HARBOUR COLLISION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LI, Issue 15748, 24 October 1914, Page 5

HARBOUR COLLISION.

PAHIKI-CLANSMAN AFFAIR.

CAPTAIN EXONERATED.

0 .1 A decision, was given yesterday by the .. Court appointed to rehear the evidence concerning the collision between the scow Pahiki and the Northern Steamship Company's steamer Clansman in the Auckland j Harbour on June 24. The Court's decision had the effect of practically exonerating , I the master of the Clansman, Captain E. McLeod, and freeing him from the order j. lof the Lower Court that he should pay 0 j three-fourths of the cost of the inquiry, 1 j while the second officer of the Clansman, 8 I Mr. K. 0. G. Brinck, was ordered to r I pay £10 costs, whereas in the Lower ,' Court he was ordered to pay one-quarter k of the costs. Mr. Justice Cooper presided over the Court, and was assisted by Cap--11 tain G. Lambert, of Wellington, and 3 j Captain H. A. Couldrey, nautical assessor. ' Mr. J. C. Martin appeared for Captain McLeod, Mr. A. E. Bkelton for Mr. K. I! 0. G. Brinck, Mr. M. G. McGregor for , I the master of the scow Captain D. i Christensen Mr. Selwyn Mays for . I the Minister for Marine. 1 1 The first question, the Court remarked, , | was whether the scow was a, crossing | ship or whether the Clansman was an : I overtaking vessel. The Court was satis- • I fied that the scow was a crossing ship • and the Clansman not an overtaking vessel. » Further, it was held that the scow, at r the time of the collision, was crossing ! : the steamer almost at right angles. The j Court also found that the weight of ' j evidence was that the scow was carrying • ■ the proper lights and that they were < ! burning properly. In the circumstances : of the case the master of the scow had ! , not been guilty in not showing a flare- ,' up light. The Court therefore found that . the scow was not to blame for the •' collision, but that the collision was >i caused by the default of the Clansman. J No Proper Look-out Kept.

SECOND OFFICER TO PAY £10.

" The cause of the collision was the failure on the part of the Clansman to keep a vigilant and proper look-out," the judgment continued. ..." The time was the approaching dawn, a time when it was, in the opinion of the Court, essential that a vigilant look-out shou'd have been stationed in the bows of the steamer, especially considering that the steamer was passing up a harbour in which there was a reasonable probability that small craft might be about. Yet the only person who is said to have been on the look-out for some minutes before the collision was the second officer, and during that time it is clear that he was not at any time in a position to keep a sufficient look-out. He . was not, aa a look-out should have been, in the hows of the ship, but was 15ft from them, near to the forecastle scuttle, and during a part of the time and shortly before the collision was engaged on some other work. The Court is of opinion that if a proper look-out had been stationed a.t the bows of the steameT the scow must have been seen in ample time to enable the steamer to avoid any risk of collision." Continuing, the Court pointed out that the second officer of the Clansman, by relieving the A.B. acting as look-out, undertook the duty himself, and His failure to keep an efficient look-out was the actual cause of the collision. A Custom Criticised;

" The remaining, question," the finding continued, "is whether the master of ! the steamer was guilty of any default. 1 The Court is of opinion thai the custom, , which appears for a long time to have i been followed in the Clansman of the chief officer acting as a look-out from the time ' the steamer passes the North Head is one which ought not to have obtained, and that there ought to be a seaman whose sole duty should be to act as a look-out until the ship arrives sufficiently near to her berth to justify his removal. The master of the Clansman was carrying out his duty upon the bridge while the steamer was proceeding up the harbour, and that he did not observe the approaching scow is, we think, explained by the fact that he was engaged in the performance of other necessary duties, and also that the bridge was not, in the circumstances, the most suitable place for an efficient look-out. And up to the morning in question the chief officer appears to have performed regularly the duty of a look-out from the forecastle of the ship.

Some Laxity on Part of Captain. "A 1 master of the ship is no doubt responsible for the proper management of the ship, and there has been, we think, some laxity in his permitting this custom to obtain, but we are not satisfied that this laxity contributed materially to the casualty. He relied upon the chief officer performing the duty which that officer had previously undertaken and performed. He was not made aware of the fact that the chief officer had, on the morning of June 24, failed to take his accustomed station on the forecastle or that the second officer had assumed this duty. Before the master _ of a ship can be penally dealt with it must be clearly shown that his conduct contributed to the casualty. Position of Chief Officer. " In the circumstances we have stated, we make no order for costs against the master. We desire, however, to emphasise the necessity which, in our opinion, exists for an alteration of the custom which has hitherto prevailed, and for having a competent seaman stationed in the bows of the ship with the sole duty of keeping a vigilant look-oat. We consider that the failure of the second officer to keep a vigilant look-out, ha having assumed that duty, was the primary cause of the casualty, and while we male no order, in the circumstances, suspending his certificate, we order him to pay the sum of £10 towards the costs of this inquiry. The necessary preliminaries for citing the chief officer have not been taken in this matter, and no order, therefore, can be made against him."