WRECK OF THE DEFIANCE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 13278, 10 September 1906, Page 8

WRECK OF THE DEFIANCE.

SIGNALMAN'S EVIDENCE.

DECISION OP THE COURT.

The nautical inquiry regarding the wreck of the brigantine Defiance, which was stranded on the North Spit entrance to Kaipara Harbour, about four miles from Kaipara lighthouse, but inside the bar, and which has become a total wreck, was concluded on Saturday. Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.M., presided, and had with him as assessors Captain A. Campbell and Captain J. Adamson. The Collector of Customs (Mr. Alex. Rose) appeared for the Marine Department, and Mr. J. C. Martin watched the inquiry on behalf of the master and chief officer of the Defiance. STATEMENT BY SIGNALMAN. Robert S. Jones, assistant lighthousekeeper and signalman at Kaipara Heads, said he had read an account of the inquiry in last Wednesday's Hkralo. On August 27 he was at the signal station, which was about 300 ft above sea level. Witness saw the Defiance entering the harbour about midday. Mr. Rose: Did you make any signals to the Defiance?— did not. Why not? Because I did not see her in a dangerous position. Witness said he saw the Defiance about eight o'clock in the morning outside the bar. After she crossed the bat he saw her near the southern Shore of the- channel. The Defiance was not then in a dangerous- position. That was the only time he- had seen her after entering the harbour until he saw her on shore. He could not sec the vessel, because a thick haze and drifting sand obscured his view. He would have, signalled the Defiance had he seen her approaching the North Spit. The next time he saw the vessel was when she was ashore. The banc had suddenly lifted just before that. He had the printed regulations for signalling, and fully understood them. He always signalled when he saw vessels approaching danger. On a clea.r day he had a fine uninterrupted view of the harbour and entrance. The principal keeper had informed him that there was a counter current, but he had forgotten what he was told. Mr. Kettle: Well, if you don't know the channel thoroughly, and don't know the action of this current, how can you guide vessels in entering the harbour'/ — can see where the breakers are. and I know the portion of the harbour pointed out to me where the noted gravevard is. The ships.' graveyard, I suppose?—lt is called the graveyard there. That is all I know. A vessel might be getting Into this current when beating up, and when it did not have much way on, and you cannot warn them if you don't know about.the current. —We do' not allow them to cut it too fine. We put. up the signal* when, according to our judgment, they are too close. THE CAPTAIN RECALLED. Captain White (recalled) said it was possible that he could see the signal-station while the signalman's view might be obscured. At the time, however, he looked for signals, and did not think the view could be obscured. Captain Campbell: If he is elevated at 300 ft above you he ought to see better. To Mr. Kettle: Witness took soundings in proceeding up the harbour. He was engaged in taking soundings, having fixed the wheel, when the" vessel missed stavs just as she caught the current. He registered six fathoms at the time. Mr. Rose applied for an adjournment to call the principal keeper. He knew the atmospheric conditions and other points connected with the inquiry, and these were essential. He had been directed by the Marine Department to have the principal keeper's evidence taken. He understood that the currents in the Kaipara Harbour changed at intervals, for instance ■when rain fell. Mr. Kettle said these, details were known to the Department, and they should have included them in the regulations. Mr. Rose said if they made regulations too detailed they found that they were often overlooked The lightkeeper wished to contradict some of the statements made. Mr. Kettle said thev had no wish to prolong the inquiry unless there was some material evidence to be given. After further argument Mr. Kettle said he and the assessors accepted the sworn statement of the signalman that he did his best. The application for adjournment was then withdrawn. Mr. Martin did not address Hie Court, but printed out that according to the New Zealand Pilot, the semaphore .arm would point the way the vessel must steer, but the semaphore would not be used if the vessel kept the channel. Seeing that the semaphore arm was not used, and the captain believing that he was in the right channel, he was perfectly justified in standing as he had done. THE JUDGMENT. After a retirement of over half-an-hour, the Court gave judgment. Mr. Kettle said the Court was unanimous. They considered that the loss of the Defiance arose through the master somewhat imprudently standing in too close to the beach before tacking. The vessel was close hauled, and under small sail, and she had not, therefore, sufficient way on her when the helm was put. hard-a-lee to ensure her coming round. In consequence of this and an inshore current counter to the flow of the tide, of which the mister said he was not aware, the vessel fell off, and at once took ground. All reasonable and seamanlike efforts were then made, to get out of the difficulty, but as two hours' flood-tide had still to run, and the wind was blowing down from the north-east, the vessel gradually went firmer on the bank, where she eventually remained. ( The Court found that, although the Marine Department has provided semaphore signals to assist masters and others in the navigation of this intricate and dangerous channel (Kaipara), no signals were given to the master that the vessel was standing into danger. The signalman was apparently at his post when the vessel was beating up the channel, but be had sworn that owing to a, haze and drifting sand he could not see the vessel just before she was stranded, and did not, therefore, know that she was standing into danger. "We are of opinion that the signalman in charge at the time was not sufficiently experienced and competent to act as such." Captain White, was ordered to pay £10, the costs of the inquiry, but his master's certificate, was not interfered with. It was pointed out by Mr. Martin that Captain White was depending absolutely on his wages, and the Court then agreed that he should not pay the costs.