INJURED WATERSIDERS

Otago Witness, Issue 3349, 22 May 1918, Page 40

INJURED WATERSIDERS

SECURE SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGES. Full particulars n connection with tho claim for damages by four Auckland waterside workers, recently heard at Melbourne, ;ire to hand. It will be remembered that these men were injured by sulphuric acid pn board the Monowai at Auckland. Tho hearing of the cases commenced before ]\li- Justice Cussen and a special jury of six hi the First Civil Court, Melbourne, on Thursday, 18th u'.t., and lasted till the evening of Wednesday, Ist met., when, as already reported, tlu jury returned a verdict for £6850 damages. The individual amounts recovered were as follow: Charles Faulkirer (totally blind), £2000; James Coutts (totally blind), £2000; Henry Barnes (practically blind), £2000; George Jones (body scars) £600; and Thomas Anderson (body sca'-s), £250. The jury was absent 35 minutes, and it added a rider expressing sympathy with the injured men, and stating that the evidence had disclosed an extraordinary state of things. Had the accident occurred while the deck of the Monowai was crowded with passengers the consequences might have been much more serious, and innocent women and children have been the victims. In the circumstances, the jury was of opinion that dangerous cargo should not be shipped without more rigid inspection, and it asked his Honor to forward its recommendation in that connection to the proper authorities. Mr Justice Cussen undertook to do so.

The first two day's of the hearing were occupied in reading the 'evidence of 25 witnesses taken on commission at Auckland in January, but tho following witnesses gave viva .voce evidence for the plaintiffs: Frederick Palliser Worley. M.Sc.. Professor of Chemistry at Auckland University College; Edward S. Richards, M.Sc., lecturer on chemistry, of the Working Men's College, Melbourne; James Murray Drewette, master of the Monowai; Charles Weaver, president of tho Auckland Waterside Workers' Union; James Ducrow, of Footscray, Melbourne, an ex-employee of tho defendant company, the Wiseler Proprietary Company; Charles Faulkiner and Henry Barnes, two of the injured men. Tho defendant company averred that the injured men themselves had been negligent in handling tho drums of acid, but no evidence was led in support of the plea-, and reliance was placed rather on the allegation that tho proximate cause of tho accident was the heated condition of a steam-pipe on tho deck of the vessel, near which the drum was standing. Lengthy evidence was tendered for the defence, and among experts called were Professor Fawsitt, Professor of Chemistry of Sydney University, and Dr Green, D.Sc, of Melbourne. The cylinder or drum from which the acid escaped was produced in court, as was also the rubber plug or stopper used to secure it. The defendant company gave evidence to tho effect that it had used the rubber stopper for 10 years. A legal point was raised for the defence—« namely, that the defendant company owed no duty to tho plaintiffs to use care, and ( it was agreed to hear argument on the point later on the motion for judgment.