WAKATERE ACCIDENT.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIV, Issue 161, 8 July 1913, Page 4

WAKATERE ACCIDENT.

dot to shortness of wate*srcokd engineer blamed, CHIEF TO PAY COSIS. The inquiry concerning the collapse t>l one of the boilers of ttie Northern &S. Co.'s YVakatere when on the trip up from Thames to Auckland last May was concluded this morning at the Magistrate's Court. The inquiry was conducted j>7 Mr C. C. Kettle, who had associated with him Messrs F. W. Blakey and R. Massoy as assessors. Mr Selwyii May appeared for the Collectoj of Customs (Mr J. p. Ridings). Mr M. (j. McGregor for the 3ccond engineer (John Gordon), Mr Schnauer for the chief engineer (William Appleby) and Mr C Z. Clayton for the Northern S-S. Company.

In announcing the Court's decision Mr Kettle said it met with the approval of both the assessors. The Court was of opinion that the collapse of the two furnaces of .the starboard boiler of the Wakstore was "serious damage to the chip" within the meaning of section 23S of the Shipping and Seamen's Act. It was of opinion that the only reasonable inference to be deducted from the evidence wa» that the collapse was due to a shortness of water in the boiler, such shortneaa being caused by excessive "scumming." Iα the opinion of the Court the second engineer was responsible for the shortness, of water in the boiler and for the excessive scumming. The Court considered that when the second found himself in a quandary —the evidence showed conclusively that ho was confused, after he had attended to the port boiler, and turned his attention to the other boiler—lie should have at once sent for the chief engineer and consulted him. Instead of availing himself of the chief's advice, lie remained in the stokehokl for something like an -hour or more endeavouring to find the water in the glass, and apparently failed. For his neglect of duty the Court was of opinion that his certificate should be suspended for three months.

With regard to the chief engineer, the Court -was of opinion that ihe did not perform his duties. To begin with, the evidence showed that the test-cocks on ■the boiler had not been kept in proper working order nor blown through at least once in twenty-four hours, as required by the company's regulations. Furthermore, the evidence disclosed that when the boilers were fiHed at the Thames he did not, as the Court considered it was his duty, stand by, and ccc that the filling was done properly and that the cocks were left in proper order. The evidence showed thai lie delegated to a greaser duties he should himself perform. The chief engineer had. not, in this matter, complied with regulation 12b of the Company's book.

"The Court wishes again to expreu the opinion that it is very improper indeed for engineers to delegate any operation of their duties to greaeere or firemen,' , observed Ms Worship. "We laid down thi3 very strongly in the 6& Rarawa case in 1905), and we are surprised to find that what we therf sail has not been taken to heart."

Proceeding, his Worship said that ■when the chief engineer knew thai the greaser had turned the sanitary supply into the boilers he did not even trouble (according to the evidence) to go into the engine-room and consult with the second engineer. The chief engineer showed a want of due appreciation of hie duties and responsibilities. He had beeu at fault, but the Court was unable ,to say that the damage was caused by Ws "Vrongful act or default," in "the words of the Act. Before a man's certificate could be suspended it mnet he proved that his default caused the damage. The Court was satisfied that the general conduct of the chief engineer called for strong remark from the Bench. The Court felt that if •were ordered to pay the costs of the inquiry, the ends of juetice woiild be met.

Referring to the question of a log, the Court was of opinion that a log should ■have been kept by the chief engineer. He was not being punished for that, however, as there was some difference of opinion as to whether such a. book "wm required. The Court ivae further of opinion that whenever an accident happened on a boat it was highly desirable that the statements of all persons who were present at the time, or who were able to throw any light on the circumstances, should be taken separately, and as soon after the accident as poseible, by some responsible officer.

The certificate of the second engineer was ordered to be euspended for three months, and ttie chief engineer wae ordered to pay the costs of Hie inquiry. In answer to Mr. Schnauer, the Court eaid the costs would not include the personal coste of the parties, nor the coel of Mr. J. A. Pond'e analysis of the scale from the boilers. The amount of coarts could be fixed in Chambers. Mr. Kettle eaid the aseesoors wished te thank Mr. Pond for his report, and to acknowledge the great assistance it had been to them in coming to a • conchfflioe as to the ca-uee of the collapse.