THE LOSS OF THE KAKANUI.

Evening Star, Issue 8483, 7 April 1891, Page 2

THE LOSS OF THE KAKANUI.

The magisterial inquiry into the loss of the Kakanui, adjourned from the 26th nit., was continued at the Magistrate's Court today before Mr Carew, R.M., and Captain Orkney as nautical assessor. Mr Haggitt oonduoted the inquiry on behalf of the Customs Department; Sir R. Stout appeared for the owners of the vessel; Mr flanlon to watoh the proceedings on behalf of the relatives of Captain BeBt; and Mr Fraser for the relatives of the shore party. Mr Carew said in order that the inquiry should be kept within proper limits it would be as well that he should read the order under which it was held. The objeot of the inquiry was to ascertain if there were any, and if any what ciroumstances under whioh the Kakanui proceeded to sea, when she was last heard of, and all matters that would go to explain her loss or apparent loss.

Mr Haggitt asked whether it was His Worship's intention to limit the inquiry to that. His instructions were to make the inquiry as full and complete as possible. Mr Carew remarked that to go beyond the instructions would require a royal comihission.

Mr Haggitt said that the evidence he had related to the circumstances under which the vessel came to be sent, and also as to the state of things on the island at the time she was sent. These matters would necessarily have to be inquired into, he thought. Mr Carew: I certainly do not wish to restrict the inquiry. Mr Haggitt said that His Worship would see how the inquiry developed, and oould stop it if he considered it was going too far. His Worship repeated that he had no wish to unduly restrict the inquiry. On the application of Mr Haggitt witnesses were ordered out of Court. The following evidence was then taken: — Keith Ramsay, the first witness, said: I was managing owner of the Eakanui. She was built to the order of the Eakanui Steamship Company by R. S. Sparrow and Co. in 1879. She was an iron steamer of 83 gross and 57 net tonnage, and traded to Catlins, Fortrose, Waikawa, Invercargill, Eiverton, Stewart Island, and occasionally as far as Preservation Inlet. She had been also to Timaru. The vessel has been entirely in my hands during the eleven years she has been built. She has had only two captains—Captain Sundstrom (now in Wellington) and Captain Best. Captain Best was in charge for the last five or six years. Captain Hanson, at present acting-harbor-master at Invercargill, was her ohief mate for several years. The general reputation of the vessel was that Bhe was an excellent sea-going boat. Never heard anything against her. Captain Best always spoke well of her. She was last in dock on the 15th December at Port Chalmers. She was docked for her periodical overhaul principally oleaning and painting. Morgan and Cable were employed on her doing what work was required outside of what the ship's own staff could do. The vessel was in thorough order when she left dock on tho 16th or

17th. She left here on the 22nd for Inveroargill. Captain Best was in charge, and Jacob Eckhoff went as mate and pilot. Both held foreign-going certificates as masters. Eokhoff had been twice to the islands. Nordern, the usual mate, went as second mate. Robert Stewart was engineer. He was a qualified man and held a certificate. There were two firemen—one named Morgan and an extra one. Captain Eckhoff and the second fireman were the extra men. She had the usual orew of four hands. There were ten all told. When she left Dunedin she was bound for Inveroargill, thence to the Macquarie Islands. The trip to the Maoquaries was out of her usual course. She was chartered for that by the Government. The oharter was effected in Dunedin before she left. There was a Government officer on board in addition to those mentioned, Mr James Stewart. The amount of the charter was Ll5O. I considered the vessel suitable for that voyage, Neither the captain nor any of the crew raised the slightest objection to going in her. The same crew had been in the vessel for some

