THE KAPANUI COLLISION.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVII, Issue 36, 10 February 1906, Page 4

THE KAPANUI COLLISION.

CAPTAIN SODTHGATE OX TBIAL. THE EVIDENCE CONCLUDED. JUDGE'S SUMMING UP. VEEDICT OF NOT GUILTY. In the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon before his Honor Mr. Justice Edwards, the trial of William James Southgate on a charge of manslaughter in connection with, the Claymore-Kapanui collision was continued. A number of witnesses were called by the Crown to show that the navigation of the Kapanui by the accused prior to the collision was not what they would have regarded as correct under the circumstances. Alexander McKenzie, master of the steamer Gael, which was ahead of the Claymore and safely passed "the Kapa-; nui, gave evidence of the vessel's movements., and expressed the opinion that had he been in Captain. Southgate's position, he would not have gone to starboard as did the accused. He did not believe the narrow channel rule (keeping to the vessels' starboard side of the harbour) should apply in Auckland harbour. Albert Duder, harbourmaster, deposed that he had had 21 years' experience at sea, and possessed a foreign-going masters certificate. The '"prevention of collision" rules applied in the harbour, not the "narrow channel' rule. Nobody had observed the "narrow channel" rule in Auckland harbour. Like the previous witnesses, Captain Duder was asked what he would have done in the accused's place. "I would hurry up the red light," replied the witness. Mr. Tole: And if you had no time! As I am green to green, I would keep on, and probably slow the engines. Mr. Tole: Under any circumstances would you have crossed the Claymore's bow?— Witness: Not with one unlighted side. Mr. Martin: Do you say it was a careless thing?— Witness: No. an improper thing. In Captain Southgate's case it was the reverse of carelessness. He was full of anxiety, which made him commit that blunder. His Honor: Remembering your responsible position, and disregarding the phrases of Mr. Martin or Mr. Tole, tell us in what light you regard his action? —Witness: A very bad error of judgment, your Honor, in altering his course. Cardinal Sainty, who stated that tie had had 26 years' experience as an Auckland pilot, expressed the opinion that the narrow channel rule should not apply in the harbour. He thought the Kapanui should not have crossed the Claymore under any circumstances. Charles Flemming, shipping master and superintendent of mercantile marine, Auckland, holding a foreign going master's certificate, also declared that "green to green" would have been the Kapanui'a correct course under the circumstances. The witness regarded Auckland harbour as a place where the narrow channel rule should he observed- He would not consider it negligence if a light went out, as the best of lights sometimes did. Captain Mewitt, recalled by the jury, said he did not at any .time immediately prior to the collision alter his helm so as to turn his vessel to port. The evidence of the accused before the Coroner was put in by the Crown, and read to the jury. THE DEFENCE. Mr. Martin opened the case for the defence by addressing the jury. Unlike most collision cases, he said, there was very little of any conflict of evidence. Captain Southgate, according to the evidence of the prosecution, was a sober and careful seaman. Only once had his conduct as a seaman been challenged, which was in connection with a slight collision for which he was held blameless. Hβ had a clear record for 26 years, and was he the man who would become utterly reckless in a sudden manner? Whatever he did, he did honestly and bona fide, believing his action to be the best under thi? circumstances. He might have done what other seamen, looking at it in the calmness of the Supreme Court, would say they would not have done, but whatever he did he thought best under the circumstances. How much time had Captain Southgate in which to think ? Between the two boats, they would be travelling 18 or 19 knots, and Captain Mewitt's evidence was that they were 400 yards apart after the Kapanui passed the Gael. One of those boats would cover the distance in 78 seconds, but the two boats approaching would reach each other in 39 seconds. Captain Southgate had to make up his mind what to do, and to do it. in half a minute. Would the jury say that because he had committed an error under such circumstances, that he was guilty of manslaughter? Captain Southgate did not know that ~the,Gael was running an extra trip, and mistook her Claymore. When he sighted the second vessel lii? thought it must be the Thames boat, and if he elected to run green to green, he would be crossing the path which the Thames boat should take. Mr. Martin suggested that Captain Mewitt's hurried blowing of the whistle three times would pound to Captain Southgate as one blast, indicating a starboard course. The Court then adjourned until this morning. CAPTAIN SOUTHGATE'S EVIDENCE. When the court resumed this morning Captain Southgate went into the witness box. He said that during a forty years' experience on the ?ea he had never met with an accident until thp collision. When he came up the harbour in charge of the Kapanui on the night of December 23rd he passed the Ga*l, which at the time he took to be tho Clayninro. He regarded the harbour as a narrow channel, but passed the Gael starboard to starboard because thrre was no room between it and the ininp field. Just at that moment the port light was reported to be out, and he ordered it to be replaced as quickly as possible. The Claymore was coming towards him end on. with side and head lights showing. It was necessary to alter the course, and he followed the rule by going to starboard. Then he heard one -ast of the Claymore's whistle, and soon afterwards the crash came. The Hon. J. A. Tole: Why did you not burn a flare or do something while your port light was out? Witness: It was as quick to light up the port light. You knew the position ■was dangerous when the vessels came within seventy yards, but instead of altering your course you kept on without stopping or reversing your engines? It was the only thing to do. Why did you not give some indication of what you were going to do?— Because he had already whistled, and I thought he was going the other way. His Honor: One witness said if ke

