GREYCLIFFE DISASTER

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20901, 16 December 1929, Page 11

GREYCLIFFE DISASTER

CASE IN ADMIRALTY COURT. FURTHER ARGUMENT HEARD. (United Pres* Association.) (By Electrlo Telegraph—Copyright.) SYDNEY, December 14. Argument was continued in the Admiralty Court in the Greycliffe disaster case. Mr Manning, for Sydney Ferries, Ltd., submitted that the fact of the Tahiti being in charge of a pilot at the time of the disaster did rot exonerate the master or the owners from liability. Dr Brissenden, K.C., for the Union Company, argued on the validity of the various regulations relating to Sydney Harbour and the Mercantile Shipping Act and the State and Federal Naviga tion Acts. He said he could not assail his Honor’s findings of fact unless he assailed the question of speed. Mr Justice Halse Rogers interjected that a great part of the case turned on whether the Greycliffe was entitled, in the circumstances, to make her turn without warning. Dr Brussenden submitted that she was not. He added that'the master of any vessel was bound to know what was behind him before he turned. Dr Brissenden, concluding his address, contended that any action of the Tahiti must be supposed to have been taken by her with the knowledge that the Grey cliffc was aware of her presence. Mr Manning, in reply, claimed that the Harbour Trust regulations were valid. He also discussed the duties and functions of a pilot, and submitted that a pilot was entitled to receive the assistance of the officers of a vessel, and if the captain knew he was travelling over eight knots he should have told the pilot. Mr Manning insisted t|iat a. following vessel should, under the regulations, acquaint the leading vessel of its position. The hearing was adjourned.