ABEL TASMAN WRECK

Greymouth Evening Star, 11 August 1936, Page 3

ABEL TASMAN WRECK

COURT EXONERATES CAPTAIN.

By its decision, given late yesterday afternoon, at Greymouth, the Court of Inquiry in connection with the wreck of the Abel 'Tasman on July 18, exonerated Captain W. D. Archibald and his officers and crew. The question as to whether the Harbour Board and its officials contributed to the wreck is to be a matter for further consideration, and will be dealt with by the Court in its report to the Minister of Marine. Mr. H. Morgan, S.M.. presided, with Captain J. Mawson and Captain F. W. Baron, both of Wellington, as nautical assessors. Mr. N. A. Foden, of Wellington, represented the Minister o| Marine and the Collector of Customs;-' Mr. E. K. Kirkcaldie, of Wellington, appeared for Captain W. D. Archibald, of the Abel Tasman, and the former owners of the vessel, the H. C. Sleigh Coasters Proprietary, Ltd., of Melbourne; and Mr. F. A. Kitchingham for the Greymouth Harbour Board. Captain H. A. Dillner acted as advisor, on behalf of the Marine Departn&nt.

Mr. Morgan said that the Court had considered to some extent the questions submitted to it for consideration. Some of the questions they were able, at the present juncture, to answer outright. In connection with other,questions, they would give an indication as to what their answers would be, hut these would later be amplified, in memoranda to be prepared and submitted in the formal report of the Court. They had pleasure in handing back to the master and the first officer their certificates, with no mark on them.

The questions submitted to the Court, and the answers given, were as follow:—

(la). Was the vessel moored in accordance with the practice of the harbour?—Yes.

(lb) Was she moored to the satisfaction of the Harbourmaster? —Yes. The evidence shows that both the Harbourmaster and the vessel’s master and officers had given strict attention to the safe mooring of the vessel. (2) Could the practice of the harbour as to the moorings in flood conditions be improved by tire Harboui’ Board providing special moorings for floods? —Yes. (Memoranda to be prepared, embodying recommendations).

(3) Is it possible that the casualty would have been avoided if the engines had been turning and ready for instant use? Not in our opinion (to he amplified in report). (4) Was everything possible done to save the vessel after she broke away? —Yes. The Court considers that the master, officers, engineers and crew acted in a prompt and seamanlike manner, and are to be commended therefor, the master in particular. (5) Was the casualty caused or contributed to by the wrongful act or default of the master or any of his crew, or of the Harbour Board or any otheri person?—Not insofar as the master or any of his crew were concerned, but the Court desires further to consider this question in relation to the Harbour Board and its officials. QUESTION OU COSTS}. In pointing out that the Court had power to make an order with regard

to the payment of costs, Mr Kirkcaldie said that Captain Archibald had been delayed for some time and put to considerable expense in retaining counsel. The inquiry had been held at Greymouth by request, and might have been less expensive had’ it been held at Wellington. He asked the Court to take into consideration the tact that the captain had been exonerated, and submitted that he should not be penalised in having to employ counsel and be represented at Greymouth. No doubt he would have to face the possibility of an inquiry in Australia, where the vessel was registered. .Mr Foden said he took it that the Court would not contemplate the Minister or the Collector of Customs having to pay the costs. The inquiry was held in Greymouth at the request of the Harbour Board’. The captain and most of the witnesses would have passed through Wellington. The expenses would have been a good deal less if the inquiry had been held there, although there was some reason for it being held at Greymouth. So far as the Minister and the Collector of Customs were concerned, they had simply followed the ordinary course in the interests of the public generally, and the principals. If anybody should pay the costs, he submitted that it should not be the Government Department, which merely carried' out its function of serving the public interest.

Mr Kitchingham said that, so fares the Harbour Board was concerned, it seemed to be suggested, because it represented that the inquiry should be held at Greymouth, the costs should be passed on to the Board. Mr Kirkcaldie declared that he did not suggest that. Mr Foden said’ what he suggested was that the Marine Department should not be called upon to pay the costs. He did not suggest that they should be passed on to the Harbour Board.

Mr Kitchingham stated it was desirable, on principle, that such inquiries should be held at Greymouth, as the Board was prejudiced when they were held in Wellington. Although the Court intended to make recommendations in regard to improvements at the port, that did not imply that Die Board had previously been at fault. It seemed to him that the proper people to bear the costs were the former owners of the ship, as they were the owners of the faulty chain which was the cause of the accident to the Abel Tasman.

Mr Morgan stated that the Court would consider the question of costs, and would take into consideration the views submitted by counsel.