■—__;__^^w-.. heard one whistle he would have t__m_»*'everything all right. ™«>8» Mr. Tole: Do you say Mewitt alfew_ his course?—Ho did. 01 «W| Now, at the eleventh hour, what dr.■ ____ say you should have done?—l did -_? £? i sider green to green prudent at the criK* cal moment. It is all very nice to _£__ into court and say you will do this m! that, but put yourself in the _am o ' W tion. I did what I thought was right Was not the harbour clear on the norfc side? Why did you go into danger»-_T_ might have been, but I don't think so. His Honor: If the narrow channel role applies, and the other man is willing fa keep it, he did right. * Mr. Tole: Did you lose your headf Certainly not. ' ""* Would you do tbe same thing agai_i_, Ido not say I would not do it again. - Do you now say you made a mistake!... I do not. Supposing both sidelights were out what would you have done?—l suppose rwould have stopped. You put both lights out if your red was out and you went to starboard. Joseph Rogers, mate of the Claymore, was called to show that 30 seconds be, fore the collision he saw the hull of the Kapanui. He did not believe there w»_ any position of danger at that moment William Pearce, sailor on the Clay, more, said he heard but one blast of the whistle, and similar evidence wag given by Alice Scott, a passenger on the Claymore. -. -. Charles Morgan, a seaman on th« " Kapanui, gave evidence in regard to the good condition of the steamer's lights' Lawrence Frost, engineer of theKapanui, stated that when the port lamp was recovered from the wreck ita wick was intact. 'JUDGE'S SUMMING UP. His Honor, addressing the jury, __id they would have to consider whether it was true that the wreck occurred from the neglect of the accused to perform what was his legal duty. It was the duty of .the master of a vessel to'see that its lights were in order, and it.had not been shown that the port light went out by reason of the accused's neglect to do something which have prevented the occurrence. They would agree tlmt it was reprehensible to leave such an important matter to boys without the supervision of a competent officer. The port light went out, and under, these circumstances the accused passed the Gael green to green as was undoubtedly the most prudent course to follow. Then suddenly he swerved across towards North Shore across the bows of the Claymore, thereby extinguishing from the sight of those on the Claymore the green light, the only light besides the mast-head light wliich wae then showing. According to the nit* row channel rule, approaching vessels passed on the starboard sid,e of the channel, but it was doubt,ful whether jthis rule applied. This certainly ought to be settled, and it was reasonable to assume that the prisoner thought it ap- | plied, and that it was his duty to go to. starboard. He thought the prisonershould not have gone to starboard. Ha should have kept on his course, showing, green to green, and then the accident would not have occurred. However, assuming that the accident was caused _j a grievous error on the part of the prisoner, still it did not follow that it was neglect for which he waa criminally I__ble. It was difficult t» say how.it waa neglect. A man was in a positioa where he had two rules. These:;rulea_ like, all rules, were not intended -to be cast-iron rules, so that a man should send his ship to the bottom'to. keep them. It was a grievous error of judgment on the prisoner* part, which resulted in the wreck «>f the ship, and what waa more important', a.very ser« ions loss of life, buf It could not ba said to be neglect. His Honor pointed out that none of the Crown witnesses, including men of bi<ih standing in tha. nautical world, would suggest that tha " prisoner's action amounted to neglect. The nautical inquiry showed that Mim judgment could uot be relied upon for. the safety of life and property, but that did not justify sending him to priboii for manslaughter. If the. jury found that the prisoner bj, omission without lawful excuse, to ob» serve his legal duty, had caused the death of the persons mentioned in the indictment, then it was their duty tek return a verdict of guilty, but if they, thought the prisoner was attentive to his duty, and although he exercised his judgment, an accident occurred whicresulted in loss of life, It was their duty, to return a verdict of "not guilty." OF NOT GUILTY. The jury, which retired for ~ abotv. half-an-hour. found the prisoner "No, Guilty," and his Honor ordered Capita in Southgate to be discharged. Two recommendations were made bf, the jury as follows:—Considering tha great risk to human life involved, coastal steamers carrying passengers should he more efficiently manned; and that the Marine Department of New Zealand should define what harbours in which the narrow channel regulations should apply. His Honor promised, to forward tht recommendations to the pjoper quart-TV