NAUTICAL INQUIRY.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1665, 27 January 1904, Page 20

NAUTICAL INQUIRY.

THE ROTQMAHANAIJESSIB NICCOL

COLLISION.

The collision between the Rotomahana andl .tie schooner Jessie Niccol,, which occurred in the Wellington Harbour on the evening of .Becembter 19th, formed the eubjeefc of a nautical inquiry on the 19th just., before Hr A. McArthur, S.M., who had with him Captain Post, of the Tatanekai, a/nd C'apta/in Clifford, of the Kailooura, as assessors. , . _ ' Mr Myers appeared for the Marine Department, Mr Gray for Captain Manning, of the Mr Trip© for Captain Smith, of the Jessie Niccol, Mr Herdman for Mr Tait, chief officer of the Rotomahana, and Mr Izard was present to watch the proceedings on behalf of the Harbour Board. t „ . Mr Myers, in opening the case lor the Marine Department, said the statement of the case simply set forth that the Jessie Niccol was on Saturday, December 19th; lying at anchor in Wellington harbour. On the evening of the same day the Rotomahana left the Wellington wharf for Lyttelton at about 9.20 o clock with; a large number of passenger s. About ’ 9.27 p.m. the Rotomiahaaia ran into and collided with the Jessie Niccol, causing the'said Jessie Niccol serious damage, and causing her to sink. The weather was at the time fine, with the sea smooth. ’ Proceeding, counsel stated that the Jessie, Niccol arrived in port shortly after noon on the day in question, and, according to all accounts, immediately applied for a berth. Apparently at the time a berth was not available, though a person would suppose that under ordinary circumstances a boat arriving in Wellington harbour would be able to obtain wharf accommodation immediately. Of course, if all the, berths were occupied there would be an answer to this aspect of the case, but the matter called for inquiry. There was also the question of the safety or otherwise of the anchorage of the Jessie Niccol. If she was in a dangerous place, then from the very fact that she had been there from noon that day it was fair to conclude the Harbour Board's officials must have been aware of it. Counted did not assert fox one moment that the schooner was anchored in dangerous ground. Coming to .the collision itself.' he said it certainly did seem strange, if aill the regulations had been complied with, that such a thing should have taken place. The point as to. whether the Jessie Niccol’s anchor light complied with the regulations would be the subject of argument. The latest regulation bearing on the subject was macle by "Gazette” notice in 1901, and provided for, an um broken light, visible at least one mile ' away. Then there were additional regulations, providing for the presence of one seaman to have charge of the deck of a ship in port, and generally to have sufficient hands for her safety. Even - if the light on the Jessie Niccol was bad, counsel concluded, considering iho place and the circumstances of the mishap, there were questions which demanded an answer by the officers of the steamer. Evidence was then called. William Andrew Smith, master of the Jessie Niccol, said the schooner belonged to William Cook, of Christchurch. Witness held a foreigmgaing master’s certicate. The ©hip’s log and papers were lost when she sank. Witness arrived at 12.30 p.m. fprm Lyttelton on December lSthi W itness came ashore and applied for a berth. Applied first to an employee of the Harbour Board, whose name witness did not know; next to Quinlan, an employee/ of the Board. Wais told .there- was no berth available, both of the men mad© that reply, and said witness was to apply again on Monday morning. The Harbour Board officials could not help seeing where the Jessie! Niccol was anchored. Had no discussion with them, and they made no comment about it. The "Jessie Niccol could be seen from the place where the Rotomahana . was berthed. When the Jessie Niccol Was run down by the Rotomahana, witness and two A.B/s (Henry and Johnson) were on board. Witness was on dleok about ten minutes past nine. Saw neither of th& A.B/s on deck then. About 9.30 the Rotomahana ran into his vessel. The impact put out the lights in witness’s cabin. The lantern light above decks was 22ft above the schooner’s deck and 18ft 11-’in above the hull. It was fixed in -the - shrouds. The lantern (produced) showed" a uniform light}, very steady. A hole in the lamp glass produced in Court was not in the glass when 'it was hung up on the night of the accident. Witness saw the lamp alight about fifteen minutes after the collision. Witness was then on board the Rotonra*. iana. Witness had cleaned the lamp for test purposes; he had to do> that, for it had been under water for four or five days. The lamp’s light Avas visible for a mile and a half. To Mr Gray: The lamp (produced) appeared to have been smoking; the smoke on it (a thin layer) had been made during the experiments of a recent evening, 2 1© thought. There was only the one light that woulld be visible from the Queen’s Wharf on 'the night of the accident. It was hung in the for© rigging on the pprfc side, made fast top- and bottom. That was .the part of the ship where the light could best he seen by vessels coming in or going out. Witness was prepared / to say that his vessel had not drifted at all from the time she anchored until 9 o’clock at night. The Jessie Niccol was lying to the southward of the hulks in the vicinity, ‘ On the nigmt of the accident witness had given no instructions for* an anchor watch to be kept. Was keeping it himself. Was lying down in his cabin, reading, partly dressed, when, the collision occurred-. Expected the mate to came aboard from the shore to keep the second watch. Had not instructed him to take the watch. If he had not turned up at 10 o’clock witness would have taken another watch till 12 o’clock and have then called the two A.B;’s. Was on deck at about 8-45 and’ again at about 9.15. looked at the lamp each time; it was burning. The wind had changed a little. It did not occur to witness that the change in the vessel’s position caused thereby might make a change in the Location of the light desirable. Thought Iris light could be seen where it was as well

