KOTITI DISASTER.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 39, 16 February 1932, Page 10

KOTITI DISASTER.

CAUSE OF FOUNDERING. VARIOUS THEORIES ADVANCED. P. ARGUMENT BY COUNSEL. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Monday. Various deductions and submissions have been made by counsel for the Seamen's Union, the United Insurance Company and the Marine Department respectively to the president and assessors of the Court of Inquiry into the loss of the motor vessel Kotiti. Counsel for the Seamen's Union, inter alia, expresses the opinion that the vessel foundered in heavy weather on the Jiight of October 10, and that the cause of such foundering 1 was the shifting of cargo through faulty stowage, accentuated by the presence of water in the bottom of the ship. Such water, it is suggested, would have the effect of making coal more liable to shift. It was a reasonable conclusion from the evidence that the vessel had a tendency unduly to make water on account of the age and general weakening of the hull. Moreover, in combination with the fore-

going suggested cause, it is submitted that the facts justify the possibility that she sustained additional disablement through either a fractured tailsliaft or the stoppage of machinery. The union also expresses the opinion that a rider should be added to the finding, recommending an amendment of the Shipping and Seamen Act. Had Carried Heavier Cargoes. Counsel for the United Insurance Company, which holds a policy on the lives of the master and one member of the crew, contends there is no evidence to support the suggestion that the , vessel was improperly loaded. The vessel had carried heavier cargoes than that loaded on the fatal trip and had come through safely. The Government records and ship's manifest went to prove that the ship was in good trim on the last voyage. Although it had been suggested that the vessel was not suitable for carrying coal, it had not been suggested to the Court in what way she differed from any other vessel in that respect. Counsel submitted that the ship was not unseawortliy on her final voyage, and that there could be no finding that the disaster was in any way contributed to or caused by unseaworthiness or any wrongful or negligent act of any member of the crew. Possible Error of Judgment. Counsel for the Marine Department submitted that there were '■grounds for considering whether the master did not commit an error of judgment in continuing on the voyage when the weather changed in the afternoon of October 10 instead of returning to Westport. There was, of course, the possibility that the master continued on his course too long, and that the ship was overwhelmed when endeavouring to put back. It was also possible that the master and engineer had too much confidence in the capability of the vessel in any weather, or that the master was striving to get round Cape Farewell and make for shelter in Golden Bay, or was influenced in his judgment by the engineer by reason of the engineer being part owner and having been over two years on the vessel. Counsel, in conclusion, said: "I submit that the evidence shows that the owners had complied fully with the requirements of the Act and orders of the Department, jbut that • the captain had broken regulations in not obtaining a certificate of inspection of his deck cargo before leaving Westport and in carrying passengers."