Merchant Guild’s Counsel Protests

Northern Advocate, 4 June 1948, Page 6

Merchant Guild’s Counsel Protests

Port Waikato Inquiry

WELLINGTON. Fri. (P.A.).—Claiming that no good purpose could lie served, Dr O. C. Mazengarb, appearing for the Merchant Service Guild entered a protest at the holding of an inquiry into the mishap to the motor vessel 1 Port Waikato when the Court of Inquiry began its investigations at tiro Magistrate’s Court today. The Port Waikato, while en route from the Chathams to New Zealand, became disabled on May 11 when a wire cargo-runner fouled her propeller.

Sire was later towed to Wellington by the Kamo. Tire Court consisted of Mr J. S. Hanna, S.M., and Captains A. T. Norton and A. H. Howie. Dr N. A. Foden appeared for the superintendent of the Mercantile Marine. Wellington, and Mr W. H. Cunningham for Holm and Company, who hold the vessel on long-term charter. CONDITIONAL APPEARANCE Dr Mazengarb appeared for the Merchant Service Guild to watch the interests of the captain and officers.

He said his appearance was conditional and made under protest and without prejudice as to the jurisdiction of the Court of Inquiry. It was submitted that the court was not properly convened, in that there had been no loss of life, the ship was not abandoned, and there had been no material or serious damage within the meaning of those words in the act.

‘‘l make it a conditional appearance because you cannot be presumed to know at this stage what actually happened.” he said. ‘ But the Merchant Service Guild is very concerned that, of late, there appears to have been a tendency to make an inquiry whenever anything untoward happens at sea. ‘‘NO GOOD PURPOSE”

"This is one of the cases jn which it is contended by the guild that no really good purpose can be served by an inquiry.

“Publicly, it is well known what the cause of the happening was.” In the inquiry, added Dr Mazengarb, he did not propose to embark upon (because he submitted it was not necessary) any discussion about who was responsible for the fact that the wire rope which fouled the boss of the propeller was not propery lashed. Replying to points raised by Dr Mazengarb, Dr Foden said that counsel had not exhausted the list of casualties in respect of which an inquiry of the kind could be hold. An inquiry could be held following any occasion on which damage, however trivial, was caused to a British shin. “COULD HAVE BEEN SERIOUS” If. after it had heard evidence, the court considered the question of cancellation or suspension might arise—he did not suggest that—then the damage must have been serious before such action could be taken. It might short-circuit any legal argument if he drew the attention of tiro court to that point at the present juncture. “On the general question whether or not there should be an inquiry the court should agree that this casualty was attended by no serious results, although it might have been otherwise,” said Dr Foden. MASTER’S EFFICIENCY

“The vessel was disabled in simple but effective fashion by what is called a cargo-runner, 2? inches in circumference, fouling the propeller. “The master acted with commendable promptitude and efficiency in dealing with the situation that arose, but, nevertheless, potentialities of greater disaster were present..

“For that reason the Minister thought fit to direct this inquiry.” The court then proceeded to hear evidence. CERTIFICATE RETURNED

When the master of the vessel. Cosmo Atholl Keith, came forward to give evidence, Dr Foden said he would not ask for his certificate to be handed in to the court.

“I appreciate very much Dr Foden’s attitude,” said Dr Mazengarb. “When inquiries are held, all too frequently masters and officers are asked to hand in their certificates, and they have to be handed back only after the findings are announced.” Dr Foden read the captain’s statement at the original preliminary hearing.

In this he stated that at about 4.30 a.m. on May 11, it was found that a cargo-runner, which had been on top of the passenger accommodation, had its hook caught in a ladder, while the other end disappeared under the counter of the ship. SAIL RIGGED The chief engineer told him he could not move the engine either way. Witness gave instructions for the rigging of sail and the ship got under way. As he was not sure that he would avoid the north-west reef, he asked the trawler Manuka by radio to stand-by. She arrived on May 12 and he released her on May 13 on learning that the Kamo was corning to assist. FORGOT Keith, continuing his evidence, said the weather was unsuitable for shifting cargo to enable the stern to be lifted out of the water and the rope cleared. He inquired of the mate and second mate why the cargo-runner had not been properly secured, and the mate said he had left it to the second, as it was not his end of the ship. The second mate said that he remembered that he forgot about it. Cross-examined, Keith agreed that deprivation of the vessel’s power was no light matter. The court found that the mishap; was caused by the forgetfulness of the second officer (Mr R. B. Wyld). His responsibility was to stow or | secure the hawser, which became entangled around the ship’s propeller.