ais it would have been on any other part of the ship. Was prepared to swear that a rag round the..bottom rim of the lamp was not put "there to stop a hole; it was because of a Crack in the rim. Witness had never examined the lamp cl'osely until yesterday; had never had it in his hand; till then. ’ Notwithstanding what he had just staid; he would swear that he had had the lamp in his hands at Lyttelton. It was not true that when the lamp was recovered from the schooner the rag wats higher up on the lantern than the lower rim. Witness would swear he did not tell Chief-officer Tait that no adchor watch was being kept aboard the scliponer. Had no conversation with him on the night of the collision. To Mr Herdman: Witness) thought he asked Tait a question, but got no reply. No one suggested to witness that the lam tern should be cleaned. Witness mad© the suggestion himself. A Customhouse officer was/ present at the testing of the lamp on Monday night (January I8tli), and also at the cleaning. Witness had had the lamp in his hands innumerable times. When answering Mr Gray, witness thought the night of the collision was meant. Witness cleaned the lamp twice last month. Was not in the habit of cleaning the lamp himself. To Mr Trip©: The schooner was anchored by the Culver buoy. There was over twp hundred and fifty yards passage way for the Rotomahana past the schooner. Had seen two ships anchored in the particular spot where the schooner was run down. It was a common amchoirage for small vessels. Saw the lamp on the morning it was taken from the vessel when she had been lifted (Tuesday, December 22nd). Did not see it again until January 18. It was never out of a Customhouse officer’s charge. At thie testing there were Mr Frazer and Captain Anderson present on behalf of the U.S.-S. Co. Mr Myers and Mr Cook were also present. From witness’s experience of the lamp, witness thought it cmrld be seen for about three miles in clear weather. The rag on- the bottom of the lantern would not make a particle of difference to the light’s power. When keeping personal watch witness did not consider it to be his duty to be on deck all the time, unless it was blowing or if .the schooner was in the fairway of shipping. Had not formed any theory as to the cause of the accident. , The steamer Riverdale was coaling in a line with the schooner and the wharf. There was a lot of light on the steamer. The collision was the first serious accident he had experienced in thirty-five years’ sea voyaging. If witness had said no anchor watches were kept that night it would be wrong. To Mr Gray: Would swear he did not tell Mr Kennedy (Wellington manager of the Union Steamship Company) that no anchor watches were kept, and that the men were below asleep. If Mr Kennedy said so he was mistaken. Would swear he did not tell either a "Times’ or "Post” reporter that no watches were kept. To Mr Myers: Remembered seeing Captain Johnston, harbourmaster, /on Monday, December 21st. Did not tell him there was a hole in the glass of the lamp, and that the rag Avas tied round the lamp for that reason

