THE FOUNDERING OF THE KOI

Colonist, Volume LII, Issue 12766, 12 April 1910, Page 2

THE FOUNDERING OF THE KOI-

NAUTICAL ENQUIRY.

THE FINDING OF THE COURT

The judgment of the Court of Enquiry into the foundering of the Koi was delivered yesterday afternoon by Mr J. S. Evans, S.M., who stated that it was assented to by both assessors (Captain S: Clark and Captain H. McNab). The judgment was as follows : —

"I find that the s.s. Koi, 53 tons net, owned by the Anchor Shipping and Foundry Company, of Nelson, and commanded' by Captain Chas E. Scully, trading between Motueka and Nelson, foundered on Wednesday, the 30th day of March last in or near the fairway" about 2000 feet from the entrance of Nelson harbour, being laden with from 35 to 40 tons of dead weight of cargo below hatches and 289 sheep* on deck, without passengers. The questions set out below were submitted to the •Court, and ..the answer as disclosed in evidence to each is subjoined:— "1. Whether the bargo was properly stowed or distributed Ptp-In the opinion df the Court the cargo below the hatches was properly stowed and distributed, and the deck cargo was evenly distributed. "2. Whether the deck cargo was excessive? — The deck cargo was excessive in the sense that fche owners held no license for deck cargo on the date of tlie accident, and never did hold in respect of the Koi a license to carry more than 100 sheep with passengers, but in view of the fact that it appeared on the evidence thafc a license would have, been issued to the Koi to carry 300 sheep subject to the regulations, it was not excessive in fact, the dead weight of cargo below hatches exceeding by at least three times the dead weight of deck cargo. "3. Whether the deck cargo was properly secured P-r-The deck cargo on the poop deck was properly secured, but the foredeck cargo was not divided' into pens of not moro than 25 sheep, but was otherwise secured to prevent the sanie from shifting. "4. Whether the course steered was a safe ahd proper one in the circumstances?— The course steered. was the usual course from Motneka to Nelson, and was a safe ahd proper course to steer.

"5. Whether the casualty was caused or contributed to by any improper act or default of the master, or of any other person ?— ln the opinion of the Court the accident was caused by thrso large and unusual rollers (probably caused by tHte weather conditions prevailing in the Straits) striking and breaking on the vessel in quick succession, throwing her on her beam ends and causing her to founder, and was not due to any improper act or default of the master of any other person, inasmuch as the prevailing weather conditions gave no warning of the approach of the rollers, and they were not observed in time to bring the vessel's head on to the seas, and the master adopted the only possible course in the circumstances by endeavouring to wear the vessel off to bring her round before the seas. "In the opinion of the Court, and for the reasons appearing above, tho certificate of the master ought not to be suspended or cancelled. "In the opinion, of the Court the failure or neglect of the owners to obtain a license for deck cargo up to the quantity of deck cargo carried on tho said trip rendered this formal investigation necessary, and the owners ought therefore to contribute to the cost of the enquiry to the extent of paying £6 6s assessors' fees, £1 10s fare of Captain Clark, and the sum of £4 Is expenses of John Kydd, marine surveyor, in all £11 7s. "The expenses of the other witnesses and any additional expenses of assessors (if anj') to be paid by the Minister. . "In regard to the costs and expenses of Captain Scully, the Court is of opinion that no costs or expenses should be allowed him, inasmuch as he contributed to the cost of this investigation by failing or neglecting to see tnat a license was" duly taken out and kept in force in respect of deck cargo as required by the regulations." The witnesses and Court costs to be paid by the Marine Department amount to £8 15s.

Mr Fell, for. the Anchor Company, said it was a pure matter of inadvertence that tho company had notrenewed their license for deck cargo. They recognised the expense the Department had been put to by the enquiry, and would not object to reasonably contribute to the costs of the enquiry. Mr Maginnity, who appeared for certain shippers of cargo, applied for costs, but the Court considered that the Court could not establish a precedent. He could not allow costs to shippers of cargo who were represented at Court solely in their own interests. , Mr. Fell made complimentary reference to the fair and impartial manner in which "the Collector of Customs had elicited the facts in the enquiry, which he thought had been conducted m a very satisfactory manner.