THE STRANDING OF THE STEAMER EASBY.

Evening Star, Issue 3618, 26 September 1874, Page 2

THE STRANDING OF THE STEAMER EASBY.

An inquiry into the circumstances attending -he stranding of the s.s. Easby off Waipapa Pomt, on September 17, was held at the BesiM^g^tra i te, ‘U Court -'i loUße to-day, before a * bgate > R.M., and Captain Thomson, 4. Mr appeared on ÜBt 9 ms authorities, who had “T and Mr femith, for Capt. Stand, the Easby’s commander. Mr Haggitt said that the case came before their Worships upon an application by the Collector of Customs -or rather the princinal officer of the port of Dunedin-under?the Bth section of the Inquiry to Wrecks Act, 1867 the object being to ascertain the circumstances under which the steamship Easby, of which Gapt. Shand was the master, was stranded on the coast of New Zealand, near Waipapa Point, on September 17. The preliminary requirements had been complied with, a preliminary inquiry having been held before Mr Hackworth, principal officer, and on that inquiry he thought it his duty to ask that a formal inquiry, as provided by the Bth section of the Act, be held. The 9th section provided that after the preliminary inquiry was made, it was necessary that a copy of the same, in the event of the Collector thinking It his duty to hold further inquiry, should be served on the officers of the ship for their investigation. This had been done, and he had a declaration made by the constable that he had served the master, first and second oilicers, and the engineer. Mr Bathgate asked if he was to understand that the matter as contained, in the application was that the steamer touched on th.. land off Waipapa Point, the engines were reversed, and the vessel got off and pursued her voyage to Port Chalmers, where she arrived in safety; and that the vessel had since been examined, and it was found that there was no damage ? Mr Haggitt: That I am not aware of. Your Worship knows more about it than I do. I did not know that any examination had been made. Mr Bathgate : You are aware that the vessel touched on the ground, was got off, and pursued her voyage to Port Chalmers without detriment? Mr Haggitt: Yes, that is so. Mr Bathgate : Assuming these were the facts, do you think the facts were such as * to come within the first section of sub-sec-tion o ? Mr Haggitt replied that the sub-section put the principal officer of Customs in motion, ihe Bench were asked to hold an investigation b y the principal officer of Customs. ~Bathgate said that the complaint was that the vessel was stranded on the coast of ■New Zealand. The inquiry before the Court must be under the first sub-section. If not, be W °Ml d TT lke to specify what it was. Mr said the Court was bound to hear the case, if the collector deemed it necessary an inquiry should be. held. * Mr Bathgate; But supposing it does not a “° un t to a charge under the Act. Mr Haggitt : I don’t see how your Worship can say so at this stage of the proceedings. Mr Bathgate was only assuming facte/ If the vessel was got off was there any necessity for an inquiry to be held? It was not like the case °5 j j stranded. Was a vessel stranded, in the meangot off? A 0t ’ lf lt only toucbed the ground and Mr Haggitt replied in the affirmative. The vessel was stranded on the date mentioned, September 17, and that was all that was alleged. It did not matter whether she was stranded for a second, so long as she touched the ground. Ho did not know at the present time what he could prove. Worship : Then I cannot assume anyMr Smith contended that he had a right to call upon Mr Haggitt to state what he intended to prove. When his Worship asked him if he ' , omith) had any preliminary objections to make appearing there on behalf of the accused. fu/nnw hja r £ one » bec&Uße the report of the Chief Officer of Customs said that such an act was done as raised the presumption that he be . b ™ u e bt . with in the jurisdiction W T blps were led to exercise, viz., that through some act of the captain, hu vessel was stranded. He had not contended that the Chief Officer of Customs’ report was sufficient to bring the captain within the requirements of the Act, as S-SJf s “ lfcb ) was reserving the right to argue whether it was sufficient; but after the preliminary conversation just held he felt it his duty to ask his learned friend what charge he intended to make against the captain. It appeared that his Worship took a correct view of the powers of this Court, in that he could only inquire into one of the alleged causes under the third section of the Act Mr Bathgate thought it would be premature wJfW T° Ul £ u e . the reßult b efore they heard the facts which it was intended to prove. Ine accused having received a copy of the charge must be fully aware of its nature. Mr Haggitt said that they were not going to hear charges against Captain Shand. 8 Mr Smith: Then I would like to know for purpose your Worsb ips are assembled