Robert Henry, A.B. on the articles of the Jessie Niccol, said he had been five days on the vessel at the time of the accident. Witness Avas below Avhen the collision took place. SaAV the cook that afternoon (Saturday) cleaning a lamp like the one produced. Did not see any rag tied round it. To Mr Gray: Was in bunk, asleep, Avhen the collision took place. Johnson was beloAv, too. To Mr Herdman: Got no instructions from the captain as to keeping a Avatch that night. It Avould have been Avitness s watch at 2 a.m. .

To Mr Tripe: The light Avas burning brightly after the collision. Peter Johnson, A. 8., deposed that he joined the Jessie Niccol at Lyttelton on December 15. Turned in at 8.30 or 8.45 o’clock on the night of the accident. Was awakened by the collision. SaAV an anchor light on the schooner before lie Avent beloAv. Witness put the rag on the lamp (produced) that was on it uoav. Put it there because the flame Avas flickering in consequence of the glass being slightly damaged doAvn beloAv. To Mr Gray: The captain told Avitness in Wellington that he Avould be required to keep an anchor Avatch; that was about 4 o’clock in the afternoon. If the captain had deposed that he Avas ashore that evening until about 5.30 o’clock, waiting to buy a neAvspaper, and that he had given no instructions to the men about keeping an anchor Avatch the captain was probably Avrong. Witness’s impression Avas that the captain gave those instructions in Wellington. _ To Mr Tripe: Witness tied the lamp in the shrouds on the night of the accident. It was so fixed that its light Avould not be obscured to passing ships. EdAvard Quinlan, signalman to the Wellington Harbour Board, deposed that Captain Smith asked him for a berth for the Jessie Niccol on Saturday, December 19th. Told him there would be no berths available until Monday morn-ing.'-'That was a fact. ' Witness considered the Jessie Niccol Avas not in the fairAvay; he did not knoAV there Avas a fairway in the harbour; . There Avas deep water pretty Avell everywhere. Had seen vessels anchored there before. Witness had no poAver to shift them. To Mr Gray: Witness would not call the Jessie Niccol’s lamp (produced) a proper anchor light, especially if there Avas rag wrapped around the bottom. There was no comparison betAveen the ordinary anchor light (sample produced) and the Jessie Niccol’s.

To Mr Tripe: Possibly the Jessie Niccol’s light Avas seen for over a mile, at a trial made on the night of the 18th inst. Mr Herdman pointed out that the test was made on a clear night, and Mr Gray said that the testers kneAV in what direction to look for the light. Henry Johnston, harbourmaster at Wellington, said he saw the Jessie Niceol at anchor. She Avas not anchored in the fairway. As far as witness knew, the fairway meant anywhere coming into and going out of the liarbour. When a vessel Avas anchored in: the harbour she was out of the fainvay. The fairway meant the passage in from the heads to

Somes Island. Would not try to say Avhat Avas meant by the Harbour Board’s regulation 21, which said, "No vessel shall anchor in the fairway.” If the Jessie,"’Niccol had been in the fairway when she Was run into by the Rotomahana, witness Avould not have considered himself blamable. It Avas witness’s duty to haA-e a vessel removed if she Avas in a dangerous position. Witness considered the Jessie Niccol Avas not in the fairAvay, and that she Avas in a safe position. Could not say if the Rptomahana Avas taking a proper course in steering the Avay she did on that night; there might have been special circumstances. Under ordinary circumstances her proper course Avould. not have been that A\ r ay; she could have gone on the opposite side of man-. o’-Avar buoy. Witness saAV the Jessie Niccol from the Queen’s Wharf at 8.30 o’clock on the night of the accident. She had not then, so far as Avitness could see, shifted from the position she Avas in at 3 p.m. Witness had a conversation Avith Captain Smith tAvo mornings or three after the accident. Asked Captain Smith if lfis light Avas all right; he said he had found out it was damaged, and had a rag Avound around it, though he did not know abont it.

