REMARKABLE STORY OF THE SEA

Gisborne Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 3796, 5 April 1913, Page 3

REMARKABLE STORY OF THE SEA

CHEMICAL EXPLOSIONS AND LOSS OF A SHIP. Tho extraordinary circumstances which attended the last voyage of the steamer Hardy were narrated at the hearing of an action brought by Ingram and Hoyle, Ltd., of Lambeth, against Services Maritimes du Treport, in London last month, in which the plaintiffs claimed £1,368 12s, in respect of the loss of cases of mineral waters, shipped on board the defendants’ steamer Hardy for carriage from Treport to London. Mr. Leek, K.C., for the plaintiffs, said that the steamer sailed from Treport on December 11, 1911. Two tons of metallic sodium, contained in twenty cases, had been taken on board at Treport, and stowed on the fore hatch. Heavy weather was encountered, and Large quantities of water were shipped. The water penetrated to the sodium, which gave off hydrogen, explosions .followed, and the vessel was lost.

Mr. Justice Serutton: I think I recollect the nature of this sodium. When I was at school we used to place a small piece of it in a glass, and the experiment of its catching fire in the water and jumping about caused much amusement.

Mr. Leek, continuing, said the sodium had been covered by tarpaulin and lashed-to the hold, but the heavy sea caused the cases to break away. Not being aware of its nature, the captain played the hose upon the sodium,. as it gave off hydrogen, and immediately a series of explosions oc curred. Then he decided to heave the lot into the sea. The result was that several cases jumped back on board. The vessel also carried tallow, and it melted. The sailors eonsequently were sliding all over the ship. Then the hold caught fire, and the sodium, getting into the engine room, drove the engineers out. Th ship being likely to break up the captain gave the order to take to tho boats. The mate jumped overboard and was drowned. ,Seven of the crew were badly injured, aiid the captain himself was severely burned. The ship broke her bade and afterwards sank.

Evidence was given on behalf of tho plaintiffs to the effect that the sodium ought to have been placed in the ho.' under cover.

Mr. Justice Serutton: Tho water apparently got at one of the cases. Then you got “the devil among the tailors” at once. (Laughter.) Evidence was called for the defence.

One of tho directors of the defend ant company said the Board of Trade regulations for the carriage of dangerous goods by sea did not specially deal with metallic sodium until after tho loss of the Hardy. Mr. Justice Scrutton held that the sodium was in insufficiently strong cases, and was stored without sufficient care having regard to its dangerous character. He found that the shipowners did not know tho dangerous nature of the substance or they would haye taken further precautions. The cause of the firo was tho breaking on board of tho seas, and that was a peril of the sea. On the agreement between tho parties, however, tho shipowners were not protected. Tho agreement was ambiguous. A shipowner to protect himself from liability must do so in clear, intelligent terms. That had not been done in this case, and there would be judgment for the plaintiffs, for the sum claimed, with costs*.