THE TRIUMPH ENQUIRY.

Press, Volume XL, Issue 5711, 8 January 1884, Page 2

THE TRIUMPH ENQUIRY.

[FBXSS ASSOCIATION TBLXOB-X.J AUCKLAND* January 7. Judgment was given to-day in respect to the Triumph casualty. Mr Seth Smith* R.M., and Captains James and F rater. Nautical Assessors, occupied the Bench. Messrs E. Hesketh, C. E. Button, G. NBrtisaey, and J. B. Russell, the learned . counsel engaged in the matter, were preI sent. Mr Button explained that Mr Hudson Williams was unavoidably absent, be- • ing. engaged at the Supreme Court. Mir . I Smith in delivering judgment said——* [ After carefully considering the evidence in this case we have come to the conch—ion that tbe suggestion or charge brought ' against the master of the vessel of inebrieiy on the day of the casualty has no evidence to show. On the contrary, we have evidence showing he was perfectly sober all day, and up to the time of the - stranding of his ship. We think also that the evidence brought before us a full explanation of the manner in which the casualty came about) that is to say, taking into consideration the fact of the order given b/ the master to the quarter-master to steer vrith the Tiritiri light on the port bow, coupled with the fact that the •; quarter-master did steer in that way for ' twenty minutes, and that the master was - asleep nearly the whole of that time, fully , . explains the position in which the vests* was found when she struck on the rook. If the vessel had been steered in this way, and the Ugh i h»td been kept as the quarter* , < master had said he was ordered, on the fore-rigging, she could not have got whera -, she did, and we therefore consider that l", f during her course she must have been ■", swerving to the westward. We have a jt sketch map prepared by tbe assessors Vj showing tho way in which sh<j was steered, .* f .' and the course ofi which she was when ~'x the pilot left her, and from it it 'M is evident that she swerved round kJ! to noith-west, which was her position ,'l when she struck the rocks, so that there -'$ remains no longer any mystery as to how % the ship came into this position. The ® fact that the order given to the quarter- '5 muter was implicitly followed by, him | fully explains how the vessel came to .-> strike the rocks. This being then a full j explanation of the casualty, the question \ for us to consider is on. whom, does tiie * responsibility for the casualty lie. Now i here it seems to us that we cannot accept < the statement made by the man. on the look out, that he hailed; the bridge at a, time when the ship was distant at least a mile from the point of danger, which, a* the rate she was then travelling,, would j have allowed five and a half minutes to> ,« elapse before she reached the spot where she <%£ struck. We believe the real state of things Mf was, as the quarter-master himself states, pg that no alarm was given by tiie loot-out or&i'? ? by anyone else until the last moment, whe_|;'|| both look-out and quartermaster eimal-»|f| taaeously perceived the danger of tfa»ji| position. Our opinion is that the look-outpi| __at have been dozing, and not until the* »|| ship was actually on the point of striking 'Jm was there any alarm given by them. Wa a|| are of opinion that the master was in fault i|M in allowing the casualty to hrppen j upo»J|| his own confession, because the serious matter in which fault attached II to him was the fact of bis going-S; to sleep while on. duty. We i__sV-f|| also that there are some other tbat we cannot paas over in silaatt** "_| which show, at any rate, a ws»*v_g| of care on his part. We believw m that he was attacked by sleepiness, caused, as he himself says, by working on the day of the vessePs departure, and by exhsos* M tion resulting from suffering and want or ,g| sleep caused by neuralgia. But being to <'4 that state he should net have trusted to b» 1 own powers of watchfulness, but should' M have kept someone with him on tho bridgf*. "f| There—as a greater necessity on account A of hia drowsiness for him to take care » if have had assistance at hand. In ■$ place he should not bave given such m * order to the quartermaster as to "teerby tfttt «| light on port bow, which, as the * w **_ B 2ri showed, through bring followed impbcityi *| led the ship into danger. He should have a m given course by oompasa. It seems toua alt* m that he onght to have placed a ,«*»*! J_ some point between the forecastle no*a m and the bridge to report any order giw* .Jl by him or any warnings, and more «•*_" Jl dally so from the direction inwtucb «*J§§ wind was blowing, from the north «*fS We h»ve also come to the oonclusion *»*:?« the master ueparsed from what is «*f ii| sidered the general rnlaon hoard not having himself ascertained who tw» *m the man on the look-out, so as to be **™**2|§ what degree of responsibility could _J_lai posed ia him, According tobiaownf&«ffll

™ent. he did not at the time know who the mv rue. Taking the whole circumstances iffthe case into nonsideration, we must "iLae to the conclusion that the evident a want cl cere end foresight on IftTmrt of the ms«ter, amounting to such I«Urcarelessness that we think that susJUeicri of hie certificate cannot be made leTaless period than, for tree years. Wβ iet cone to the conduct of the chief .Iglcer. Here we call attention to the fact «f the iuidatißfactary,andlm»-y.eay untruth"jjlji wa y in which he gave hie evidence; as in hie denial of the statement Alt lie was to go forward and whietle -- wtom the yards were squared, or that he **re that order to square the yards a* all, fat merely to haul in the starboard braces. Bat patting that aside, we are of opinion ■that he showed a neglect of duty -in not keeping a look-out while -on deck. It «* important, if sot toe nM*t important, part of his dnty while be was not otherwise emnloyed, to have assisted the master in this respect We are therefore of opinion that should be suspended for six months. The eecond officer we look upon *c being free trom blame, and his certificate will he returned. The Court cannot .vjnehide without a reference to the con--dnrt <rf the quartermaster, Caeman. His eoatiestog to steer ac he did, without *«aßfte tie attention of the master, ehowed iiwpect of duty. O'Halloran, the lookalso guilty of serious neglect of calling attention to the position of the vessel before he did. The Kantical Assessors desire mc also to mention, although it does not . actually arise ont of this inquiry, that in order to avoid carnialtiea in fofcare limits of the pilots and of pilot- . age should be extended beyond the Shearer JJoek. The judgment of the Court is that the master's certificate be suspended for three years, and that he shall pay tbreeioorths of the coat of this inquiry, and rthat the chief officer's certificate be bus--pended for cix months, and that he pay -one-fourth of the costs. The proportion of costs, according to the schedule made up < by the Cit-rfcof the Court, was. Captain ] Brothert<>n J872, and chief officer Owens < JJ24 Bat these figurea were largely re- i dnced, maoy of the witnesses declining to < take any costs. They therefore stand— i Captain T e coata, £63 -, mate's coete, £21, 1 \- ________^_______ j