TAINUI DISASTER

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17874, 3 March 1920, Page 5

TAINUI DISASTER

DECISION RESERVED. (Pan Unitkd Press Association.) CIIIU STCHURCH. March 2. , Tho Tainui caso was resumed this morning, when further ovidenco for the defence wad heard in tho caso in which Frederick John N'jed'liam, manager, and Oiaudo Sniellio, shipping clerk, iNew Zealand Refrigerating Company, were charged with negligence. ; Archibald Walker. surveyor of shijw for Lloyds at Wellington, said ho did not think it possible that tho disaster had been caused by an •explosion in tho stokehold, lie had given the matter careful consideration, and had come to tho conclusion that tho origin of tlie explosion must have been on deck. Cross-examined, witness said ho know that tho benzine cargo put aboard tho Tainui was bad. If a shipping clerk saw tho condition of tho cargo he would expect him to notify his officer, but not to interfere with tho loading of the ship. Alistor M'Lenn Wright, chemist to tho New Zealand Refrigerating Company, gave details of experiments he had made to test absorbent Qualities of kauri and other timbers with regard to benzine, and also to test the oxaloaivo qualities of benzine. He concluded that tho explosion was caused by a naked light being thrown on dock. 'Gerald Fitzgerald, engineer, of Wellington, also expressed tho opinion that the explosion occurred on dock. . Tho defendant Smellio said that at the time of the disaster he had had the position of shipping clork to the Refrigerating Company lor three or four months. He know nothing about the loading or stowage of cargo. _ Tho cargo ox Caroline was tho first benzine cargo he had had anything to do with; therefore he could not say whether thi) cargo was a good, bad, or average one. Hie captain and mate had every chance of seeing'what was the condition of the cargo put aboard (he Tainui. On September IS he saw some of tho cases, but it did not occur to him that tho captain was neglecting his duty iri allowing the cargo on board. Ho considered the captain, who had had years of experience, should know more about the matter than witness did. It was no part of his duty to deal with the acceptance or rejection of cargo. Frederick John Needham, shipping manager of the New Zealand Refrigerating Company, ard one of the defendants, said he had nothirifi to do with the soundness or condition of cargoss. No part of his duties took him near tho diip to see tho cargo. It was a physical impossibility for him to be there The last timo he was in Lyttelton prior t6 the sailing of the Tainui was on August 7. Captain Cowan was a capable officer, and the company had waited to obtain his services. Witness did not sen the cargo. He knew nothing whatever about its condition, with the exception that he was told that there had been a break in tho insulated cargoes of the Tainui, and ben.-ine had leaked through. He thought a caso had fallen heavily and done this. On no occasion had he given Stnellie the right to interfere with a master of a ship, and he would have resented the fact if Smellio had done so. No instructions wero piv'en to Smellie to order the captain or mate to take in cargo they did not desire to take.

William Murray, managing director of tho New Zealand Refrigerating Company, said he, cs general manager, had never at any time interfered with the cantain as to the receipt of' cargo. It was untrue that witness or anyone in the company had endeavoured to tho captain to hasten tho stowage of cargo or to take any aboard that, he would be inclined to reject. Ho regarded any such suggestion as a_ vile,, wicked, and malicious calumny, which he absolutely repudiated and most strongly resented. The company had since ceased to carry petroleum or benzine, and Sir John Findlay sayl that, while he would admit that negligenco had been shown in tho loading of the cargo, it was not on the part of the two defendants. _ Tho magistrate reserved his decision ijntil to-morrow.