MARINE INQUIRY.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 16507, 7 August 1919, Page 4

MARINE INQUIRY.

STRANDING OF THE KOWHAI. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, August 6. In file inquiry into the stranding of tho Kowhai the court found that the course set by the master at 4.5 n.m. | was a. reasonably sale one, and did not consider the master contributed to the casualty, and could not see what could have caused the vessel to run ashore at the point at which it did, if the course set. had been followed. The chief officer, in the opinion of the court, did contribute to the casualty. He went to the chart-room to get a. cup of tea, and a very short time after bis return the vessel was in a dangerous position. The court thought that if he had remained on the bridge and kept a pood look-out ho might have been able to see the danger in time to avoid it. The master was able to reach the bridge and order the vessel astern before the chief officer took any action. The court ordered the chief officer's certificate to be suspended for three months, and further ordered the chief officer to pay half the costs of the inquiry. The second officer, the court found, did not contribute to the casualty, and his certificate would he returned. Mr. A. W. Blair, who appeared for the first and second officers, submitted that the court had not power to suspend the first officer’s certificate for two reasons; (I) The court had not found any wrongful act, or default on the officer’s part, and such a finding was necessary before a cenifieate could be suspended ; (2j sub-section ,3 of section 23d of the Shipping and Seamen's Act provided that a certificate should not be cancelled nr suspended unless a copy oi the report or statement of tne ease cm which the investigntion or inquiry had been ordered had been furnished before the commencement of the investigation or inquiry to the holder of a certificate. The chief officer had been served with the report nr statement of the care only at 10.130 a.m. yesterday, and the investigation had been begun on Monday morning. _ Replying to Mr. Blair’s first contention, Mr. Riddell said the court bad found the chief officer was guilty of: negligence. Mr. Blair: But. it has to find he was guilty of a. wrongful art or default, and the court has not found he was guilty of any wrongful act. Mr. Riddell said it was a technical objection that had been raised, but it was good, and must be upheld. That part of The order relating to the suspension of the cert ificatefwould be deleted and the certificate returned on payment by the chief officer of half (he costs of the inquiry. Mr. Blair questioned whether the court had power to impound a certificate pending payment of costs. Air. Riddell agreed it was doubtful whether the court could hold the certificate. It would merely order payment of half Die costs.