THE COURTS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 767, 12 November 1886, Page 10

THE COURTS.

SUPREME COURT

Eckfobd v. The Union Steamship Company.

(Judgment of Richmond, J., delivered 28th September.) In this case I have been unable to come to tiny other conclusion than that both vessels were in fault. In the matter of lights, neither were conforming to the Queen's ’’sgulations. The mast-head light of the Mobafca had a few minutes before the collision been knocked .'out by the overhanging willows. Without waiting to replace it, she proceeded at full speed to round the sharpest turn in the river. The mast-head light of the Waihi had been' -taken down when she got into the .river, and her side-lights, up to within n few seconds of the collision, were covered over with pieces of canvas. This vessel steers from the bridge ; and Captain Manning explains that the re-1 flection of the lights from the trees on very dark nights dazzles the steersman, and renders it necessary to take down the mast-head light and covor the side lights. So far as the master of the vessel is personally • concerned, this explanation appears to relieve him from blame in regard to the non-exhibition of the usual lights ; but it may be doubtful whether, as regards his owners, it can he considered as a complete excuse for non-observanco of the regulations. If'it were necessary to dec'ae this question, it might have to bo inquired whether, by carrying a light or lights further aft during the navigation of the river, or in '-some-other way, the inconvenience referred to by Captain Manning might not bo avoided ; in which case the Waihi would,, probably be held to blame for navigating altogether without visible lights. If it were alleged that the difficulty cannot, from the structure of the vessel, be overcome in any way, it might he replied that such a vessel is not fit to navigate at night the narrow channel c£ the Opawa. It appeals that the Mobaka, which steers from the stern, can always carry the usual lights. I have referred to the facts as to the lights because these circumstances ol the case bear upon the question whether, on the part of both i vessels, there was not, considering that they were both practically without lights a,t the time of the collision, a want of due caution in : other particulars. And I speak of both vessels as practically without lights, because it is in evidence that the side lights ot the Mohaka would not be visible to a vessel meeting her at, Harding’s Bend, owing to the height of the river banks. However, as regards the nonobservance of the regulations respecting lights, I found nothing upon it in itself, as the evidence leaves it uncertain whether the nonobservance could by possibility have contributed to cause the accident. Bab in omitting altogether to sound the Whistle at any time whilst she was going down the river, the Mohaka infringed No. 32 of the Harbor Regulations of 1883, and was clearly in fault. The Waihi was also in fault for not once whistling between tbs Flats and Harding’s Bend. Considering that both vessels wero practically without 'lights, the. use of the other available means of giving notice of their whereabouts immediately before taking this difficult bend became the more necessary. It is clear that tho accident occurred through the master of each vessel making sure that he had the river all to himself. In my opinion neither of them was justified in acting upon this assumption. Of the two vessels the Mohaka was the more to blame, but I cannot wholly absolve the Waihi. The damage done must therefore be divided equally.