STRANDING OF THE INGA

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 198, 17 May 1920, Page 6

STRANDING OF THE INGA

1 : . COURT'S FINDING Tho finding of tho Court' in respect to the nautical inquiry regarding tho stranding of the s.s. Inga was delivered on Saturday morning. On tho bench were Mr, W. G. Riddell, S.M., and the assessors Captains E. B. Atwood and J. W. M. Tate. The Court's decision was as follows;— "The Court, having heard and considered the evidence tendered in connection with the stranding of tho s.s. Inga on the coast of New Zealand between Waihi Point and Oeo River, South Taranaki Bight, on tho morning of April 30, whilo on a voyage from Newcastlo to Wanganui, find that the casualty was due to the vessel failing to keep the course set by tho master at 11.30 p.m. on .the night of April 29, when the Bgmont light was picked up. The course, E.S.E., then laid down was a safe one under ordinary conditions. and was followed by the second officer (Jes?e Archer) after taking charge of the ship at 12 p.m. The fact that tl\o vessel was carried about fivo miles out of her couise towards the land and into danger indicates that she was affected by a set in-shore that was not apparent to b~,, officer in charge. _ Tho Court is not satisfied that the position of the vessel at 1 a.m. fixed at eleven milee from Cape Egmont was correct, as no allowance .was mudo for the vessel's diminished speed while the fires were being drawn between 12 and 1 o'clock. Under the circumstances it is evident that the vessel was closer to land than the position marked on the chart indicates. ''I lie Court considers that the distance run by the v-easel when taking u four-point bearing should be verified by patent log, and not made dependent upon the mere estimated speed at the time. "Tho Court is also of opinion that the second officer should have called the muster at 2 a.m. when tho vessel l was getting closer to land when passing Otuuiatua Point two or three miles ott". Iu the particular circumstances,! the night being clcar and land visible, we consider tho failure to call the master as directed was an act of negligence on the part of the second officer which prevented the master having an opportunity of then correcting the vessel's position. _ Although the casualty was in our estimation partly due to an inset which took the vessel off her course unobserved by the second officer in charge, yet we think it could have ■ been obviated had the position of' the vessel been more definitely fixed, at 1 a.m., and had the master been called by the second officer at 2 a.m., or when tho vessel was getting close to land na directed. We think the casualty was to some extent contributed to by the default of tho master in failing to use the patent log to assist in verifying the vessel's position, and by the neglect of the second officer' as above indicated., but not by any otluy officer or member of the crew. Tho Court 1 considers that the conduct of the necond officer calls for severe censure, and that of the master for some censure, but is not prepared to hold that their certificates should be suspended, but they will be required to pay the tfost of these proceedings' in equal shares.'"' At the hearing Mr.'J. Prendeville appeared for the Marine .Department, Mr. T. Young for the master, and Mr. K. .Kirkealdie for the second officer. '