LOSS OF KOTITI.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20472, 16 February 1932, Page 11

LOSS OF KOTITI.

THE CONCLUSIONS OF COUNSEL. SUBMISSION TO COURT OF ENQUIRY. (press association TILIjUX ) \VF.LI.INGTOX. February 1". Various deductions and submission* have been made by the Seamen's 1. r.iors, counsel for the Unite'.! Insurance Company, and counsel for the Marine Department to the president and assessors of the Court holding an enquiry into the loss of the motor-vessel Kotiti. At the conclusion of the heart:;; of evidence at the enquiry last •week, it was suggested that it wotnd be convenient if counsel for the various interests concerned made submissions to tlie Court in writing. The three fuasel have no'iv forwarded their submissions to the Court, which w;ll deliver the finding shortly. Counsel for the Seamen's U=i->» states, inter alia, that it is the opinion of the Seamen's Union that !nt vessel foundered during heavy weather some time during the night of October 10th, and the cause of such foun lorini was the shifting of the cargo througi faulty stowage, accentuated by the prtv sence of water in the bottom of the ship. Such water would have th>* effect of making the coal more lively, and it is claimed to be a reasonable conclusion -from the evidence that th« vessel had a tendency unduly to ttiaU water on account of her astc and the general weakening of the hull. Moreover, in combination with the foregoing suggested cause, the facts justify a. possibility that she suffered additional disablement through either a fractured tailshaft or stoppage of the machinery., The Union is alio of the opinion that the following rider should be added to the finding ait amendment of tlie Shipping aatl "Seamen Act. .(a) That the Shipping and Soarstea Act be amended to provide that there shall be sufficient qualified seamen on board any vessel to enable an efficient look-out to be kept in accordance with the regulations, and further that there shall be sufficient certified officers board to ensure a certificated officer at all times to be in charge of the" navigation. .(b) That tlie Shipping and Seaiu<?a Act be amended to require all seagoing vessels irrespective of tonnage to enter into articles of agreement. (c) That all seagoing trading vessels be brought witnin the requirements of the regulations governing wireless «a ships. (d) That all regulations under th"* Shipping and Seamen Act which directly or indirectly relate to the protection of life and property be enforced ia their entirety, anil that competent marine officers be appointed at all outports to see that the provisions of wrh regulations are complied -with. (e) That in the survey of all woodca vessels, the surveyor in charge be assisted by a competent shipwright. — (f) That all wooden vessels be prohibited from carrying coal cargo in the home trade unless such coal is -baggrd or efficient shifting boards are fitted to the satisfaction of a surveyor of ship?. Insurance Company's CaseCounsel for the United Insurant* Company, which holds a policy on tins lives of the master and one member of the Kotiti's crew, states in regard t» the suggestion that the vessel was improperly loaded that there was no evidence to warrant sueh a conclusion. The vessel had carried heavier cargoes thai® that loaded on the fatal trip, and had come through safely. Government records and the ship's manifest went t» prove that the ship was in good trim em the last voyagp. Although it had beea suggested that the vessel was sawit.able for carrying coal, it had not b«» suggested to the Court in what way the ship differed from any other vessel m as to make her unsuitable for the carriage of coal. Whether the coal m«ved or not, so as to cause the ship t» founder as was suggested, or whether It was not due to any other peril of tko sea, had not been proved. Coottsel extended that any evidence put forward to give colour to the suggestion tut Soares, engineer and part-owner of the vessel, interfered in the navigation rf the ship, should be most critically examined, and finally he submitted that the ship was not unseaworthy oa her final voyage, and that there could be no finding that the disaster was ia any way contributed to or caused by a»." unseaworthiness of the vessel or «» wrongful or negligent act of any Member of the crew.

Marine Department's Cobclssmbss. Counsel for the Marine Department, inter alia, states: "In reply to the awfe* missions of counsel for the iusu*a»ffl company, I submit that there a*« grounds for considering whether tba master did not commit an error mt judgment" in continuing on the when the weather changed in the afternoon of October 10th, instead f»turning to Westport. There is. of course, a possibility that the nutn continued on his coarse too long, ami that the ship was overwhelmed wh#ii endeavouring to put back. It als® i* possible that the master and. engineer had too much confidence in the capability of the vessel in any weather, »r that the master was striving to get round Cape Farewell and make lor shelter in Golden Bay. or .was iaflsenced in his judgment by the engineer by reason of the engineer being partowner, and having been over two yearn in the vessel. In conclusion, 1 sulni: that the evidence shows that the owners had complied fully with the requirements of the Shipping and Seane* Act, and the Orders of the Department; l-Bt that the captain had broken the regulations in (a) not obtaining a certificate of inspection of his deck cargo before leaving Westport; and (b) in carrying passengers.