time. The only suggestion I was aware of that the vessel was not fit for the voyage was a telegram in the papers—a Press telegram from Inveroargill. That appeared after the vessel left here and before she left Inveroargill. Received no communication from the officers or crew from Invercargill. She left Invercargill waters on Christmas morning. I have never seen her sinoe, The oaptain stated that the trip to the Maoquaries and baok would occupy ten to twelve days. The vessel was properly found with everything sextant, two chronometers, and everything. She got her last survey certificate in June, and it had not expired when Bhe left. It was a six months' certificate. We were offered a twelve months' certificate, but on the recommendation of the inspector of machinery we only took a six months' certificate. We sent in written notice when the vessel was in dock in December last, but the inspector did not come to inspect her. I afterwards heard that he did not receive that notice until after she had left. The vessel was insured for LI.BOO. She cost L 4.500 to build, and at the time of her leaving my value of her for insurance puposes was L 3.000. Her actual value was about L 3.200. She was insured in September last, at which time the insurance was reduced from L 2.000 to LI,BOO. She had a full supply of coal when she left. She must have had 63£ tons on board when she left Inveroargill—2l tons being Grey coal and 42$ Hokonui ooal. Her fnll carrying capacity was sixty-five tons in her hold and twelve in her bunkers. Full steaming she would burn about three and a-half tons per day of twenty-four hoars. Her supply would have lasted, if steaming fnll all the time, seventeen days. Judging from what I have heard of her appearance at the Maoquaries I should say she had not burnt more than twenty tons in going down. So that at the same rate of consumption she would have had sixteen days' supply when she left the Maoquaries. She had her own boat and also a whaleboat borrowed from Mr Hatoh, which would have carried all the hands that were on the vessel when she was supposed to be lost. There were provisions sufficient for nineteen hands for six weeks. In .addition tq the telegram I just spoke of, I believe I saw a letter, purporting to be signed by Mr Hatch, in one of the Southland papers before the Kakanui left Inveroargill. The principal purport of the letter was objection to any vessel being sent at all —that it was unnecessary. I think also there was some slight objection to the Kakanui as a small vessel. The charter was in writing [produced]. In order to enable the vessel to make a foreign voyage, which the voyage to the Maoquaries is, _ I applied to the inspector of machinery, and he gave me a telegram in these words: " Mr K, Ramsay has applied to me re Kakanui proceeding to -Maoquarle Islands; lean see/noobjeotion thereto. Please advise Collector ot Customs, Invercargill." I despatched that telegram to the Marine Department at Wellinjrton. In regard to Captain Eckhoff, he presseoTbis services upon me, He represented that he Bad been twice at the Macquaries before. Captain Best had on two' occasions previously to this time suggested to me to send

the Kakanui to the Macquaries for oil, as a meanfl of employing her. My reply waa that with her eoal she would not carry sufficient oil to pay. It did not occur to him or myself that there was the slightest risk in sending hen Christian Hansen, acting-master of the Invercargill: I was mate' of the Kakanui for five or six years. Left her between five and six years ago, when the Invercargill was built, Made four trips in the Kakanui a couple of years ago—twice as master, and twice as mate with Captain Best She was a very good sea boat. To my idea she was a better sea boat than the Invercargill. She certainly took less water on board. The i Kakanui behaved very well in a sea. In my opinion she was right enongh to send to the Macquaries. I would have gone anywhere in her. She was fore-and-aft rigged. She behaved well under canvas, and would layto fine with the.mainsail set. She would sail.well before the wind, but could do nothing on a wind. You couldn't expeet her to. When I was in her she was well found. We got all we asked for. She had] two big anohors and a kedge. John Morgan, of the firm of Morgan and Cable: I knew the Kakanui. We did what required to be done to her in December. They were mostly small matters. We were asked to value the boat on the 4th December last, and reported to Mr Mallard. I valued her at L 2.500. I considered that she was generally well found and in good repair. I examined the vessel for the purpose of reporting on her. She was supplied with new masts about two years ago. R. S. Sparrow: I built the Kakanui in 1879. She had four watertight bulkheads, making five watertight compartments, and was a strong, substantial vessel. I made a new boiler for her in 1886.

