THE FINDING OF THE COURT.

Colonist, Volume LII, Issue 12784, 4 May 1910, Page 5 (Supplement)

THE FINDING OF THE COURT.

(From "The Colonist," April ; 12.)

Tbe judgment of the Court of En : quiry 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 Ei. Scully, trading between Motueka arid Nelson, foundered on Wednesday,;' f the 30th day of March last in or near the fairway about 2000 feet from the entrance of Nelson harbour, being lad* en with from 35 to 40. tons of dead weight of cargo below hatches and 289 sheep on deck, without passengers. The questions set out; ijielow were'submitted. t«3hß,Cfeur*V'and the answer as disclosed in evidence to each is subjoined:— "1. Whether the cargo was properly stowed or * distributed ? — ln the opinion of the Court tlie cargo below the hatches was properly stowed and distributed, and the deck cargo was evenly distributed. "2. Whether the deck c a rgo , was excessive? — Tke deck cargo was excessive in the sense that the owners held no license for deck cargo oil the date of the accident, and never did hold in. respect of the Koi a license to carry more than 100 sheep with passangers, but in view of the fact that it appeared on the evidence that a license would haye 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 ?— The deck- cargo on the poop deck was properly secured, but the foredeck cargo was not divided into pens of not more than 25 ■sheep, but was otherwise secured to prevent the same from shifting. "4. Whether the course steered was a safe and proper one in the cireu instances? — The courso steered was the usual course from Motueka to Nelson, and was a safe aud 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 ?-r-In -the opinion. of the Court the accident was caused by thwo largo' and unusual rollers (probably caused by the weather conditions prevailing iv 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 ohserved 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 tho reasons appearing above,- the 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 the 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 £. 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. "Tlie expenses of the other witnesses and. any. additional expenses of assessors (if any) to be paid by the. Minister. .'....."

"In regard to the costs and expenses of Captain Sonlly, 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 that 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 puro matter of inadvertence' that the -company/had not renewed their licerisei for deck cargo. ' They recognised :the expense the Department had been put to by the enquiry, and would not object to reasbnably contribute to the costs of the enquiry. Mr Maginnity, who appeared for certain shippers of cargo, applied for costs, but tlie 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 Foil 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 tin a very satisfactory manner.