WRECK OF THE EUNICE

Wanganui Herald, Volume LII, Issue 15529, 5 June 1918, Page 5

WRECK OF THE EUNICE

DAMAGE TO SOUTH HOLE. BOARD CLAIMS DAMAGES. NEGLIGENT NAVIGATION ALLEGED. At the Supreme Court this morning an interesting civil action was commenced before His Honor the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) and a special jury. The action was a claim for £654/10/- damages, made by the Wanganui Harbour Board against the New Zealand Refrigerating Company, Ltd. The statement of claim set out that on the 26th day of September, 1917, the defendant company so negligently navigated its auxiliary scow Eunice that the said scow collided with and damaged a pier belonging to and under the control of the plaintiff board at the entrance to the Wanganui Rlv.er, within the limits of the port of Wanganui, and forming part of the harbour works erected thereein by the plaintiff Board. Mr Morrison, of Wellington, and Mr C. C. Hutton appeared for the plaintiff board, and Sir John Findlay and Mr C. P. BroWn for the defendant. The following were selected for Hie special jury:—F. J. Denton, H. Collier, A. J. Weekes, M. T. Shewan, D. Cullinane, R. J. Jackson, F. C. Allpress, C. G,. Wehgter, C. N. Raine, A. A. Willis, J. A. Thomson, H. Stone. Mr Collier was chosen foreman. Mr Morrison, before commencing his case, asked his Honor whether e onus of proof of negligence lay with the plaintiff or the defendant. His Honor: Who avers it? Mr Morrison replied that the plaintiff did, but submitted that the onus of disproving negligence was upon the defendant. Sir John Findlay submitted that if the plaintiff alleged negligence it hould prove It. It was agreed that the plaintiff should open, with the opportunity of calling rebutting evidence if necessary. Mr Morrison then applied for an amendment to the amount claimed from £654/10/- to £757/15/-. Sir John Findlay objected to the amendment, and said that if it were pressed he would have to apply for an adjournment. Mr Morrison said he would not press it. The taking of evidence was then commenced. John Ross Sutherland, foreman of works for the Wanganui Barbour Board, was the first witness called. He said tiie estimate of cost for repairing the pier after it was damaged by the Eunice was £654 10s. The work was almost completed, and had exceeded the estimate. To Sir John Findlay: The work could not have been completed more promptly. The price of materials was continually going up.

STORY OF THE WRECK. Peter Mclntyre, pilot and harbourmaster, Wanganui, was next called to give evidence. On September 26tb witness was at the signal station when the Eunice was coming in. The operation of trigging a vessel in was done by signals from the signal station. On the 26th the wind was a westtnorthwest fresh breeze, and sea moderate The weather prior to this had not been exceptional. Witness saw the Eunice beginning to take the bar about three o’clock. It was then three-quarter flood tide. He gave the signal to take the bar and to keep to the north of the centre linn, This would allow a little latitude in case the wind pushed her south a little. The bar was about 500 feet from the end of the north mole The vessel had no difficulty in crossing the bar ,and was taking the course he had suggested. She kept on this course till she altered her course for the south mole. She would then be about 70 or 100 feet away from abreast of the end of the mile. The vessel had made a splendid course to that point. She was coming in under almost all sail, also under engine power. If the vessel had taken any great sheer it could not have escaped his notice. The Eunice went off her course very suddenly, about six or seven points and was tending then east, south-east. There was nothing in the water or wind to cause her to alter her course. The tide was still coming in. and the current would be with her. He could only account to the turn by the wheel being put to port. He thought she was travelling a good eight knots. After continuing well over towards the south mole, the vessel began to oome round quickly. She was then pretty close to the mole. She struck the end of the mole on her starboard quarter Immediately she struck, she lost her way and waa blown Ey the wind and bumped on the stone and the wind blew her against the structure. The crew got aahoro with their gear. It was possible that the ship could have continued on her course east and gone out to sea. It would be a risky course. The skipper cduld have stopped one of hip engines or gone asters, on it. He thought the vessel could have been brought round quicker by means of the engines. After the accident witness wont to the scene on the Togo. The sea was" in the same condition as when the Eunice tried to take the bar. To his Honor: The Eunice eventually broke the m'ole and was driven dp on the beach. To Mr Huttftn: The Togo turned round opposite 1*" Eunice and turned with oaee. He did not le me ruber the captain of the Eunice giving any explanation as to how he got on to the mojfc. Witness could see no reason why tire helm waa put to port; it was not a careful act, considering the course the vessel took. Witness was not aware of any set at the entrance to the channel There was a surface current, with the wind blowing, but so far a* be knew there was no current at the mouth of the river. Since the accident witness bad made certain tests with Captain Black to find out whether there was any set or, current. Tests were made on September 28 and 29. No evidence of any set was discovered. The buoys turned to the north. His Honor: There is supposed to be a current going to the north. Witness; Last week, with Captains MoNab and Black, made further testa These tests, taken at various times and states of the tide, showed no cross’ sets at the mouth of the river other than those laid down on the chart. When the Eunice struck the weather was perfectly clear. Mr Hutton; Can you think of any justification, consistent with sound seamanship, for the vessel going off the courde as she did? Witness: No. DISCUSSION ON SET. To Sir Johiu About 90 teste owe

taken on the ebb tide, and at no tias did the set go south.

Sir John: Vou know mariners do not agree with your views?—l have beard rumours of it. , Have you heard mariners say that sometimes there was little or no set; that it was governed by weather conditions ?—Yes. Do you know that there is a memorial signed by 27 mariner* trading to this port disagreeing with yonr views?—l believe so. Do you know that they say that (hero was a dangerous set at certain times under certain weather conditions?—l have heard of it. Do you know how many vessels have touched on the south mole ■- The Eunice aiid tto Storinbird. 1 do cot know of others. Would you be surprised to knoW that the 27 mariners say that vessels havo touched on the south mole eight turn*? Does not all the currents depend fo* , direction upon weather conditioner— Yes. There was no set. Do you remember the lose 6f the Monarch?— Yes. What Winds were blowing?— Westerly. Assuming that the wreck took place either in the river or on the bar, wliat direction did the bodies go?—To the south. What took them?— The sea. Witness, continuing, said it #as a very short time from the time the Eunice turned and the time she struck. Very little would have cleared her. Do you know there is a complaint by mariners about the extension of the .south mole?—I have bound of it. Witness, continuing, said then* was no reason for the vessel to change he* course. He could not suggest any reason for it, except it was either done stupidly or wilfully. Would you ho surprised to know that on the date of the wreck there was a gale at Opunake and a moderate gal* at Patoa ? Do you think such a gal* would affect the sets in the bight?— - No: I don't think eo.

Sir John: W>ll, I am going to produce evidence to say that it does. (Proceeding.)