To Mr Gray: Had never seen so small an anchor light as the Jessie Niecol’s. If Avitness had the arranging of lights for the port of Wellington he Avould not alloAV so small a one .as the Jessie Niceol’s. Complaints had been made as to the presence of the man-o’-Avar buoy in the harbour. Where the Jessie Niccol lay Avas in a passage frequently taken by vessels coming in and going out. To Mr Tripe: Was not prepared to say that the Jessie Niccol’s light could not be seen for thfe mile provided for in the regulations. To Dr McArthur: It Avould be a fair definition of fairway to say it Avas "That part of a harbour or channel that' is kept open and unobstructed for the passage of vessels.” James Rapley, messenger in the Customs Department, said he took the Jessie 'Niccol’s light from her riggings, after she was raised, on December 22nd. The light had been under Avater. The tin part of the lamp was corroded; could not say if the glass was dirty. The lamp was cracked, and there Avas a hole in it. To Mr Gray: The lamp glass became smoked during the test made on a calm night. At this stage the Court adjourned untill 10 o’clock next morning.

On Wednesday Dr McArthur, S.M., and Captains Clifford and Post, sitting as a Court of Nautical Inquiry, resumed the hearing of evidence as to the collision between the steamer Rotomahana and the schooner Jessie Niccol, by Avhieh the latter Avas sunk. Mr Myers was for the Customs Department ; Mr Gray for Captain Manning, of the Rotomahana; Mr Herdman for Mr Tait, cliief officer of the same vessel; Mr Tripe, Avith him Mr Young, for Captain Smith, of the Jessie Niccol; and Mr Izard for the Wellington Harbour Board.

Captain Manning, of the Rotomahana, said he disagreed with the definition of Captain Johnston (the harbourmaster) of the fairAvay. Witness considered the fainvay to be the usual track of vessels when approaching or leaving the wharves of v Wellington harbour. Witness deposed. that before leaving any port witness always looked around to see wlrat vessels Aver© at anchor, so that he might keep clear of them. There Aver© often sailing vessels anchored in the neighbourhood (within a Avide area) of where the Jessie Niccol Avas run down. Witness might have noticed vessels there that day; could not say definitely whether he did or did not.. If Avitness hayi seen the boat there he Avoiuld have been on his guard. None of witness’s officers reported to him the fact of the Jessie Niccol being anchored in the harbour. Witness was on the bridge Avhen the collision took place; the first officer was on the forecastle head, the second officer aft, the third officer and P. Nelson (a lamp-trimmer) on the bridge with Avitness. When the Rotomahania struck the schooner the steamer must have been going full speed astern for about a minute. Was going half-speed ahead when the chief officer gave the alarm “A vessel right ahead!” Witness signalled orders to the engineers, ‘"Slow, stop, full speed astern” in quick succession; so quickly that the engineer’s log showed a change from half-speed ahead to full speed astern. Witness at that time saw neither vessel nor light. It was rather a dark night. After the order had been given for full speed astern Die chief mate cried. “We’re right into her; go full speed astern.” Witness then told the third officer to “ring them up again”—that was a way of letting the engine-room staff knoAV it was a case of urgency, so that they might “give her all they could/’ At this j uncture avitness Avas still unable, to see the vessel or her light. Just before the schooner was struck, witness saw the white hull. Could see no light then. Just as the Rotomahana avos in the act of striking the schooner’s light opened out as if from, behind something. Then the steamer struck the schooner on the port quarter. The steamer stopped, went astern, and stood by for about fifteen minutes. Saw the light on the schooner burning, during this time—-it ws a dim, half-smothered light. Even if the light had not been shut in, witness did not think it could have been seen from the Glasgow Wharf—a distance of about 150 yards. Witness’s location of the Jessie • Niccol’s position when she was struck .differed from that mad© by her captain. If the schooner had been tp the southward of the a quarter of a mile east of the GkjsgW Wharf (as deposed to.by her captapi) that would not have been a safe posi-

tion. The assertion of the harbourmaster (Captain Johnston) that on the night of the collision the Rotomahana took a wider sweep than usual in going out was AATong; the steamer was closer to the buoy than usual. 'There was a slight change in the AA r ind about 6.30 o’clock on the night of the collision. This Avoiuld tend to bring the schooner closer to the buoy. Witness did not think any vessel should be anchored so near the fairway as the Jessie Niccol was.

