THE TAINUI DISASTER

Otago Witness, Issue 3443, 9 March 1920, Page 6

THE TAINUI DISASTER

CHARGES DISMISSED. CHRISTCHURCH, March 1. In the Magistrate's Court to-day, before Mr W. R. M'Kean, S.M., Frederick William Partridge, manager in Ohristchurch for the Vacuum Cil Company, was acquitted on a charge of negligence in connection with the loading of the steamship Tainui, ■which was burned off Gore Bay in September last. In acquitting Partridge, his Worship said that it was perfectly clear from the evidence that the benzine placed aboard the Tainui had been in a condition in which it should not have been when placed on board a vessel for transhipment to some other port, but he thought, also, from the evidence, that an inspection of the cargo as it had come off the Caroline would not have revealed that it was in any worse condition than the average. It appeared that not until the cases were disturbed did their ibad condition become noticeable. The same applied when the oases were standing in the trucks. As soon as the "men started to handle the cs,rgo its condition became obvious, and when the cases were put into the slings it was seen that their condition was very far from satisfactory. There was no doubt that cases of that lend should not have been placed aboard the Tainui. The practice that had been followed for a considerable time was one that. should not hav3 been followed, and one that was contrary to the law, but when it earn© to deciding the liability of the defendant Partridge, it was a different matter. The only suggestion that the prosecution could make with regard to Partridge wes that it was bis duty as manager in Chrlstohurch for the company to have made himself familiar ■with the condition of that cargo. The only way in which he could have done that was by standing at the ship's side and watching

the cargo being put aboard, and that would not form any- part of the duty of the company's manager in Christchurch. Some Idea of the condition of the cargo could have been ..obtained from the Railway Department's receipts,- but it had not been shown that the latter had come under the notice of Partridge. There was no real duty resting upon the Vacuum Oil Company to make itself familiar with the condition of this cargo, since it was clear from the evidence that the custom was to place the responsibility in that direction upon the officers of on-carrying ships. Both captain and mate had been to some extent supervising the loading of the Tainui that day. It would be absurd . to stiggest that the manager of the Vacuum Oil Company was liable to a fortnight's imprisonment for not making himself familiar with the state of the cargo when ho knew that the custo-n was for the officers of the ship to decide whether or not the cargo was in a lit condition to be taken aboard. It certainly seemed that the proper persons to decide this were the officers of the ship. It had not been shown that there was any breach by Partridge of any specific duty imposed upon him by the Statdte. The regulations under which the information was laid was a very wide one, and might, Mr M'Kean thought, be extended to include a great many persons other than those concerned in the present charge. Had it been shown that Partridge had had some personal knowledge of the condition of the cargo there would have been some case for him to answer. As it vas no case had been made out against him, and the information would be dismissed. Sir John Findlay opened his defence on behalf cf the defendants, Needham and &!.3&?.11ie. He felt sure, he said, that he would be entitled to the dismissal of the informations without further trouble, but his Instructions were not to ask for that. He had been instructed to take a course

that would make for the fullest possible investigation and publicity, and that would show that the Refrigerating Company did not seek shelter under any technical defence. The company wanted the fullest possible .'nvestigation of the whole of the circumstances of the loading of the Tainui, of her construction, and of the acts of every officer connected with the refrigerating company which in any way bore upon the position. That would serve the purpose of clearing the public mind of any element of suspicion that there was out of gaol someone who should be in gaol for the Tainui disaster.

Several witnesses gave evidence as to the Tainui being well conditioned. March 2.

The Tainui case was resumed this morning-, when further evidence for the defence was heard in the case in w r hich Frederick John Needham, Shipping manager, and Claude Smellie, shipping clerk, New Zealand Refrigerating Company, were charged with negligence. Archibald Walker, surveyor of ships for Lloyd's at Wellington, said he did not think it possible that the disaster had been caused by an explosion in the stokehold. He had given the matter careful consideration, and had come to the conclusion that the origin of the explosion must have been on deck. Cross-examined, witness said he knew that the benzine cargo put aboard the Tainui wa3 bad. If a shipping clerk taw the condition of the cargo he would expect him to notify his officer, but not to interfere with the loading of the! ship. Alister M'Lenn Wright, chemist to the 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 explosive qualities of benzine. He concluded that the explosion was caused by a naked light being thrown on deck. Gerald Fitzgerald, engineer, of Welling-

