" CONFLICT."

Auckland Star, Volume LXIX, Issue 225, 23 September 1938, Page 8

" CONFLICT."

TE AWHINA EVIDENCE.

SUMMING UP BY COUNSEL.

HARBOUR BOARD CRITICISED.

''I feel there haw been a substantial conflict of evidence in certain important respects,"' said Dr. X. A. Foden.

representing the Superintendent of Marine, in summing up at the conclusion of the hearing of evidence by the Court of Inquiry into the sinking of the tug Te Awhina on Atigust 11. It would appear, said Dr. Foden, that Te Awhina was moored too far aft and was in a dangerous position. Who should liear the responsibility was a matter that »n difficult to decide. It did ap|H'ar that in the general system of berthing there was room for improvement. Tt might be wise if the Court recommended that the system be reviewed. On the evidence regarding the life-saving mechanism it appeared thftt sTiould be made from time to time.

"I have never known in my experience with marine inquiries of a case where the owners set out deliberately to crucify one of their own masters. That, fortunately, is in the hand* of the Court," declared, Mr. A. J. Moody, who represented Captain Probert. * "The whole thing was the result of an unfortunate set of circumstances."

Central wharf, he said, was not the easiest place at which to berth a ship. There was an ebb tide which flowed erratically. There were three aspect*, bearing on the actual accident. First there was the rip of the tide. Secondly, there was the suction of the propellers of the Kssex, and thirdly there was evidence. given by Captain Probert, that the vessel went forward and the tug slewed round. No suggestion had been made at any time by Captain Probert that Captain Kelsey was responsible. The accident was inevitable and a pure accidcnt.

Mr. Moody criticised the system of the board whereby the engineer, "a lavm»n," was in charge of the tug's "technical department." "I do say once again that it is a shock to all shipping interest* in the port that the owners should set out to throw the blame on one man. Captain Probert was being made the scapegoat. Certain things have cropped iip that makes, us regard the whole action and attitude of the Harbour Board with suspicion." Kate's Evidence Criticised. Mr. Moody criticised the evidence given by the mate, Morris, that he had warned the master that the tug was too far aft, "as a pure fabrication." [Captain Probert and the deck hand had i stuck to the ship in the best traditions iof the sea. He claimed that there was no responsibility on the master for the accflfent. He had admittedly a dangerous task and had done everything that was possible under the circumstances. Representing the board, Mr. Barrowelough stated that he would not have felt it necessary to say much had it not been for the "extraordinary line adopted" by Mr. Moody.

! "I gather the board should have taken every car® to cover up," «aid Mr. Barrowclough. "There is no doubt whatsoever that the board has not done anything that wa«i not right and proper."

He protested at the criticism levelled at the "layman"—by which wm meant Mr. Holderness.

Mr. McKean: There is no evidence to support that.

Mr. Barrowclough: I thank yon. There fci not the slightest tittle of evidence to support it.

Seaworthiness of Tugs. He went on to point out that the question was more a domestic one. The engineer of the board had charge of the mechanical part, and had to see that the tugs were seaworthy. Referring to the accident itself, he claimed that the board coulrl not l>e hold responsible. It was not the system that broke down, but an error of judgment in carrying out the system.

Mr. Finlay dwelt at length on the question of the respective responsibility of the pilot and the tugmaoter in berthing operation. There was unquestionable testimony by Captain Probert that he was solely responsible for choosing the point at which the tug was moored. There was also evidence that there was no movement forward. Captain Kelsey was right in saying that the ship waa practically at a standstill, so the movement of the ship was not a cause. In his opinion, not only was the pilot, whom he represented, blameless but the system was also blameless.