Prosecution After Trip From Chatham Islands

Press, Volume XCVI, Issue 28435, 15 November 1957, Page 11

Prosecution After Trip From Chatham Islands

Decision was reserved when the hearing ,of eight charges against the Southern Fairmile Company, Ltd., for allowing a fishing vessel, the Marlyn, with 16 persons on board, to make a voyage from the Chatham Islands to Lyttelton on May 29 when it was not satisfactorily manned or equipped, was completed in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. Mr Rex C. Abernethy was on the Bench. The defendant company was represented by Mr W. F. Brown and Mr P. T. Mahon appeared for the Marine Department. The charges against the company were that it operated the vessel when it had no duly certified foreign-going master. no certified first or second mate, no certified engineer, fewer than two able seamen, no valid certificate {of survey, no fully equipped lifeboat and insufficient life jackets and lifebuoys. The charges were laid under the Shipping and Seamen Act. Director’s Evidence Continuing his evidence, Patrick Smith, a director of the company, told the Court that the master of the vessel on the i voyage, Angus Twemlow Kennedy, had not expressed dissatis-

faction with the equipment or requisitioned more equipment and • appliances for the vessel. When asked the reason why the necessary gear was not on board when the vessel sailed, he said the master "spent much time loading personal gear.” Questioned by Mr Mahon on the point whether he knew what equipment was on board, Smith said "the captain was paid £lBOO a year to look into that.”

I In cross examination Mr Mahon said to Smith that, as a special I permit had been granted for the Marlyn's trip to the Chathams in February, surely he must have been aware that a permit was necessary for the return voyage. Smith said he had informed another director of the company, a Mr Gallagher, of Christchurch, to apply for a permit. He denied that he knew a permit would not be granted and that it was his intention to get the vessel away as quickly as possible.

j The defendant said the desire L to dispatch the fish in the Marlyn, , worth £l3OO, was not the only , reason for the trip. The urgent j need for replacement parts for » the refrigerating equipment was i another deciding factor. Mr Mahon: You have not , offered that explanation before. 5 Smith: Possibly not, but I have not been questioned on that line. 1 Stowaway on Board In regard to the number of j persons on the vessel. Smith said he had given no authority to anyone to go aboard apart from the crew. The captain, on his own 2 responsibility, had allowed his ” wife and son to make the trip, " and there was also one stowaway, ’ he said. When the vessel sailed 1 he did not know there were 16 persons aboard. _ On the afternoon of the day in " question he had told the local police constable, as the repre- “ sentative of the Marine Department on the islands, that "in all probability the boat would have to make the trip.” Mr Mahon: Do you think the e constable would have got in touch e with the head office (of the e Marine Department) if he knew - of the conditions of the voyage? Smith: I cannot say what the

constable would think. Evidence was given by Patrick Seymour Prenderville, a farmer on the Chatham Islands and a member of the Chatham Islands County Council, that no shore freezer had operated on the islands this year and the fishing industry, one of the main industries on the island, had to rely on the refrigerating compartments of two trawlers. One of these Was the Marlyn. In its ’absence local

fishermen had been affected. David Morley, a refrigerating engineer attached to the Christchurch firm which installed the plant on the Marlyn, said in evidence that when working on the Marlyn in Lyttelton after its trip from the Chathams he found the alternator, a part of the refrigerating plant essential to its operation, unserviceable. A replace-! ment, expected to arrive in the { Chathams the day the Marlyn, sailed, was found in the Lyttel-I ton goods shed. j