GREYCLIFFE DISASTER.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20438, 14 December 1929, Page 14

GREYCLIFFE DISASTER.

QUESTION OF LIABILITY.

SPEED OF THE TAHITI.

COURT HEARS ARGUMENT. - By Telegraph—Press Association— Copyright SYDNEY, Doc. 12. Argument has begun in tho Admiralty Court before Mr. Justice Ifalso Rogers on the- questions of law arising out. of His Honor's judgment concerning tho disaster to the Greycliffe, which was sunk after a collision with tho ,Union Steam Ship Company's Tahiti. Mr. Manning, who is appearing for Sydney Ferries. Limited, owners of tho 'Greycliffe, quoted authorities relating to the duties,of following vessels and argued that the master of the Greycliffe was entitled to assume that no vessel would overtake him, while, if the Tahiti had : given a warning blast, the Greycliffe could have turned to starboard. He emphasised that a warning from a following vessel was of outstanding importance. The master of the Greycliffe also was • entitled to assume that the harbour reguLit ions, in relation to speed, would be •*' obeyed by other vessels, v , Dr. Erissenden, for the owners of the Tahiti, said thitb on tho findings tho /Tahiti exceeded the regulation speed, but -.--"the doing of a prohibited act was not

negligence. • In the course of tho finding of the •Admiralty'' Court on November 21 Mr. Justice liaise Rogers said: ' "The Tahiti, aware of the presence of the Greycliffe on the starboard .bow, made two slight alterations of her course to port to keep the Greycliffe at an angle of safety. If the Greycliffe had maintained her course there would have been no collision. The Greycliffe changed her course without any observation by the master as to whether his altered course would bring him across the course of any ■Other vessel." The ! Court found that the Tahiti at all relevant times was in the charge of a pilot, in accordance with statutory requirements, arid her owners had no choice as U> the pilot employed. The pilot must have known that he was exceeding the regulation speed, but he had a clear view -of the Greycliffe, and assumed that the Greycliffe would pursue a parallel course, and not change it without warning. No satisfactory explanation had been given to the Court as to why the Greycliffe changed her course as she did. The Judge said that on the evidence ho must reject the theory of interaction, therefore he could not find that the admitted change of course was involuntary.