To. Mr Tripe: Witness's complaints agdnst the Jessie Niccol was that her 'ltglyt-AAtas~~notr .visible, and that she was buoy. Witness would ’estimate tlm' distance from the hu.oy near- the Jessie Niccol to the Glasgow Wharf, within a hundred yards or so, as being 400 yards. Could not estimate the distances between other bnoys—was not sufficiently familiar with them. It was the chief officer’s second report that caused Avitness to give the second order to show urgency. The steamer’s halfspeed rate on the occasion Avas about six or seven knots. To Mr Herdman: If the Jessie Nicco! had been furnished Avith a proper anchor light there Avould- have been no collision.

To Mr Gray: Man-o’-war buoy Avas an obstruction to harbour navigation. That Avas also the opinion of other shipmasters. The buoy would be less of an obstruction if put opposite to the Queen’s Wharf toiver. Witness had been often told by harbour officials at night that vessels had arrived and been anchored; hut on the night of the collision lie received no such information. There Avas no truth in a neAvspaper report that the Rotomahana hit the Jessie Niccol while going at full speed ahead. The first officer of the Rotomahana, Avho Avas on Avatch fonvard on the night of the accident, Avas a thoroughly reliable, careful officer. Witness had never seen any vessel anchored as close to the buoy as the Jessie Niccol was on the night of the accident. She' Avas undoubtedly in the fairway. If she had been in the vicinity attributed to her by some witnesses the Rotomahana Avould have been very close to the hulks Avhen she collided with the schooner. The Rotomahana did nob pass unduly close to any hulks—at any rate, not to hulks that had lights on them.

To Mr Myers: If Avitness had only one light he AAiculd put it aft. • That might be against the regulations, but these had to give Avay Avhen special circumstances rendered a departure from ru’e necessary in order to avoid immediate danger. To,Mr Myers: If Avitness had escaped running doAvn the Jessie Niccol he Avould not have complained to the Harbour Board; he Avould only have growled to himself, he thought. Mr Myers: Not even if he had had no light?—l don’t know that I Avould have even then; Ave don’t care to get our own cloth in trouble!

To Mr Myers: It was a fact that Avhen the alarm Avas given Avitness saw the white buoy, Arhich was about the same distance aAvay from him as the Jessie Niccol Avas, and yet he was unable to see the larger object of the white hull of the schooner. (At a later stage of the proceedings Avitness amended this statement, saying that he saw the tAvo at about the one time.) John Daniel, superintendent, of repairs for the Union Company, deposed that when he superintended the raising of the Jessie Niccol she was sunk about 450 ft from the Cliarles-Martha, buoy and 620 ft from the man-o’-Avar buoy. There Avere forty-five fathoms of chain on the anchor, the chain being taut. The anchor Avas north-east by east from the vessel.

To Mr Gray: Understood that before witness "began work on the- sunken schooner she had been dragged some distance inshore by the pilot launch. Witness saw the lamp on the sunken vessel’s shrouds. The lamp was dirty, with rags hanging on at. This witness wished to set the importance of his catching a train against the necessity of stopping to be crossexamined. He showed a want of respects to the Court that made the President threaten him with seclusion. Peter Mudie, chief enginer of the Rotomahana, gave evidence. as to the etoead of his vessel .on the night of the collision. His account substantially, tallied with that of the captain. To Mr Young: Half speed might he about six knots. Would not say it might he eleven knots. William Tait, chief officer of the Rotomahana, gave evidence that had he seen tlio Jessie Niccol before the Rotomahana began her voyage he would probably have reported the fact to his captain. Describing the collision, witness said that the Jessie Niccol’s bow, when the Rotomahana touched her stern, swung towards the steamer. The light on the Jessie Niccol was a very inferior one. Thought that the sweep taken by the Rotomahana that night was smaller than usual. Wneo. witness gave the alarm he sang out to the master, “Hard-a-port; vessel right under our bows.” The captain said something, and witness immediately repeated his first sentence, adding, “Fuill speed astern; you’ll ibe right on top of her.” Should think that the steamer was not going more than five knots, an "hour when witness raised the alarm. She had nearly stopped when she struck

