Untitled

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 7007, 2 May 1884, Page 4

It will be seen from our telegrams that the enquiry into the case of the Takapuna terminated yesterday, and that the judgment of the Court has been given, though the senteuce has not yet been apportioned. The judgment is to the affect that the injury to the vessel was caused by carte less navigation through the fault of Captain Jones, and want of experience on the part of Mr. Sommers, the second mate. The nature of the evidence, the principal portion of which appeared in our issue of the 30th ultimo, was of such a kind as fully to justify, the judgment, and leaves little room for doubt ss to what the punishment is likely to be. It appears that so far hack as the 22nd of November last; the Takapuna, having grounded twice previously in the ftlanakau, struck on the rocks off Cape Egmont during the night, that the knowledge of these facts had been concealed, and that the company knew nothing of what hsd happened till the ship was docked. At the time of the vessel touching near the Cape the second mate was on the bridge, and received the course from the captain, who then went below. This course was slightly altered, but in the direction of keeping further off the land, and the quarter-master, under the impression that they were too close in, kept her still further off, contrary to the second rnate'a instructions. This departure from orders was in both cases censurable, because the object of the captain in giving the course he did might have been to take a certain opening in the reef, and the effect of deviation might have been .to bring the vessel against a part of the reef which it was Ma purpose to avoid. It does not appear, however, that in giving the course the captain had any such object in view, and the inference therefore ia that he must have hugged the coast too closely; while it may also be conclnded that, if the deviation, though unauthorised, had been, greater than it was, the vessel would have passed clear of the rocks altogether. For the position of the vessel when she struck the captain must therefore be held responsible. It was clearly his duty.during his own watch and at such a dangerous part of the coast, to see that the second mate had a safe course given, more especially as that officer had no knowledge of the course himself. In circumstances which ought to have caused him more than usual anxiety the exhaustive demand made on his strength by the nature of the service could be no valid plea for his absence from the bridge at that particular time. But by far the most censurable part of his conduct was his instructing his subordinates after the accident had happened not only to preserve silence respecting it, but to expressly deny it_to anyone making enquiry concerning i* > and, contrary to the rules of the companf* to fail in reporting the occurrence to their chief office. After striking thrice on rocks as in this instance, a ve&sel is not in a condition to be regarded as seaworthy. and any captain who by concealment' pi facts is responsible for her voyaging W such a condition, is also responsible fo* the increased peril to life and property thereby involved. The sentence tnerefore which the Court will pass on tne captain will in all probability be severe. As for the second mate, it is difficult W see what punishment beyond that Oi censure'can be given to him. There w no reason why a man should be punishett for his inexperience, because for that ae is not responsible. The mistake was; in his holding the office he did, andMM responsibility of his inexperience, and toe consequences flowing therefrom m.u

herefore rest on the company. It is easy or' the Marine Superintendent of the company to say that it would not be prudent for a master to leave a vessel more than half-an-hour to the care of a young officer who had not been on that ■coast before. But in a high pressure service why should there be a young inexperienced officer as second mate at all! The presence of such an officer means that tho captain who has to be on the bridge as he approaches and leaves all ports, and while in port must be thoroughly occupied, simply becomes overpowered by nature's demand for rest. This, in fact, is the only point in the evidence which tells in the captain's favour. It is a strong extenuating circumstance. Bat by how much it exculpates the captain, by so much" it inculpates the company; and the public will have good ■ cause for dissatisfaction if, in passing sentence, on the officers of the Takapuna, the Court does not in some way express its disapprobation of the company's action in placing an inexperienced officer on board a vessel, the nature of whose service of iteelf makes an extraordinary demand on the captain's watchfulness.