THE TRIUMPH JUDGMENT.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1044, 8 January 1884, Page 2

THE TRIUMPH JUDGMENT.

Judgment was given yesterday in respect to the Triumph casualty. Mr Seth Smith, H.M., and Captains James and Frater, Nautical Asse sors, occupied thp Bench. Messrs E. Hesketh, 0. E. Button, G. N. Brassey, and J. B. Russell, the learned counsel engaged in the mat--tflrywMe mresant... ,Mr f Bu ■ that str Hudson Williams was unavoidably absent, being engaged at the Supreme Gqurt. . Mr.iSmith: in delivering judgment said:—After carefully considering the evidence in this case we have come tothei. Conclusion that thb'suggestion-or charge brought against the master of the. vessel of inebriety on the day of the casu-’ altyhas no evidence to show.- ’ Oil''(he;contrary, we have evidence showing bis was perfectly eoberall day, time of the stranding- of his ship. We. think also that the evidence brought before us a full explanation of the manner, in which the casualty camp about; that is to say, : taking into Consideration the fact of the order given by the master to the > quarter-master to steer with the Tiritiri - light on the port bow, coupled with the. fact that the quarter-njaster .did pteor I in that wsiy for twenty ' minutes,! and that the master was asleep; nearly the whole of that time, fully c explains the position in which the vessel I was found when she struck on the rock. ana the light had been kept as the quar-. termaster had said he was ordered, on the fore-figging, she; could notl haver got where she did, and we therefore consider that during her course she must hare been swerving to the westward. We have a sketch map prepared by the assessors, showing the way in which she was steered, and the cdurse on which she was when ; the pilot, left her,,and from it it is- fvi»he st<Tjh£«thwest, which was her position when she struck the rocks, so that there remains no. the order given to the quarter-master was implicitly followed. : by, him fully explains how the vessel came’ to strike the rocks. This being then a full explanation of the ■ casualty, the s qupsUou /op; usjto consider is on whom Joes the responsibility for the casualty lie. Now here it seems to nh that we cannot accept the statement made by the man on the look-out, that he ,

hailed the bridge at a time when the .ship' waa distant at least a. mile from the point of danger, which, at the rate she was then travelling, would have allowed five and a half minutes to elapse before she reached the spot where she struck. We believe the real state of things waa, as the quartermaster himself states, that no alarm was given by the look out or by anyone else until the last moment, when both look-out and quartermaster simultaneously perceived the danger of the position. Our opinion is that the.lookout muathave been dozing, ''and'not'antil the ship was actually on the. point of striking was there any alarm given by them.' ~We are of opinion thatthemaster was in fault in : allowing the to happen ; upon his own confession, because the most serious matter in which fault attached to him was the fact of hie going to sleep while on duty.-. also that there are some other matters that we cannot pass over in silence, which show, at any rate, a want of care nnihis part. We believe -that he > wps, attacked by sleepiness, caused, as he himseir says, by working on the day of the vessel’s departure, and by exhaustion resulting from suffering and want of by neuralgia. . But being in that , state he should not have trusted to his own powers of watchfulness, he should have kept someone with him on the bridge was a greater nece sity on account of his drowsiness for him to take care to have had assistance at hand. In the next place he should not have given sucK sn older to the quartermaster as to steer by the light on port bow, which, as the evidence showed, through being followed implicitly led the ship into danger.- He . should have given course Vy compass. It seems to hs also IK tt i e ought? ’ th'"' nave place! a mao at some point between head aud. to report any order given by him or any ; warnings; and more "especially so from the direction in which - was ; blowing, from the north ;-"uat. VVe have also come to the jono’uaipnjhat the master departed from what is considered thegeneraliulo oiboard ship in not having' himself ascertained who was the man on the rlook-but, so; as stoi bevaftare what degree of responsibility copld be reposed in him. According to his own statement, he did not at tie* time'know who the man was Taking the whole oirTcumatanoes olthe-ease-intor consideration, . we mnst come to.the conclusion that the evidence disclosOa O wSnt of care and forasight on the part of the mast r, amounting to such gross oftrelipuiqesa that we think that suspension'6t;hikfcertificate cannot be made for a leaar period than for three years. jWq -next come tothe yconductji [Qlneif bffieer. ‘ fp tqe-faqt /pf.fthe unsatwfact jiy .t and I may say his evidence ; ias for instance, in Hu denial ,of ( th|B statement that 0 for- . ward- anti'-whistle: when I ,.ttp f ,yaiAaf'R* l *- •WflfliMjiP* to haul in the starboard braces. iiqk RUtting that aside, we aie of opinioW tnafr he . allowed a neglect of duty in not keeping a look-out while on deck. It was aq impor- - tant, if not the most important part of his duty while he was not otherwise employed to have assisted'the master in this respect ' We are therefore of'opinion That his certificate, should be suspended for sis months. The second officerwe 100k 1 upon as being free frbdi blame, cate will here turned.: The .tfdofiNKlibofc conclude without areferenoatn::sh6i conduct of the quartermaster,; Casmapf.nrtqjlis continuing to sleer ashedkii iwithput calling the attention of the master, showed a s neglect of duty. .. . O’HalJoran, the look-out,was also guiKy. oftserfoas neglect- of duty in not mllingf the position of the vessel* before he did. The Nautical Assessors desire me also to mention, although it doevaot aataslly arise out of this inquiry, that in order to avoid casualties in" fixture limits of the pilots and pilotage should be extended beyond the Shearer ’roofc. 1 Tho judaSput of the Court is that the master’s certificate be suspended for three years, and that he shall pay three-fdnrthk of the cost of this inquiry, and that the chief officer’s certificate be suspended for six months, and that he pay »ne*fparth of the costs. The proportion of costs,, according to the schedule made up by the • Clerk of the Court, was —Captain BMtl&cton, L 72, and chief officer Owens LB4f'Bat these figures were largely reduce jib,-man; of the witnesses declining to take, any costs. They therefore stand:—Captain’s costs, L 63; mate's costa, L2I. -' ir;