the Jessie Niccol. There were no lights in- the distance likely ho obscure the Jessie Niccol’s. Hers was a dim, im effective light. After the collision had taken place, Captain Smith came aboard of the Rotomahana. .Witness was about to he examined as to a conversation h© then had with Captain Smith, hut. ; the President of the Court intimated that Captain Smith’s explanations in his own evidence as to the anchor watch and the manner of keeping it was accepted by the Court. Witness, continuing, said that the schooner’s light could not be discerned until after the collision. William Ferguson, secretary and engineer to the Wellington Harboui Board,' scaled on the harbour chart the distances between th 9 several buoys mentioned in the taking of evidence. From the mim-o’-war buoy to the Manson buoy was 1065 feet from the man-o’-war buoy to the G. B. Taylor buoy was 1050 feet, and from man-o’-wav buoy to the Glasgow Wharf was 1020 feet.

P. Nelson j boatswain and lamptrimmer of tlip Rotomahana, deposed that he saw the light on the schoonei just before she was struck. Saw it plainly enough. It was not burning brightly. He. had seen better anchor lights and he might have seen dimmer ones. Witness had. steered ships in and out of Wellington harbour for six years past, ,anu he had to say that tnat night the Rotomahana was nearer to the buoy than usual. They were well clear of the hulks. Witness had never seen a light like the Jessie Nicool’s used as an anchor light. Witness was for eight months master of a schooner (the Lotus) in South Australia. .XJsed a light like the lamp produced in Court (one u&ed on Union Steam Ship Company’s vessels). - , Henry Collins, third officer on the Rotomahana, who was with the captain on the bridge when the collision occurred said the first he saw of the schooner’s light was when she had been stiuck. 'So far as witness could ascertain, no one on the Rotomahana saw the schooner’s lights until about that time. The licrht -seemed to swing out from some obstruction. ■ It .might have been obscui ed by the rigging. At 5.15 p.m. the Court adourned until 7.30 o’clock. Joseph Corach, in charge of the Union Steam Ship Company’s pilotlaunch, deposed that he took his launch alongside tho schooner Jessie Niccol after she had • been struck by the -Rotomahana. The schooner was { then above the water. Witness got one of his men to hook a chain on to-the vessels bobstay, with a view to towing her into shallow water. Towed her till witness’s launch was within twelve feet of the William Manson hulk. In the daytime the Jessie Niccol was (he would estimate) about 100 yards from the buoy. She was lying in a line with the end of the Glasgow Wharf and .fifty yards nearer to it than the buoy was. To Mr Myers: Witness’s launch was 24-horse-power, and it was towing for five or ten minutes. No one instructed witness to do it; he only did it because he knew that a Union Steam Ship Company boat had run the schooner down. Considered he was acting in the company’s interest. The Jessie NiccoTs anchor light was burning pretty brightly half an hour before the collision.

