NAUTICAL INQUIRY.

Grey River Argus, 15 July 1922, Page 5

NAUTICAL INQUIRY.

QUESTION OF RESPONSIBILITY. DECISION ON MONDAY. Mr Selwvn Mays pointed out that public interest was .? vital point in mai tors such as this and regret for the ‘ffect any finding may have on the car ■ • rs of persons concerned could not 1 allowed to interfere with public intt •st. The essential facts were perfect y clear. Under good conditions th asualty had occurred in a ridicule - nanner in appro’ ching a perfectly sa. harbour that made navigation a fare Had the chief officer appreciated that he was in charge there would have be no c: sualty. What happened in this ase was that the chief officer took over his watch am! did not then prick off the course, but the matter came up a little later and he went into the charthouse, pricked off the course and told the officer to alter the course that indicated he was up to bring the ship into port. Just : fter that he said: “Steer for the light: I am going down to get my overcoat.” There was no lack of responsibility so far as the chief officer was concerned, for it must have seemed to him just before strik;:g that something had to be done, and he should have done it. There was no xciise for him, but what probably happen< <! w s that he was waiting for the master to come bark. Ho eventually 'Uildenly woke up to the fact that the ight was dangerously near, and the master was not on deck and it was then Counsel held that part of the responsibility must rest with the nirster/ m hat. The manner in which he left t!i<> bridge did not indicate to the chief "hi' 1 r clearly that he was in charge. It was in the captain’s favour that he knew that a thoroughly qualified, competent and relrible man was on the bridge, but still the fart remained that a mistake was made on both sides. The chief officer requested permission to speak. He said he had, from the ■ ifst. taken the full share <>f blame tlaching to the casualty, but he wished to appeal to the Court for whatever leniency it could make in the circumstances. He was at no time negligent, and was keenly attentive to his duty at the time, but was honestlv deceived by the close approach of the light, which he thought wr s further off. Subsequently Mr Grantlv stated to the Chairman that he fully understood at the time the master went off the bridge that he w.?s in charge. At this singe ihe Court adjourned for two hours to frame its findings. Later the Court announced that it had been unable to come to a decision and would give its findings at 11.30 a.m. on Monday