THE LOST LOCH LOMOND.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 398, 6 January 1909, Page 10

THE LOST LOCH LOMOND.

MARINE INQUIRY,

SOME INTERESTING EVIDENCE.

In its issue of December 29 the ','Sydney Commercial News," in reporting on. the loss of the Union Company's sailer Loch Lomond, says:— ■ /'': /■ .:, ;

The mysterious disappearance of the barque Loch ■ Lomond, which loft Newcastle on July 16-last, coal-laden for Lyttelton, was the subject of a Marino Court. Inquiry on December 22. His Honour Judge Backhouse presided,' and with him as assessors; were Captains; Christie and M'Gibbon.: Mr. Robison appeared on behalf of the Superintendent of Navigation, and Mr. Creagh represented the Union S.S. Company, the owners of the barque. Mr. Robison,' in opening the case, stated that in this matter, unfortunately, they had no members of the ship's company present to assist the inquiry. The. only evidence the Department could bring before the Court was as to what took place before tho barque left Newcastle, for Lyttelton, in July last.: The Loch Lomond was an iron barque of 1200 ton's register, built in 1870, andsur-. veyed in December last. She was purchased by;the Union Company/of New Zealand in April last. She-was dry-docked, at Melbourne in June last, and surveyed. After a j trip from Melbourne-to. Newcastle, she loaded I74o:tons of ,coal,-and left for Lyttelton on 'July. 16, The load-line was one inch clear. /Prior to being loaded she was inspected by the officers of the Navigation Department, and found to be in sound condition, complete in equipment; Kfe-saying appliances adequate, and well manrled. So far as was known nothing had been heard of the vessel since she left .Newcastle, except .a cable, from the Marine-Department: of ..New;- Zealand 'stating that: certain' Wreckage'-had- been found; /presumed to belong-to the-Loch Lomond/. At this 'stage'his'sonour,asked.:-,'/What.is the use of holding'an inquiry .unless wo can find something: .wrong;'and-;express", an opinion!?::-,We are confined' to investigate .'casualties which may occur on a British- ship on or'near'tho New South Wales coast. If the wreckage had'-been •picked; up''on'"the"New:'Zealand coast; .the: Court possessing jurisdiction . is clearly that of New Zealand." ' Mr.; Robison: They have no evidence upon which to hold an inquiry, and by holding it here'it was!sought to save expense.' His Honour: Still, I don't see, on your opDning,:tlut';we!have jurisdiction. .1 do not sep-' why,-. since, the port of departure, where the'-Vessel' was last-- seeii; was Newcastle, we should'iiothaye.jurisdictiiciti;: ■-■ '. Here',.Mr;;!Creagh^ihte'd.'; ; but v that ~ New castle■wa's'th'e-'las't.port.'the;vessel waskndwn ,tp',;havp'•,visited,,and,.that' officials of the'Company/he'represented \yere!'. present'.in ■ order'. : t6 : RivQ!'aßsi3tahce''tliat".would be.'.uspfui.: .Mr/;R'obisnn' : .tQ%n'.'sai4'|ti'fttvthb :Ministe'r: ; bf'';tThe\ : Departmeh't'! lbpk'ed'upqri!'.tlie matter ,'as oriptpf;public 'iht'eres't.;;. Newcastle was -the last' r p'or'tj.at ; which jtlie: vessel 'was- inspected, 'and it was v desirable that 'there, should I, bo no "doubt 'ahoitithe vigilance;- of...thf! oi-j fioials'.:''''"'."! "-'■"': vV- i : , : - '" ' "'",'.■"'''>■■'■■■''''

. ' , His! Honour: Then: they should give' the Court jurisdiction; .'The. Minister'cannot ask ;the : Court to. sit simply because, he w.ishes it. ' .Mr'.'Robisbnyrtinderstahd'that. -Still'thp , facts-d'o'iiot snow, that the',. Gourt!-;ha's no jurisdictions; ; /•':;:■/ ;^ ; .',. !"!:.'";; 'j : ;' : !

:.'i His Honour: ,'Until I, am!' we ;have' right;have^:l,'to,'swear withes'sbs ? If .'wreckage has -'bein . found 'on -tlio'New Zealand' Coast, 'the presumption is that::/tlio: < vessel'!wa's'iWrecked nearer to' New Zealand than to New; South-Wales. Don't you think'so ?' : ■'::'.': : ' ;V " :'.,','■ '"■-" '■.":■■■?•-- ■ •'■■•'-

Mr.'. Robison:. I w;«ijd : rather you. did* not ask that'question';"'''!■•''." '■ ;' : -.-.:■' : '■*■""

. .His' Honour': My assessors say that.in all Iprribability'.sh'e was ''wrecked: near New .Zea-land.'-;'r.' ': ■;'!••' !:'.:.-■':•;'.-, ::."/.". '.'''

".Mr.- Robison: "Will the.; Court .allowme to give- certain;evidencef ,!■!;.,;!.;::;.: "!;■:

His Hbiidur: What, right have:-t to swear ■witnesses"'if I have'no .jurisdiction'?';'. ,1; arir 'liable'." , However,, .while :I"'do.;.n6t think, we can:hqld-an'inquiry, r'do;.not.see that there can- bo any objection !to taking statements. T'. " .Testimony wari'then given by, three QdYernlmerit''.bfficia;ls v from':Newcastle, and! Mr*. D'. WiHiams's ; 'a'Rerit;;for the Union Company, as ;to. the.Loch' LoraondJs.iseaworthirjess. ~;Mr.: F.<vJackson, .manager of the Union Company, then s'.tated that',the. vessel : was purcKase'd in 'April for £3500;' and £500 was spent in general" repairs'. She was; intended for genera", purpbses,' with a-view'ultimately. *of being'!(ibnverted -into "a 'tfainiri'g^sliip;'-'.'An 'exhaustive' and s'earc¥'haa ; been.-'made

tor her .without success. ;' The ; proceedings. then closed.