To Mr Gray: Witness did not himself see the schooner’s light from Queen’s Wharf. Her light was not a proper riding light—it was dimmer and smaller. To Captain Post: The light on the schooner was burning brightly while witness towed her, and after she sank, too. To Captain Clifford : Witness was still of opinion that, the light on the schooner could have been seen from the Queen’s Wharf. That was, if one knew it was there. Robert Buchanan, A.B. on the Roiomahana. deposed that lie was on deck when the collision took place. Bid not see the light on the schooner until after the collision. The lamp looked as if it bad been smoking. To Mr Myers: After the mate called out, witness looked ahead, and continued to do so until they struck. Saw nothing till the collision took place. John WilMam Carey, until lately second officer of the Rotomahana, deposed that he took the ship’s boat after the collision, and got the two men off the schooner. Asked them what they were doing. One answered, “We were all ‘in bed.” The schooner’s light was a very poor one, and it was burning very dimly because the' glass was dirty. Had never known such a light to be used as an anchor light. To Mr Young: The light on the Jessie Niccol . was about five feet higher than the fo’castle head of the Rotomahana. John Currie, who was on the Queen’s Wharf on the n ight of the collision, said he heard the sound of the collision plainly. ' Witness looked - hard in the direction of the sound to see what the Rotomahana had struck, but could see no light® other than those of the steamer. Had looked in that direction before .the steamer put offh and saw no lights then. ‘ > Frederick: Charles Must, ;master marine!. said he had had forty-two .years’ experience of steamers, and sailing ..vessels ■ His last vessel was the. Enunq. Sim@ yyhibh he left eh J i>ay.

On the night of the collision wlitness was ashore. Saw the Jessie Nioool from the Glasgow Wharf. Her regulation light was up, and it was burning brightly. It should have been visible from the Queen’s Wharf. Tho light-of tie Jpssie Niocoi (produced) was in common use amongst schooners. To Mr Myers: In Witness’s estimation the schooner was not in the fairway; she was in a- safe position.

John Thompson, a waterman keeping his boats near the north extension of the Railway Wharf, remembered the night of the collision. Saw the Jessie Nicoo-l's light put up, about 7.30 or 8 p.m., while Witness was passing inrfiis boat. Saw tho light from the shore! afterwards. Noticed it more than onoe. The last time was at about 8.30 p.m.

To Mr Herdman: Hid nob know it was remarkable that lie was the only person , who had seen the three lights. William Henry Walker, owner of the Emma Sims, dcpcseyl that he saw what ho believed to be the Jessie Niccol s lights from near *the Government Insurance Buildings on the night of the collision. To Mr Gray: Did not say absolutely it was the Jessie Niccol’s light ho saw. To Mr Herdman: The light possibly was on the scows, or the Emma Sims, or any other vessel in the harbour. Captain Manning, called by Mr Yqang, said he only saw the lights of the Riverdale and of the hulks in a line with the Jessie Niocoi. Saw no lights to the north-east of her. Andrew .Running, master of the Aratapu, brigantine, deposed that ho went out on a launch on a recent evening to test the Jessie Niccol’s anchor light. The light was hung on the ship Invercargill, and witness towed a leg over the side to prove distance. The light coulfl be seen for over a mile and a quarter. During the time witness had been on # the coast he had known very little else in the way of lamps to he used on the “mosquito fleet” than , the lamp used on the Jessie Niccol. To Mr Gray: Did not know if the lamp was hung close to the Invercargill’s light. It was hung in the vicinity certainly., John White, master mariner in charge of the launch Moturoa, gave confirmatory evidence as to the recent test of the light of the Jessie Niccol. Robert Aherne, journalist, said he was a passenger by the Rotomahana on tho night of the collision. Saw the light of the Jessie Niocoi after she was run into. It was a good, clear light.

Edwin Hayes, a deck-hand, whq^ signed off the Rotomahana recently at his own request, said he saw the schooner’s light after the collision. It’was burning brightly. At ten minutes to eleven p.m. tho taking of evidence was concluded. All the counsel engaged in the case delivered addresses, and shortly before midnight the Court retired to prepare its judgment. THE COURT’S DECISION. The Matine Court, consisting of Dr McArthur, S.M. (chairman) and Captains Post- and Clifford (assessors), which inquired into the cause of the collision between the steamer Rotomahana and the schooner Jessie Niccol, in the Wellington harbour -on the 19 th ult., gave its decision lin the Magistrate's Court on Thursday morning. The judgment of the chairman, which was signed by both assessors, was as follows :

