FOUNDERING OF THE TE AROHA

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 218, 12 September 1907, Page 5

FOUNDERING OF THE TE AROHA

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST OWNER AND MASTER, QUESTION OF RISK. TO .LIVES OF CREW, The brief and ill-fated voyage of the paddle steamer Te Aroha, which left Auckland on the evening of March 31 last on an attempt to navigate her way round to the Waikato River, but foundered when but a little distance beyond Cape Rodney on her way north, was the subject of a prosecution by the 2darine Department in the Police Court, before Messrs Wall and Coleman, J.P.s, this morning, against her owner, Edward Hallett, a settler of the Waikato. and her master, William Thomas Mincham. The charge against the owner was that he did send to sea the British ship Te Aroha in such an unseaworthy state that the lives of divers persons, the officers and crew, were likely to be endangered thereby. The master was charged with having _"taken" the ship to sea while in such condition. Mr BMays conducted for the prosecution, Mr Hallett being represented by Mr Moore. The proceedings, said Mr Mays, in opening the case, were taken under section 224 of the Shipping and Seamen's Act, .1903, sub-section 1 of whioh held that an owner who sent a vessel to sea in an unseaworthy condition was guilty of a crime, unless he could prove that the attending circumstances were reasonable and justifiable. A master, under sub-section 2, was held similarly culpable for taking such a vessel to sea. The boat in question, the paddle steamer Te Aroha, was originally built for river trading purposes about 31 year 3 ago, at the North Shore, her length being 89 feet, extreme beam 15 feet, and her registered tonnage 50. She was fitted with two engines of fourteen horse power, and, shortly after her career commenced, she sailed for Hokianga. She plied on the northern * harbour for a number of years, but about ten years ago she was brought round to Auckland again by the Ferry Company, which had purchased her. After a few months running, however, she was hauled up on the slip, and continued out of commission until last March, when Mr Hallett purchased her, with the view of taking her round to the Waikato River, and there running her. It fair here to say that Mr Hallett, who knew nothing about ships and their requirements, gave an absolutely free hand in the matter of repairs, giving the surveyor of ships full liberty, and offering to foot the bill. Mr Wetherilt recommended certain repairs and alterations, and these were placed in the hands of the Ferry Company. New caulking, planking, and general equipment were carried out, and the vessel was launched. When she entered the water she leaked considerably, but this gradually ceased, the water was got down, and she was cleared, and "Ot away about 10 o'clock on. the evening°of Sunday, March 31, with a crew all told of seven souls. She hadn't gone far, however, before she began to strain and take in water. With the help of the pumps she was kept going until between Point Rodney and Bream Tail, when the opening timbers let in so much water that she became no longer manageable; the coal in the bunkers, moreover, shifted, and burst through the bulkheads, getting into the pumjis and' choking them. The vessel was finally abandoned about half-past six. on the Monday evening, and she foundered an hour or two later.

The position'of the master, continued Mr. Mays, was somewhat different. He was informed by Captain Nicholson, who brought the vessel down from Hokianga ten years ago, and who was one of the moat experienced masters for nursing jobs on the coast, that the vessel was not fit to run out to North Head. Mincham, however, apparently thought other-vise, and took her, thus placing his judgment against Nicholson's.

The question for their worships- to decide was not only whether these two men were culpable. The ownership was admitted and so was the question as to who was master, but if the evidence disclosed that there were others who might be more culpable than either of these men, it would be for the Court to express such an opinion as might result in bringing the right ones to book.

Henry Richard Spence, acting Collector of Customs for the Port of Auckland, said that the vessel was cleared on March 3f, and sailed at 10 p.m. that night, a Sunday evening. He also detailed the communications that passed between the owner and the Marine Department, Wellington, prior to the vessel's departure.

William Pearce, a fireman on the boat, and John Henry Hodgson, an engineer with a river certificate, who was going round to take charge of the vessel when she arrived at the Waikato,. gave evidence as to the gradual flooding of the stokehole, and subsequent loss of steam and loss of control of the vessel.

George Tee, marine engineer, who had charge of the Te Aroha's engine-room, said that steam began to go down and the engines pretty well stopped when she was only about one hour out of Auckland. He put that fact down rather to the coaling than to anything else, however. There was too much coal and too little fire in the bars. He saw things fixed up and she went on again. He himself took the vessel along past Goat Island in his watch, and then went below to his bunk. As far as he could see there was nothing much wrong with the machinery except a broken steam gauge. When he left the engine-rpom there were not two inches more water on Ehe floor than when he went down. She was then hugging as close to the shore as she could without striking. About halfpast one he woke up in his bunk and found the water splashing about in it.

