THE TRIUMPH ENQUIRY.

Press, Volume XL, Issue 5710, 7 January 1884, Page 2

THE TRIUMPH ENQUIRY.

1 PBBSS ASSOCIATION TBLB———I.J AUCKLAND, January 5

The Triumph enquiry closed so far as taking evidence is concerned yesterday evening, and Mr Hesketh said that the evidence adduced was all he intended to offer on behalf of the captain, and Mr Brassey on behalf of the chief officer said he did not propose to call any evidence.

Mr Heßketh then addressed the Court, pointing out that his object was shown in the first instance by broadly stating the captain's explanation that he fell asleep on the bridge from exhaustion, and to refute the theory set up by Mr Williamson that the captain was drunk. He would not take up time by dealing with the suggestion that the vessel was deliberately wrecked, for there was not a tittle of evidence to support it, nor wa* ! there the slightest motive shown. He then dealt with the evidence taken to show the perfect sobriety of the captain. \lt was a pure case of misfortune, not accompanied by circumstances of aggravation, and whatever the result of the trial was it was the captain's ruin. He fell asleep on his post, and wrecked a ship worth 450,000. Mr Hesketh then dwelt on the evidence as to the efforts made to get the ship off. Mr Braasey addressed the Court for the chief officer, who he contended had carried out his duties, and thai no blame was attached to him.

Mr Williamson was about to address the Court, but Mr Hesketh contended he had not the right of reply, this only being an investigation. The Chairman said this had been the rule.

Mr Williamson then addressed the Court. He should not have troubled the Court but for Mr Hesketh's statement as to the position he had taken up by attributing drunkenness to the captain. They all approached this case with diffidence; but here was tbe fact of a large steamer going on the rocks, and the only alternativus which could suggest themselves were either the captain and officers were helplessly drunk, < r that the "vessel had been intentionally driven ashore. They had it in evidence that there had been drinking going on, and the question aro»e was it n. | to some extent due to this fact that tbe captain fell —deep on the bridge. He commented on the fact that thero was no *m-

dunce regarding insurance on the ship, either from the captain or Mr Nathan.He also commented on what he considered to be the gross want of discipline, which he said was manifested by the fact of going to sea with the telegraph broken down, and no one placed to convey messages to the^engine-room from the bridge, or any man placed between tho look-out and the man at the wheel. He also dwelt on the necessity of the chief officer having supported tLa captain, especially when he knew bis exhausted condition. He asked the Bench to cancel the captain's certificate, who admitted that he fell asleep at his post. He was not fit to have the command of a ship and lives. As to the chief officer, he was not free from blame, and should be made to bear a proportion of the costs. As to the second officer, there di-i not seem to be any special blame attributable to him further than he had pointed out in his general remarks. The Court reserved judgment until Monday.

It was stated, possibly as a joke, that Mr Hesketh was about to flood the Court with. witnesses to prove that it was impossible to float the Bhip off the rocks of Tiritiri, but the fact that at this time the Triumph bad been floated off, and was then safety riding at anchor in the harbor, rendered such evidence unnecessary, and worse than useless. It is but fair, however, to state that Mr Hesketh denies having had any intention of producing such evidence. Mr Fraser anticipates the Triumph will bo ready for docking within a month from the present time. It has been decided she will be placed in the Auokland dock, but it is well known that it will requite to be enlarged for the purpose, and as yet no conclusion has been arrived at as to the best method of getting over the difficulty. Among the numerous suggestions which have been made with reference to tbe repairing and refitting of tho Tr.umph one has emanated from Mr Fimer, chief engineer of the vessel. He apsroves5 roves of the erection of a coffer am at the mouth of the dock, giving it an additional length of about I 30ft. The vessel, he says, should be placed m the dock, and when the water has been pumped out an inspection of the damages should be made, and drawings prepared, showing the exact extent of breakage in the vessel's bottom. A number of large iron plates will be required tor repairs, and it is principally .with the object of replacing them that Mr Fisher suggests'a | sketch should be made, for he is of opinion toat they Bhould be procured from the | builderd of the vessel. His proposal is that the Triumph should be docked for ten days, which would permit of a tnorough examination being made, and that she Bhuuld then be floated out and anchored in the stream until the plates arrive from Home, when she could be again placed in the dock and made almost as gooa as new. Whether or not these suggestions will be carried out remains to Le decided by Mr Fraiier, who is now giving the whole subject his attention.

It ia estimated that the purchaser has spent 42000, exclusive of the purchase money, in saving the vessel, and that, including the purchase money, she can be made as good as new for between 415,000 and 420,000. Her estimated value is 460,000. The refrigerator, which was saved uninjured, is estimated to be worth 46000, and was purchased by the Auckland Refrigerating Company.