WRECK OF THE SCOW PIRATE

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 10453, 27 May 1897, Page 5

WRECK OF THE SCOW PIRATE

CERTIFICATE OF THE MASTER RETURNED!

The judgment of the Nautical Court of Inquiry, held by Mr, H. W. Brabant, M., and Captains Greenwood and Page (assessors), 'into the wreck of the scow Pirate on Portland Island, Hawke's Bay, in the month of April last was given yesterday morning. Mr. J. A. Tole, Crown Solicitor, and the Collector of Customs were present on behalf of the marine authorities.' Mr, Campbell appeared for the master (Mr, E, A. Stenbeck). 1 Mr. Brabant said the loss or damage appeared by the evidence to have been caused by (1) the sails of the scow having b§en blown away in a sale; (2) the master baying mistaken the position of his vessel when the wind changed. In the following finding he followed the order in which the case was argued by tho Crown Solicitor. 1. He was of opinion that the qasttt mistook the position of the vessel when the wind changed at midnight. 2. There was nothing in the evidence to lead His Worship to suppose that she was carrying too much when the squall earned away and split her sails. 3. Irom the evidence it appeared the were in fair condition. Tfiey were only two year* old, and had been reptjred When the vessel was in port. , 4. He was advised by |iis assessors'that a vessel in the intercolonial trade should a second suit of sforip, sails, but it aid not' appear that; the,ffipt of the Pirate'having noragj) sails, conduced in any way to fhe accident 5. His Worship could form no opinion as to the suitability of scows generally for tjlie coal trade. The evidence showed the Pirate was difficult to manage In a sea when deeply laden, as she would not stay. 6. It was not clear that the Teasel required more sea room than the martyr allowed, and it appeared to the Court he was justified in going inshore to make his passage while (he wind was from th'q north. 7. His Worship was not satisfied that the inset had anything to c)o with the accident. Mr. Brabant said ib appeared that had no squall occurred, or had the sails held, the vessel would have weathered the land; that the master had mistaken his position when the wind changed, and so committed an error of judgment in his subsequent course; that ho negligence had been proved, and the circumstances in which the master was placed were so difficult and trying that the Court could not hold him culpable. The master's certificate was returned. No order was made as to cost*.