HARBOUR COLLISION

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3191, 15 September 1917, Page 12

HARBOUR COLLISION

TERAWHITI AND INVERCARGILL

FINDING OF THE COURT

Tho decision of tho Marino Comi of Inquiry into the collision between tho Torawhili unci the luvercargill in Wellington Harbour was delivered yesterday nwniing by.Mr. S. E. M'Oarfiij-. S.M. The judgment is as follows:—"Shortly before 9 a.m. of August 7 last the Union Company's tug Torawhiti left tho Tara. naki Street wharf in tho port of Wellington for her bortli at tho tug wharf. Tho distance between tho two places is approximately 2550 ft. She started at 'slow' and was full speed abreast the 6ignal tower. Tho distance between the Taranaki Street wharf and the signal tower is approximately 1400 ft, thence to a point north of No. 1 Queen's wharf the distance is 4Goft, At the end of .No. 1 Queen's wharf there. was lying tho s.s. ■ , tho bow of which " projected 20ft. to 25ft. beyond' the north-eastern corner of that wharf. Tho distauce Irom the s.s. bow to the tug wharf ie approximately 400 ft. When tho T«ra- . whiti wae approaching tho bow of tho tho 6.5. Invercargill was abreast ol the Day's Bay ferry wharf, and was steering for No. 7 berth, Queen's wharf; to which berth the s.s. Invercaigill had been flag-signalled. It was the duty ot the master of the s.s. Terawhiti to acquaint himself with the signal flying on the signal tower. ■He failed to do so. Had lie done so ho would have seen to what 'berth the s.s.' luvercargill. was proceeding. It is difficult to fix the speeds of the two steamers, evidence on the point being very conflicting. We, however, find the Terawhiti was travelling much faster than the Invercargili. Both steamers were approaching a space' enclosed by No. 1 wharf, the wool jetty, and Customhouse aiid Waterloo Quays. Tbie enclosure is, as nearly as may be, a triangle. The space is restricted, and calls for careful navigation from those having control of ships entering tho enclosure. The luvercargill was tho first to enter tho enclosure, and bad slowed down to take way off her -when approaching her berth, and shortly afterwards 6he stopped ber engines. When the Invercargili was abreast of tho Day's Bay ferry wharf her master saw tho Terawhiti coming from outside No. 1 berth Queen's wharf across the bow of tho . During the whole of this time the Terawhiti had the Invercargili on. her own starboard side. This being the caso the Inyercargill had the right of way,,and it was the duty of the master of tho Tera-whiti to have stopped his ehip and waited for the Invercargili to berth, more particularly as the space is limited. The maeter of the Invercargili naturally expected the master of tho Terawhiti would obey the rule of the road, Article 9 of the Kules for Prevention of <>Hisions at Sea, dated November 27, 189 G. Tho master of the Invercargili, after ho had sighted the Terawhiti, gave two short blasts of his whistle, indicating he was shaping a- course to port. Tho master .'of the Terawhiti deposed that when he was rounding the northeastern corner of the 7v 'd. ? >vharf ho saw the Invercargili off the end of the Lyttelton ferry jetty. This is clearly a mistake. Seeing that he himself says both vessels were going about the same speed, tho Invercargili could not have Teached tho place of collision in timo to collide with the Terawhiti. The weight of tho evidence is that at tho time deposed to by the master of tho Tera-whiti the Invercargill was off the South end of the Day's Bay ferry jetty. The master of the Terawhiti also deposed that as he approached the north end of No. 1 Queen's wharf his sight was blinded by a shoen on tho water caused by tho sun, and that ho saw tho Invercargill too Into to avert a collision. At the time, the Terawhiti wae approaching tho Invercargill ho was travelling in a' northerly direction. At that time tho sun would be bearing about north-east true, and tho eheen should not have affected his vision. The master of tho Teriurliiti also swore that in passing the signal iowor he was travelling 8| knots,' and thon ho fitopppfl liis eneine.s to set , away off. In a space of , about 500 feot, therefore, he fiays he had his way reduced to 1} knots. Tho Court is not satisfied tho Terawhiti. lost so much way in so short a distance. It was contended on behalf of the master of tho Terawhiti that the collision occurred through the negligence of tho master of tho Invorcargill. In this contention wo cannot concur:

"Tho collision was caused wholly by tho negligent navigation of the master of the Torawhiti, who disregarded a wellknown Tiilo of tho road as laid down by the British Board of Trade, and nothing that the master of the Invercargill could.' have dono wonld have averted, the collision. There was a conflict of evidence as to which ship struck the other. This is largely ■ acadomic, because whichever is the fact tho master of tho Terawhiti is atone responsible. Tho feet remains, however, that the stem of tho Invercargili was bent from port to starboard, ■which indicates that the Torawhiti struck tho Invercargill. The damage to tho ironwork of the InTcrcargill is £m. Wo estimate the carpentering work at £30, in all J2JSO. Tho net result of our finding is that tho master of the Torawhiti was negligent, and there was no contributory negligenco on tho part of tho master of the Invercargill. . • "Wo order that the master of Iho Terawhiti pay all the cost of tho inquiry Wβ make no order as to.his cerliticate. Wo fix the cost of the inquiry at ,£24 175., made up as-follows:—Asses-sors' fees, £10 10S.; fee to counsel for the Invercargill, £! 75.; witness's exlienses, £!■" !i