Joseph Sparrow deposed: I am an engineer and shipbuilder. 1 principally built the Kakanui. I was with my brother whiUt she was building. I consider her a well-built vessel for her size—faithfully built She had tbree, or perhaps four, watertight bulkheads. I was doing general repairs to the Kakanui almost every month. I was on board of her after almost every trip, looking round what repairs were required, and doing them. The vessel was, so far as I could see, in thorough sea-going order the last time I was aboard her. I saw nothing about her that was not in thorough order. I have always heard it said that she was a good sea boat, and that she behaved at sea better than the Invercargill. Alexander Crawford: I an an engineer surveyor under the Shipping and Seamen's Act, 1877. I knew the steamship Kakanui. Her official number was 75,233. There were four bulkheads in her—three watertight compartments. Her length waa 97 sft; her breadth, 14.5 ft; her depth, 7.5 ft. Her gross tonnage was 83 and her register tonnage 56. She was last surveyed in June, 1890, by Mr Blackwood, who is also an engineer surveyor, and is in the North Island at the present time. Mr Blackwood told me he surveyed her virtually for twelve months, but he advised Mr Ramsay to take a certificate for six months only, because in small companies like that of Mr Ramsay's there is no superintendent engineer, and it is better to have a Government inspection every six months. The vessel was docked on the 16th December, 1890, and notice of that was sent to my office, but it miscarried, and was not discovered until after the vessel had taken her departure. The certificate given by Mr Blackwood expired on the 31st December. She left Invercargill for the Macquaries on the 24th. Mr Ramsay came to me on the 23rd. The question was whether there was any objection to the vessel, which then only held a home-trade certificate, being allowed to go down to the Macquaries, which is out of the home-trade limit, as the islands belong to Tasmania. I gave Mr Ramsay a telegram to send to the 1 Marine Department in the terms stated. I have inspected the Kakanui many times. Her general condition was all good. At the last Burvey, in June, she was thoroughly overhauled. Speaking of my own knowledge, I Bhould say that she was a good little vessel. She was found equal to anything in the home trade. She always had a good name as a seaworthy boat. Things were kept up pretty well. I would not have given her a foreign certificate for all the year round, but I would have had no objection to giving her a declaration to enable her to obtain a certificate to make a casual voyage, Buoh as a voyage to the Macquaries. The anchors and ohainß were in good order, Captain Thomson, Lloyd's surveyor for the port of Dunedin : I knew the Kakanui, and have sailed in her, but never went to sea in her. Have seen her in a pretty heavy sea, crossing the bar at the Molyneux. She behaved very well, and had a good reputation amongst seamen as a seaboat. I was consulted as to her being insured on her voyage to the Macquaries, and advised that an extra premium should be charged, more on account of her top hamper than from any defeot in her hull, as she was going out in the open where the waves are so much heavier. By her top hamper I don't mean her masts and sails, out her deckhouse. In the heavier Beas that she would have to meet a wave might break en board and carry away the deckhouse, and ia that case the water might get down below. I do not say sufficient to sink the vessel, but it was an extra hazard from an underwriter's point of view. She was fit to face any weather when in proper trim. To Sir R. Stout: I did not object to the vessel going to the Macquaries. I knew Captain Best, and that the vessel was in good hands and fully equipped to meet any emergency. I did not consider that there was any risk to human life; I was thinking only of possible damage to the vessel. To the Bench: I did not say what extra premium should be charged. I left that to the underwriters.

Keith Ramsay, recalled: As a matter of fact the underwriters did not charge any extra premium on account of the Kakanui going to the Macquaries. Archibald B. Campbell, shipping agent at Invercargill: I was agent for the Kakanui. One or two letters appeared in the local Press before the steamer sailed referring to her size and unsuitability on that account for the voyage. I had a conversation with Captain Best about those letters. He said that it was time enough for the public to cry out when either he or any of his crew complained. Captain Best made no objections to the voyage, and seemed quite confident of making the trip. I had occasion to see and converse with almost every member of the crew. Not one of them made any objection or expressed any dislike to the voyage they were about to make. I know Mr Hatch. I cannot reoolleot whether any of the letters referred to were signed by him. I know that he was desirous of going to the Mac quaries in the Kakanui. I know that from a conversation I had with him. He said that he would go; but I gave him to understand that he could not go, because the Government would not give permission to carry passengers. I think that was the only thine that kept him 'from going. From my knowledge of the vessel I should say that when she left she was drawing about 7ft 6in aft and about 4ft 6in or sft forward. She had no cargo, but took provisions to last five or six weeks, including the men on the island if they came back in the vessel. [Left sitting.]