“On the 19th December last the schooner Jessie Niccol am red in the Wellington harbour, and dropped anchor about 12.30 p.m. After having secured his ship, the master, who had wired a week previously from Lyttelton to the harbourmaster at Wellington fer a berth, immediately went ashore, reported his arrival; and made further application for his berth. He was informed by the officer in charge on the wharf that no berth was available until Monday morning, 21st December, and that he was to remain at anchor. The harbour officials were aware of the position of his vessel, and allowed him to r*r main there. In my opinion this is not a safe position, as it is in the track of vessels both leaving and approaching the wharves passing to the north of the man-of-war buoy. I think that the sooalled: anchor watch kept by the master of the Jessie Niccol was by no means satisfactory considering the position of his /vessel, and I also think that the light used to mark her position was of an inferior kind, and was faulty, as it was tiled up with a rag. This rag was tied in such a manner as probably, in .conjunction with the rigging and other gear, to obscure the light on one side. The Rotomahana left the No. 1 north berth of the Queen’s Wharf about 9.30 p.m. for Lyttelton, and proceeded out of the harbour to the north of the man-of-war buoy, the usual course taken by vessels leaving that part of the wharf, and came into collision with the Jessie Nliccol at anchor. The Jessie Niooolhad arrived in port after the Rotomahana/ whose master was not aware of the position taken up by the schooner. Had the master of the Rotomahana not had to clear the man-of-war buoy, the collision in all probability vf-puld not have occurred. In my opin;mai;:thia buoy is ( dangerous to navigaand the evidence disclosed that

complaints have been, made regarding its position. I would suggest that a prescribed area be set aside in tlie hai'bour for a man-of-war anobarage outside of the track of vessels coming to and leaving the wharves, and I am of opinion that article 11 of page seven of the Regulations preventing oolllisions at sea should be more definite regarding the class of light to be used as an anchor light. It seems to me that the Harbour Board officials should have made some provision for berthing the Jessie Niccol, as application had been made a week previous, and that the master should not have been required to lie in the position in which the vessel was. In my opinion the accident Was due to the insufficiency of the light exhibited on board the Jessie Niccol. I think that no blame can be attached to the master and officers of tiie Rotomahana, who, according to the evidence, used all tho precautions necessary to safe navigation. As the Jessie N'ccol was in a position approved of by the harbour authorities, and as the- Regulations do not lay down any particular class of anchor light or compel anchor watches to be kept-, I am of opinion that the master of the schooner is deserving of censure as regards tho anchor watch kept by him, but 1 think that the granting of Ids’ certificate should not be interfered with. .The certificate of the master of the Rotomahana is hereby returned to him. No order as to costs is made.”

Mr Myers: Do I understand your Worship to say that no order will bo made as to costs at all? Do you mean that the department will not be allowed costs ?

His Worship: We make no order as to. costs one way or the other. Mr Myers pointed out that the department was bound to hold these inquiries. It was isurely a case where costs should be allowed.

Mr Young: The Court finds that the regulations were at fault. Mr Gray said he desired to be heard on the question of costs as affecting hisclient-. It was held that Captain Manning had proceeded carefully, and that the Rotomahana was not to blame. Under the circumstances, he submitted an order should bo made for the payment of his costs.

His Worship said the question of costs was fully discussed, and it was decided to make no order.

Mr Gray: Captain Manning is to he put to great expense through no fault of his own. The very fact- that lie may have to pay liis own costs may practically amount to censure. His Worship: No; no censure.

Mr Herdman also- held that costs should be . allowed to his client-. The Court did not think it necessary that he (counsel) should even address it on behalf of Mr Tait.

His Worship: Nothing wiT move me from the order we have made. No censure is Involved in your case. Mr Herdman: Then, if there is no censure, your Worship, why should he be involved in costs?

His Worship: You heard my answer* The Court is not here to answer questions.

Mr Herdman replied that he did not propose to ask the Court questions—he was only pointing out the inconsistency of the thing. _ . His Worship replied that, assuming the schooner’s light had been there properly, a very different verdiot would have been arrived at.

Mr Young: Do I understand that judgment has been given? I would like to know if the matter is to be gone into again? His Worship: No. Mr Young: May I ask this question: Does the Court, while saying that Smith’s light was insufficient, hold that it complied with the regulations? His Worship: You have got the decllsion of the Court—yon, had better worry it out! (Laughter.)