CALLIOPE DOCK ACCIDENT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 13455, 6 April 1907, Page 6

CALLIOPE DOCK ACCIDENT.

SHAW, SAVILL, CO. AND THE HARBOUR BOARD. AN APPLICATION DISMISSED. The judgment of Mr. Justice Denniston on the summons for a more explicit statement in connection with the claim being made by the Shaw, Savill, and Albion Company, Ltd., against the Auckland Harbour Board, for 'damages arising out of the Calliope Dock disaster, was read by Mr. Justice Cooper at the Supreme Court yesterday. In his judgment Mr. Justice Denniston mentions that the statement of claim sets out that owing to the defective :ind negligent construction and design of the dock and its equipment, and owing to the negligence of defendant, its officers and servants in and about the said docking, the dock was, or became, unsecure, and part of the structure and equipment of the dock collapsed, and the plaintiff's steamer was crushed and otherwise injured. The defendant asks for a more explicit statement of claim, alleging that the claim is defective in not stating in what respect the construction and design of the dock and its equipments was defective and negligent, nor what part or parts were defectively or negligently constructed or designed, nor in what the alleged negligence of the defendant, its officers and servants consisted. Assuming, as he was bound to assume, that the plaintiff's averments were true, the statement of claim, in liis opinion, disclosed a sufficient prima-facie cause of action, and the plaintiff could not be called upon to give more information than he bad done. The plaintiff could not be expected to know the details of the dock's construction, capacity, fitness, or the manner in which the ship was dealt with by the dock owner; plaintiffs could only say that the ship was received into the dock by defendant, and whilo there was injured by collapse of part of the structure and equipments of the dock, and this could have occurred only through defect in the structure or equipments, or the mismanagement of the defendant's servants. There was no reason to suppose that in the present case the. defendant was embarrassed by any want of particularity in the statement of claim. The facts were more within lie knowledge of its agents than within that of the plaintiff. The summons further asked for a more explicit statement of claim, because while alleging that under contract with the plaintiff to dock the steamer, it did not allege whether such contract was in writing or made orally. His Honor said there was no allegation that the defendant was embarrassed by the absence of the statement asked for, nor was there any ground for supposing such was the case. The defendant knew as well as plaintiff the terms on which it received the plaintiff's vessel. There was no suggestion that the contract" was one which should be in writing. The contract was, in fact, not the gist of the plaintiff's complaint. His Honor concluded by saying that it had not been made to appear that the statement of claim did not. give the defendant fair notice of the cause of action. The summons was, therefore, dismissed, with costs, £3 3s.