Mr. Mays: And did you begin to look round? —Oh, no, it was too late for looking round. I began to pack up my things to leave.

You thought it was all over, then?— I knew it was pretty welP-ime to move.

Didn't you go along to see how the fires were?— Yes, I went and looked in at the fireman, and threw some logs down to him, telling him that a bit of wood might brighten up the fire a bit.

Mr. Mays: Did you think she was seaworthy when you shipped on her?— Well, I didn't make a thorough inspection of her, but I certainly wouldn't have gone to sea in her if Captain Nicholson had not asked mc to go. I knew nothing about what repairs were done. We tried the ejector in the harbour, hut as it wouldn't work, we didn't oother about it.

Do you consider the lives of the crew were at risk? — : I told the captain that he would be lucky to get to Whangarei. Yes, L do consider that the lives of the men were at risk after we passed Rodney.

John William Nicholson, master mariner, said in evidence that he had known the Te Aroha for a number of years, but that he did not bring hex down from

Hokianga ten years ago. In reply to Mr Mays he declared that he would.on: no account.have fcetihis foot on bdard her. ' " '"" '"*■ ' - '"''"-' "' ; Mr Mays; Was that .because she, was unseaworthy or because, of the way youconsidered you had been treated?— Simply because of the treatment I had received. If they had come down to'the requirements I would have taken her. over myself. To Mr Moore: Had he been aware that the Goverrrnient survey had been passed, and ho friction had existed, he would certainly have had a good inspec- ■ tion himself before taking her out. What he wanted would not have been an expensive job. What he wanted was beams across ship to prevent the paddle boxes from straining. What do you consider the whole repairs should have cost?—Oh, I cannot say. What I wanted would not have j amounted to much more than £10 extra, I suppose. Mr Mays: Would you expect a comi petent shipwright to know that two feet or more of the covering board was missing?—l can't say. If there were two feet missing before she was launched, would you expect a competent shipwright to find it- out?— _*s. Well, apart from that possibility, how would you account for the fact that about two feet of the covering hoard was missing? She might have been labouring in the seas, and all the strain was on the side. THE DEFENCE. Mr Moore, for the defence, submitted that in the section of the Act under winch defendants were prosecuted the provision "unless it could be proved that reasonable means had been taken to ensure her seaworthiness," etc., cleared his clients. Mr Hallett, knowing nothing of ships, had entrusted the .repairs to experts, and had undertaken in good faith to pay for any repairs that might he necessary. The Devonport Steam Ferry Company had effected the repairs. In Captain Mincham's case it must be proved that he took the vessel to sea knowing her to he unseaworthy. He contended that Captain Mincham also acted in good faith ;that, as a matter of fact, the evidence of the surveyor of ships and others would show that every precaution was taken, as far as the owner and captain were concerned, to ensure the vessel's seaworthiness, inasmuch as it was possible to make such a vessel seaworthy. [Proceeding.] STATEMENT BY MINISTER OF MARINE. (By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Keporter.) WELLINGTON, Wednesday. In reply to a question by Mr Lawry, asking at whose instigation proceedings had been instituted against Edward Hallett. re the sailing and wreck of the steamer Te Aroha, the Minister of Marine stated that in accordance with section 284 of the Shipping and Seamen's Act, 1903, every person was guilty of a crime who sent or attempted. to send, or was a party to sending, a British ship to sea in such an unseaworthy state that the life of any person was 'likely to be jendangerend he proved that he used all reasonable means to ensure her being sent to sea in a seaworthy state, or that her going to sea in such an unseaworthy state was under the circumstances reasonable and justifiable. From the evidence taken at the inquiry it appeared that the Te Aroha had been sent to sea in such an unseaworthy state as to endanger life It was considered by the Department that proceedings should be taken against persons who sent her to sea in such a state, and Mr (Hallett, being the owner, was a party, and the proceedings had therefore been taken against him. Mr Poole said Mr Hallett, who was a reputable settler;''bought the vessel in ignorance of her condition. Instructions for her equipment and repair of the vessel were given by him, trusting to the honesty and integrity of those engaged in the work. He did not think Mr Hallett was the cause of the trouble, and hoped the Minister would Bee the necessity for thoroughly completing the case and bringing the real offenders to book.

The Hon. J. A. Millar said he felt sorry for the owner, whom he did not believe -was personally responsibe, but so far as the law was concerned, he mus. be held responsible. If it was proved that other persons were liable, he did not intend to stop short of sheeting the matter home to the responsible parties.