WRECK OP THE S.S. TRIUMPH.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 3357, 7 January 1884, Page 2

WRECK OP THE S.S. TRIUMPH.

OFFICIAL INQUIRY. Auckland, Jan. 5. The Triumph inquiry closed, so far as taking evidence is concerned, yesterday evening. Mr Hesketh said that the evidence adduced was all that he in* tended to offer on behalf of the captain, and Mr Brassey, on behalf of the chief officer, said he did not propose to call any more evidence. Mr Hesketh then addressed the Court, pointing out that the object was shown in the first instance by broadly stating the captain’s explanation that he fell asleep on the bridge from exhaustion, and to refute the theory set up by Mr Williamson, that the captain was drunk. Ha would not take up time by dealing with the suggestion that the vessel was deliberately wrecked, for there was not a tittle of evidence to support it, nor was there the slightest motive shown. He then dealt with the evidence to show the perfect sobriety of the captain. It was a pure case of misfortune not accompanied by circumstances of aggrava* tion, and whatever the result of the trial was,it was the captain’s ruin, he fell asleep at bis post and wrecked a ship

worth £50,000. Mr Hesketh then dwelt on the evidence as to the efforts made to get the ship off. Mr Brassey addressed the Court for the chief mate, who, he contended, had carried out his duties, and that no blame was attached to him. Mr Williamson was about to address the Court, but Mr Hesketh contended he had no right of reply, this being only an investigation. The Chairman said this had been the rule, and Mr Williamson then addressed the Court. He should not have troubled the Court but for Mr Hesketb’s statement as to the position he had taken up by attributing drunkenness to the captain. They all approached this , case with diffidence, but here was .the fact of a large steamer going on the rocks, and the only alternatives which could suggest themselves were either that the captain and officers were helplessly drunk, or that the vessel had been intentionally driven ashore. Ee had taken the most charitable view of the case. So far as the captain was concerned, he pointed out that it was in answer to Mr Hesketh that the first insinuation was made of the captain not being sober when the pilot said he was sober enough to take charge of his ship. They had it in evidence that there had been drinking going on, and the question arose, was it not to some extent due to this fact that the captain foil asleep on the bridge ? He commented on the fact that there was no evidence affecting the insurance on the ship, either from the captain or Mr Nathan. He also commented on what he considered a gross want of discipline, which be said was manifested by the fact of of their going to sea with the telegraph broken down and no one placed to convey messages to the engine-room from the bridge, or any man placed between the look-out and the man at the wheel. He also dwelt on the necessity of the chief officer supporting the captain, especially when he knew his exhausted condition. He asked the Bench to cancel the captain’s certificate, who admitted that he fell asleep at his post, and was therefore not fit to have command of a ship and lives. As to the chief officer, he was not free from blame, and should be made to bear a proportion of the costs; and as to the second officer, there did not seem to be any special blame attributable to him further than he had pointed out in his general remarks. The Court reserved judgment until Monday. It was stated, possibly as a joke, that Mr Hesketh was about to flood the Court with witnesses to prove that it was impossible to float the ship off the rocks of Tiritiri, but the fact that at this time the Triumph had been floated off and was then safely riding at anchor in the harbor rendered such evidence unnecessary and worse than useless. It is but fair, however, to state that Mr Hesketh denies having had any intention of producing such evidence. Mr Fraser anticipates that the Triumph will be ready for docking within a month from the present time. It has been decided she will be placed in the Auckland dock, but it is well known that it will require to be enlarged for the purpose, and as yet no conclusion has been arrived at as to the best method of getting over the difficulty. Among numerous suggestions which have been made with reference to the repairing and refitting of the Triumph, one has emanated from Mr Fisher, the chief engineer of the vessel. He approves of the erection of a coffer dam at the mouth of the dock, giving it an additional length of about 40ft. The vessel, he says, should be placed in dock, and when she has been pumped out an inspection of damages should be made, and drawings prepared showing the exact extent of breakage in the vessel’s bottom. The forward compartment having been worn out through concussion with the rocks at Tiritiri, a number of large iron plates will be required for repairs, and it is principally with the object of replacing them that Mr Fisher suggests that a sketch should be made, for he is of opinion that they should be procured from the builders of the vessel. His proposal is that the Triumph should be docked for ten days, which would permit of a thorough examination being made, and that she should then be floated out and anchored in the stream until the plates arrive from Home, when she could be again placed in dock and made almost as good as new. Whether or not these suggestions will be carried out remains to be decided by Mr Fraser, who is now giving the whole subject his attention, The coal cargo will be taken out immediately. The “ list ” is caused by 200 tons of coal being stowed on the starboard side. All the vessel except the forehold is kept dry. The cargo now aboard consists of 200 tons of railway iron and 200 tons of general cargo. It is estimated that the purchaser has spent £2OOO, exclusive of the purchase money, in saving the vessel. Her estimated value is £60,000.