wisbed address the Court, m i tb ob 3®°ted, and attempted to spfcak MrHaggitt W&8 preveQted rom doing so by • ¥|; ® mi s b :1a “ in Possession, and have the right to address their Worships,, Air Haggitt: But you are improperly in posMr Smith said he was addressing the Court KfWV* la^» and “tended to exercise that nght till stopped by the Bench. He was there representing the accused, and he wanted to know if any specific charge was to be laid against him. The inquiry might result in very serums consequences to the captain and tt°n-IfT re °, f tf 8 ? ffioers * He bad surety J) b ® “k 1313 learn ®d friend who conducted the inquiry, as representing the Government on behalf of the Customs, what was the exact charge to be brought against the captain tbi °® cerß? .His Worship made the remaJk was Sffi Ckar & 9 lt: wa f. “tended to be established was sufficiently explieit by the renort of th« was not f J' bUt that it was not, Ihe stranding was not spoken of as but “ tbe Past tense. The complaint said was stranded ”on Sept. 17 Mr Haggitt said his learned friend misan. prehended the motive of the inquiry. Their Worships were holding an inquiry, but without accusing anyone. Tie result might be that S. ° M ° %l “ be ath “ bed Md mpSS

Mr Smith; Responsible for what ? The S under . the 4 th section of the mii sfpbSt.;: T ““ l ™ “ t “ ,ied “ ath s a * e remaiked that if the vessel was STJSIn,? “ inquiry would™ 4-1. -out to save time, assuming that there was no actual stranding at that moment but that the vessel had been got pSr- ? f ued Journey, he had somf doubt whetW jf ahdiscussion. Mr Bathgate : I weuld like to hear your opinion on the word “ stranding.” If a vessel land does she strand ? _r~. r Haggitt: Yes. If a vessel touches land, what is that but stranding? I apprehend stranding means going upon the strand, which means touching the land. I would not call touching a single rock a strand. Mr Bathgate oaid that the word “strand” must fca interpreted according to the circumstances, which he decided to bear. The following evidence was then given Capt. Shand, master mariner, produced his certificates. He had been master of the a ■ Easby «nce the first of January * the yf r ', Thetteamtr was new in ChSmero. bhe left Sydney on September 9. The mmiber of his crew was twenty-eight. His vewel Bme B i roUnd oa Se Pt««ber 17. At that time all hands were available. The first and firßfc and »ecoad held certificates of competency. The canto 818t Th of . ? oal « a ? d tl »ere were seven f ff \v torched about two or three miles she whero sue struck, were distinctly marked on the chart. ine ctnef officer was in command at the of the casualty. Dog Island light wu the last landmark seen. The vessel and. cargo' were miured, but he could not say to what wnouot>

The breeze Was a moderate one. The condition of the meets and rigging was good, and the ship sound. The chief officer was in charge at tli« time of the touching. Was steering by land at the time, and her head swung southward. The vessel was off Stewart’s Island, eight miles from the land, when he last adjusted his compasses, He always steered by the land, even at night, if he could see it plain. At seven o’clock at night they were within a mile of Dog Island light. It was the second officer’s watch, at seven p.m. on the night in question, and he was relieved by the first officer an hour later. Witness was on the bridge from about eight o’clock till within a few minutes before the vessel struck. On coming out of his cabin two or three minutes before the ship struck, he saw the land very plain. The vessel was on the west side of Waipapa Point, and he thought he was too close to the land, and told the man at the wheel to put the helm about. He did not consider it safe to approach within ten miles of Waipapa Point. The pumps were immediately sounded, and found clear. Witness had been on this coast twice before. The first and second officers were with him on those occasions, but he did not know whether they were on the coast previously. Mr Haggitt : Will your Worships hear any ether evidence to-day? Mr Bathgate: The Bench don’t think it necessary to go any further. Mr Haggitt; "Sou must go on ; you have not heard anything yet. Mr Bathgate : I would like to hear the evidence of the Government Surveyor, if he is in attendance.

Mr Smith remarked that it seemed to be an inquiry about nothing. Mr Haggitt entirely disagreed with his learned friend. He thought most gross recklessness had been shown.

Mr Bathgate said that the Court were clearly of opinion that, unless it was proved that damage had been done, they could not proceed with the case under the Enquiry to Wrecks Act. Other procedure could be taken; proceedings might be laid under the Merchant Shipping Act to inquire into the conduct of the captain. There was no wreck and appeared to be no damage, hence they would like to hear the evidence of the surveyor to see whether there was actually any damage. Thomas Burt, engineer by trade, said that he was in the General Government service as surveyor and inspector of steamers. He inspected the steamer Easby, which was lying at Port Chalmers on the previous day. The whole of the damage was amidships. When witness inspected the vessel three months ago it was Sound.

By the Bench ; It would cost Lls to repair the vessel. He did not consider her materially damaged. Touching ground or going over a reef would cause such damage. Mr Bathgate : Do you wish the inquiry to go on? Mr HaSgitt: Oh yes. T wish to call the diver.

Mr Bathgate said the only question was whether there had been material damage, and adjourned the inquiry for further investigation m Monday.