THE TANIWHA-PATIKI COLLISION.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXII, Issue 272, 26 November 1901, Page 4

THE TANIWHA-PATIKI COLLISION.

RESULT OF THE INQUIRY.

BOTH CERTIFICATES KETURNED.

The Court of Nautical Enquiry gave its decision yesterday afternoon Into the circumstances surrounding the collision between the Northern Company's steamers Taniwha and Patiki m the Netherton reach of the Thames River, on Ist ult. Mr. Brabant. S.M. in giving the decision of-the Court, said that the questions- - for decision were whether the masters- were justified in going at the speed "they maintained, whether they..were shpithandfed, and whether either 6r both masters were culpable -in- -respect to the accident, or whether, taking into consideration the intricate navigation and the peculiar circumstances, they should be exonerated. After reviewing the facts the Court concluded that the speed was not excessive. •■ The Patiki was not fully manned, but there was no statutory provision except that she must carry a master and an engineer, and the "absence of an A.B. had nothing to do with the. occurrence. It seemed a question for the authorities where so dangerous an explosive as gelignite should be conveyed up a river like the Paeroa at ! night. The accident appeared to have been caused by the respective helmsmen following different and conilicting rules. The master of the Patiki followed the rule said to be. in force with the Northern Steamship Company of allowing the larger vessel the deeper side of the river, while the helmsman, being ignorant of the rule, followed the rule of the road. It seemed that the rule followed by the Northern Company would be impracticable were the traffic on the river to increase, unless there was some mode of identifying- each vessel each night as she approached, but if the rule was to be followed steps should be taken to have it understood. Probably the proper .course -would be. to have a special rule for inland navigation made under, article 30 of the : regulations for preventing collisions. Under the special circumstances, although this rule seemed to ' have caused the casualty, the Court did not' feel justified in holding either master responsible, and their certificates were accordingly returned, no order being made as to costs.