TOTAL LOSS OR NOT?

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17570, 22 June 1925, Page 8

TOTAL LOSS OR NOT?

STRANDING OF THE WAR LORD. SUPREME COURT ACTION. Ter Press Association. ’ GISBORNE, June 22. The stranding of the schooner War Lord at \\ aikokopu on July 7 last and the subsequent refusal of the underwriters to reimburse the owners to the extent of £2050, for which the vessel was insured against absolute total loss, was the basis of an action commenced in the Suprem c Court today. The owner of the ship was Lionel Georgo Clare, with whom the National Bank joined as plaintiff. Defendants were’ the Canton Insurance Company. Plaintiffs contend that the vessel was a total loss, and that they were entitled to recover the insurance. The defence alleges first, 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 less. The allegation is also made that the vessel would not have been a. complete loss had proper steps been taken to refloat it after stranding. Captain John Lowry described the. circumstances of the stranding of the War Lord. He anchored in the centre of the bay a mile off-shore. The starboard anchor, of lf)cwt, was put out on a sixty fathoms chain. A heavy sea was running and the cable parted. The second, lower anchor had had to be slipped on the previous trip and was then on the wharf waiting for them. Two kedges were lashed together and were put over the stern but the schoonon a sandy bottom and was gradually washed up on the beach Had the scwt lower anchor been aboard it wpuld not have availed. -Mr Justice Ostler: If you had had two anchors you would have had both out during the gale? Witness: Not necessarily. He added that he was quite content to proceed to sea with a ship equipped as she was. The vessel was better equipped than was required by the Marine Dcpartifiefit.