NAUTICAL ENQUIRY.

Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 155, 3 July 1899, Page 5

NAUTICAL ENQUIRY.

THE KAPANUI—ROSE CASEY COLLISION.

THE ROSE CASEY TO BLAME.

CAPTAINS' CERTIFICATES RETURNED.

This morning Mr Brabant, S.M., sitting as a Court of nautical enquiry, with Capts. T. Fernandez and J. L. Clark, Assessors, delivered judgment as follows in the Magisterial investigation into the circumstances of the recent collision between the coasting steamers Rose Casey and Kapanui at Warkworth: —

"The facts proved by the evidence are that these steam vessels left Auckland for Mahurangi Harbour on March 22nd; the Rose Casey at 10.30 a.m., and the Kapanui about noon. The last named vessel is the faster of the two. They both entered Mahurangi Harbour the same afternoon, the Rose Casey being first. After entering she turned off to the S.W. side of the channel to discharge into a boat at Jackson's Bay, after which she had to proceed to a point in the harbour opposite Mr Lushington's residence, where it is usual for steamers to discharge passengers, mails, etc., into that gentleman's boat. The Kapanui was entering the harbour shortly after the time when the Rose Casey left Jackson's Bay. but the former proceeded straight up the channel to Lushington's boat, which was then waiting for the steamer. She arrived there and the master had stopped her before the Rose Casey came up from Jackson's Bay. The master of the latter vessel stopped her and reversed the engines, but, it appears, not quite as soon as he should have done, and „she ran into the Kapanui amidships on the port side, and although she had very little way on some damage was done.

"The only possible explanation in my opinion is that the master of the Rose Casey made an error in judging his distance, and did not reverse his engines soon enough; that he reversed to prevent a collision he says himself. Capt. Bazeley however, does not admit that he was to blame for the collision, but asserts that Capt. Southgate was responsible for it. (1) He states that the Rose Casev did not run into the Kapanui, but "that the Kapanui was carried down by the force of the wind aud tide on to the bows of the former vessel. (2) His counsel argues that article 24 of the regulations for preventing collision throws the responsibility of the accident on Capt. Southgate, because as lie says the Kapanui was an overtaking vessel and not a crossing vessel. Before proceeding to remark on these statements and arguments, 1 should point out that the evidence that I have had before me is very contradictory, especially as to courses steered and as to the various positions of the vessels shortly before aud at the time of the collision.

On most material points the statements of Capt. Bazeley and his mate are contradicted by Capt. Southgate and his mate. Fortunately, however, I have had also the evidence of several independent, and reliable witnesses, which cable me to giv c a decision satisfactory to myself and to my assessors. (l) Capt. Bazelev's theory was that the Kapanui was forced on to the bows by the force of tide and wind is impossible of belief; I may characterise it even as absurd It is so for the reason pointed out by Capt. Southgate's counsel, viz., that the tide was flood, that there was no violent wind, and that the Kapanui arrived at the station occupied by Lushington's boat first and had practically no way on at the moment of the collision, which the Rose Casey had. I am satisfied of the truth of these facts from the evidence of Mr Lushington, his boatman and a number of other reliable witnesses, although as I have said these tacts are denied by Capt. Bazeley and several witnesses on his side. (2) With respect to the argument set up by Capt. Bazeley's counsel that because the Kapanui was an overtaking vessel it was her Captain's duty to keep out- of the way of the overtaking vessel This was ably aro- U cd but the argument was based on a uiisconception of the true facts. After entering Mahurangi Harbour the Rose Casey steered a course to a point in Jackson's Bay, which necessitated her travelling about half a mile back to it. again, and to constitute the Kapanui an overtaking yossel her position at the time of the Rose Casey starting from Jackson's Bay, or at some subsequent time, must, have been such that she was more than two points abaft the beam of the Rose Casey. As I have already said, the evidence as to the then positions of the .two vessels, and of the course steered, is contradictory. It is possible that the witnesses" on each side believed what they respectively say to be true. On the other hand, it is possible that the positions given on the chart are fixed by them to fit in with a preconceived theory. I have, however, with the help of my assessors endeavoured to fix these points from the evidence as a whole, and assisted by undisputed facts, and by the chart itself, we think we have been able to place these three positions approximately correctly, and we are satisfied that the Rose Casey and the Kapanui were crossing vessels, and that the Kapanui was not an vessel within the meaning "of the regulations. Further, even if she were so at any time at the time of the collision she had passed and got clear. This conclusion throws the responsibility of keeping out of. the way on the Rose Casey. As I have said, T am satisfied that the Kapanui had reached Lushington's boat and was practically at a standstill before the Rose Casey came up, and it follows that the Captain of the Kapanui could not have avoided the accident, and I accordingly exonerate him. It also follows on these findings of facts that it was the duty of the Captain of the Rose Casey to have got out of the way of the Kapanui, and he had several courses open to him by which he might have avoided the collision. He might have starboarded his helm and proceeded x little further up the river, as Captain Southgate expected him to do. He might have rounded to meet the boat which was pulling round the Kapanui's bows, as Mr Lushington expected he would. He might have passed round the stern of the Kapanui, there being some eight fathoms where the accident took place, or he might have stopped and reversed hif engines, as he did do, and if he had only done so a few seconds earliei no "accident would have happened. 1 md my assessors inspected the damage done to the Kapanui, and it is , evident from the small damage done I that the error in judgment war.s # r.

slight one. It is no part of my duty to assess the value of the damage done. It was sworn, however, by Captain Southgate that the vessel had been injtlred to the extent of £200, and it is, I think, proper to explain why he estimates damages apparently small at that large sum. The damage done to the bridge, the covering boards and netting is but slight. What is considered serious is that two main stringers which are inside the coal bunkers are broken. These stringers are of considerable length, and it is said to/replace them it will be necessary to pull a portion of the port side of the vessel to pieces, and so incur large expense. If it ultimately turns out that the vessel can be repaired without taking to pieces the expense may be comparatively small. I think it right to make one further remark. It appears from direct evidence and from the circumstances generally, that considerable rivalry exists between these two vessels, which are running in opposition to each other, and it is probable that the zeal of each captain to arrive first at the end of the voyage contributed to come extent to cause the accident. I should therefore, I think, point out to them both that such zeal if carried to excess may in the future result in a more serious accident involving loss of property and perhaps of life. I return his certificates (2) to Captain Southgate. Considering the whole circumstances of the case it does not appear to me to be serious enough to make it my duty to suspend Captain Bazeley's certificate, and I therefore return it to him, but I order that he pay the costs of the investigation." The finding was signed by Messrs. H. W. Brabant, S.M., and Captains Thos. Fernandez and J. L. Clark, the assessors, who signified they concurred in the judgment.

On the application of counsel the certificates of the masters of the two steamers were then returned to them.