday, or for a verdict to reduce tho damages by half of the ship, the Court to refer to the Judge's note of the evidence, with leave to draw such inferences as the jury might draw. I

Judgment was entered with costs accordjg to scale, and for a second counsel and special jury. In reference to the question of " gross " negligence the foreman of the jury, in answer to His Honor, stated that, with the exception of one man, the jury were unanimous in finding Captain Storm guilty of great" negligence!