MISHAP TO SHIP.

Taranaki Daily News, 23 June 1925, Page 6

MISHAP TO SHIP.

STRANDING OF SCHOONER CLAIM FOR INSURANCE. ACTION IN SUPREME COURT. By Telegraph —Press Association. Gisborne, June 22. The stranding of the schooner War Lord at Waikokopu on July 7 last and the subsequent refusal of the underwriters to reimburse the owners to the extent of £2650 for which the vessel was insured against absolute total loss, Was the basjs of an action commenced in the Supreme Court to-day. The owner of the vessel was Lionel George Clare, with whom the National Bank Was joined as plaintiff. Defendants were the Canton Insurance Company. Plaintiffs contend that the vessel was an absolute total loss and therefore they are entitled to recover the insurance. The defence alleges firstly, that the vessel was not properly equipped as required under the terms of the policy, and secondly, that the vessel was not an absolute total loss. The allegation is also made that the vessel would not have been a complete loss had proper steps Ibeen taken to refloat it after the stranding. Mr. Lusk, of Napier, with Mr. Nolan appears for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Myers, K.C., of Wellington, with Mr. Burnard, for the defendants. WASHED ON THE BEACH. Captain John Lowry described the circumstances of the vessel’s stranding. He anchored in the centre of the bay about a mile from the shore. The starboard anchor weighing lOcwt. and 60 fathoms of chains were put out. Heavy seas were running and eventually the cable parted. There was only one bower anchor on the vessel, the second being on the Waikokopu wharf waiting for them to pick it up; it had been slipped in the Ibay on a previous trip. When the cable parted two kedge anchors were lashed together and put out astern. The ship grounded on a sandy bottom and was gradually washed up on the beach and worked round broadside on. Had the scwt. bower anchor been aboard it would not have availed as the 10 cwt. anchor'failed to hold. Mr. Justice Ostler: If you had two anchors you would have had them both out during the gale? Witness: Not necessarily. His Honour: But when she went you would immediately have put the other out? Witness: I expect so. His Honour: Of course you would. “You would not be much of a captain if you did not. CONDITION OF VESSEL. Further questioned, witness said that he was quite content to proceed to sea with the ship equipped as she was. His Honour: Do you think you weije sufficiently equipped to stand up to any weather you were likely t® encounter? Witness: I was better equipped than was required by the Marine Department .

Captain Lowry detailed the salvage operations, statiug that there had been no unnecessary delay in setting to work and no expense had been spared in securing gear. Cross-examined, witness said he was without a second anchor from early in May till July, during which time he had made two trips to Waikokopu and had made one trip to Auckland with a borrowed second anchor.

Witness stated he was first offered salvage gear on July 8, but he did not obtain it till July 14. Witness denied that the Waikokopu wharfinger, after receiving a telegram from Clare advising him not to incur heavy expenditure, that salvage gear would not be wanted. He also denied alleged conversations with the same man and Mr. Somerfield (chairman of the Waikokopu Harbour Board) and Mr. Weaver, that the vessel was floating on July 16 and he could have got the vessel off .with a kedjge and a good rope. Lionel George Clare, managing owner of the vessel, said the ship was insured for £2650. Witness was in Wellington at the time of the accident, and hearing of the. stranding he urged that every effort should be made to get the boat off. The cost of the salvage operations had been £lOO9. Witness admitted sending telegrams advising that it might be better to hand over the vessel to the insurance company if the expense of salvaging was too high. The hearing was adjourned till tomorrow.