ton, also expressed the opinion that the explosion occurred on deck. The defendant Smellie said that at the time of the disaster he had had the position of shipping clerk to the Refrigerating Company for three or four months. He know nothing about the loading or stowage of cargo. The cargo ex Caroline was the first benzine cargo he had had anything to do with; therefore he could not say whether the cargo was a good, bad,- or average one. The captain and mate had every chance of seeing what was the condition of the cargo put aboard the Tainui. On September 15 he saw some of the cases, but it did not occur to him that the captain was neglecting his duty in allowing the cargo on board. He considered the captain, who ha,d 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, and one of the defendants, said he had nothing to do with the soundness or condition of cargoes. No part of his duties took him near the ahir> to see the oargo. It was a physical impossibility for him to be there. The last time he was in Lyttelton prior to 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 see the cargo. He knew nothing whatever about its condition, with the exception that he was told that there had been a break in the insulated cargoes of the Tainui, and benzine had leaked through. He thought a case had fallen heavily and done this. On. no occasion had he given Shiellie the right to interfere with a master of a ship, and he would have resented the fact if Smellie had done so. No instructions were given to Smellie to order the captain or mate to take in oargo they did not desire to take.

Wuliam Murray, managing director of

the New Zealand Refrigerating Company, said he, cs general manager, had nearer at any time interfered with the captain as to the receipt of'cargo. It was untrue that witness or anyone in the company had endeavoured to feet the captain to hasten the stowage of cargo or to any aboard that he would be inclined to reject. He regarded any such suggestion as a vile, wicked, and malicious calumny, which he absolutely repudiated and most strongly resented. The company had since ce_ased to carry petroleum or benzine, and Sir John Findlay said that, while he would admit that negligence had been shown in the loading of the cargo, it was not on the part of the two defendants.

The magistrate reserved his decision until to-morrow.

March 4.. In dismissing the charges against Needham and Smellic, Mr W. R. M'Kean, S.M., said the Tainui was in the hands of a master, who was a capable and competent officer, although it was hard to imagine why a careful master should have accepted such cargo. The magistrate considered there was no ground at all for the suggestion made by the prosecution ' that some limitation had been imposed by the owners on the captain's authority. He accepted without hesitation the emphatic statement of the managing director, that no instructions were given by him, or by any employee of his company, to accept this cargo, or to hasten the loading. It was quite possible, the magistrate added, that the captain, knowing the construction of his "ship, thought the risk of danger was small, as the holds were waterproof. The risk of benzine escaping except in form of vapour through the hatch was small. Evidenceof experts went to show that the explosion was due to the fumes from the hatch coming in contact with a naked flame on the deck. Sir John Findlay suggested that it was not negligence to stow cases of benzine in a hold that was benzine '■ and vapour-proof, but he did not think it necessary to decide this point. He was doubtful whether the regulation under which the charge was laid was intended to apply to the loading of leaking oases of benzine. It was not contended by the defendants that the war regulations did not apply > and he would therefore assume that the stowage of benzine in leaky receptacles was an act which endangered the safety of the Tainui, • and that if either of the defendants was responsible for the stowage he had committed a breach of the regulations. He was of opinion that neither of the defendants was in any way responsible for the stowing of the cargo, and that no duty was oast on either of them fco make himself familiar with the condition of this particular cargo. The defendants' employers had provided a vessel that was seaworthy, and better adapted for carrying a benzine cargo than were many other wooden vessels. They had appointed a capable and competent master, and they and; their employees were entitled to assume the master would carry out liis duties properly. That it was custorr-ary to recognise the reisponsiblity of the master in the acceptance of cargo was by the evidence of witnesses called by the defence, and also of some of those called for the prosecution. A civil responsibility, of course, attached to the owners of a. ship for the negligence of their master, but the wide personal responsibility which was fixed on the master could not be extended to every other person employed by the owners of the vessel. The question of liability for negligence could. not arise at all until it was established that the man who had been negligent owed some duty to the person who sought to make them liable, and as a general rule no penal consequences were incurred when there had been no personal neglect or default. If he could hold that the persons charged had committed an offence he would have to hold that the men who stowed the cargo were equally guilty of the offence. Neither of the defendants was guilty of the offence charged, and the information musi, therefore, be dismissed.