Mr Sim opened the case for the defence, and submitted that on the facts the defen dant was entitled to a favorable verdict, as he was not responsible for the accident, and had not contributed to it in any way. What the defendant said was that the plaintiff and these with whom he was working had no right to moor the steamer in the wav they had done, and that the method they adopfed was improper and unreasonable. It was not suggested that the plaintiff and the others who were working with him did not know better, but it was simply a case of the men being in a hurry and not taking the trouble to moor the ship in the proper way. It would be shown that the chock was perfectly fit to be used for the purpose for which it was intended, and that it might have been so used. Assuming, how ever, that they were justified in thinking the chock was not fit to be used, and that the “timber-head” was not to be trusted, why did they' not adopt the course which their own witness (Mr Belcher) said should have been adopted, and have taken the line to the wharf. If they were not satisfied with the appliances on board, there was nothing to prevent them going on the wharf. All they had to do was to bring the steamer alongside the hulk, and if they chose to use those appliances it did not lie in their mouth to complain when it was open to them to adopt another method which their own witness said was proper—namely, to go to the wharf. The evidence for the defence would establish the fact that the moor ing was not carried on in a reason able and proper manner, and that the appliances provided for the purpose were fit and might have been used. There was the further defence that assuming the appliances were not proper and fit to be used for the purpose for which the defence said they should have been used, the plain tiff and those who were working with him were in just as good a position to judge as to the condition of the rail as Mr Mill was. 