Untitled

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 18, Issue 1166, 8 November 1871, Page 2

A .statement appears in the Southern Cross (hat the barque Ballarat, at present at Auckland, goes to Port. Underwood to load wool. This is a mistake. The Ballarat, as already intimated in these columns, will load wool at this port for the home market. The favorite steamer Keera—now flying the N.Z.S.S. Co.'s Hag—may be expected here to-morrow, from Auckland, with the European and American mails via San Francisco, and will steam shortly after arrival for Wellington, Lyttelton, and Dunedin. In the Resident Magistrate's Court yesterday, the adjourned case of Wilson v. Robjohns came on for hearing. This was a claim for wages, &c. 14s .lid), as master of the late ketch Midlothian.- -The witnesses from Wairoa I were examined. Peter Walker de- | posed that he was agent for Robjohns & Co. at Wairoa. He heart} about 3 | a.m. that the vessel was ashore, and soon afterwards went to the beach. He got there between 4 and 5 o'clock. The vessel was high and dry, an<] the master was lying in a bunk on board the Hero, drunk. There was a hole in the vessel's side. Witness, with the aid of some people on the beach, discharged the caigo. The captain did not help; he was incapable of doing so. The vessel commenced to break up on Friday and was sold on Monday, when she was a total wreck. If she had been sold at first, when it was possible to save her, she would have fetched a | better price,—H. Sargent, bootmaker, gave evidence to very similar effect. He would have given from <£3o to .£SO for her the day after she went ashore. Believed the vessel cotild have been saved. People wanted to fasten a rope to her mast head, and pull her up the beach; but the master and mate ob jected. The master said that the mast would be pulled out. and if any damage was done to the vessel those who did it would be held responsible. Witness asked the master on the beach, " Is she insured 1 " He said " Yes." He asked, "Against total loss 1 ?" The master said "'Yes," and witness replied, "Then let her rest." (Laughter.) His idea at the time was that the vessel, being insured, was to be allowed to go to pieces, that the owners might get the benefit. The mate, though not quite sober, was more sobei: than the captain. Those on the beach h]l agreed in the opinion that the- vessel was to be allowed to lie theie and go to destruction. —Captain Wilson denied several of the statements of the last witness. He lemembered Mi' Sargent asking him if the vessel was insured, to which he replied that he did not know. Froni the position in which the vessel was lying—jammed against a shingle bank at an angle of 45 or 50 degrees —she could not have been moved up the beach without being bodily lifted by screws. —Mr Davidson (of Robjohns & Co ) said that the vessel was uninsured, and the master was quite aware of the fact —John Campbell deposed that he was master of the ketch Hero. At the time the Midlothian went ashore, the Here wa,s ftgrpund on the inner beach, about 150 yards away.

The plaintiff came on board the Hero about 2.30 a m, soon after his yessel went aground, to borrow a pair of screws ; witness told him he might have them. The plaintiff did not appear to be drunk when he came on board. He had a glass of rum on board the Hero. About 5 30 a.m. Walker came and demanded to know what business Captain Wilson had on board the Hero The Midlothian might have been lifted over the beach if sufficient help and plenty of screws had been available ; but launching her seaward was out of the question. She had several tons of ballast on board, but it would have been of no use to discharge it, for she had a hole in her side, through which the ballast and shingle was washing in and out. She was lying against a steep bank, and would*ha\e had to be raised eight feet to lift her over the beach. On Saturday witness would not have taken her | at. a gift.—By Mr Lee : If a rope had ! been fastened to her mast-head, as had j been suggested by some, it would only J have hastened her destruction. He I remembered ill is plan being tried when the Iris was wrecked, and her mast j was broken into three pieces. The ma.-ter would not have been justified in selling the vessel without having previously caused a survey to be held upon her. Tf a captain in a case like this thought his v essel was hopelessly lost, he was bound to call a survey before dealing with her as a wreck.—R. M'Gregor, mate of the Hero, considered the captain sober on the morning after the wreck. —Mr Lee read extracts from a letter written by Captain Wilson to the owners, in which he mentioned having taken a glass of spirits on board the Hero, giving as his reason that he was exhausted, cold, and wet through, and had had nothing to eat 4ming the previous day. Captain Wilson, in allusion to a portion of the evidence representing him as being di unk and incapable on the Friday morning, said that he went on board his vessel, and cut away the sails,and sent them ashore,with everything else that was moveable— Decision reserved until 11 a.m. to-day, when it was given by the Resident Magistrate, in this case, he said, he had found considerable difficulty in arriving at a decision .satisfactory to himself, in consequence of the discrepancies in the evidence, which made it difficult to ascertain the actual facts. The principal questions were, first, whether the plaintiff had been in such a state of drunkenness as to be unable to attend to his duties, and, secondly, whether he had been guilty of wilful neglect in not celling the vessel while she might have brought a reasonable price. With regard to the accusation of drunkenness, this, though contradicted by some of the witnesses, was to some extent established ; but it did not appear that he was helplessly drank, or so far under the influence of liquor as to be unable to render assistance. On the contrary, it appeared that he went on board and assisted personally in what was done. As for his absence on board the lie to, it should be taken into account that the fatigues of the night had rendered rest physically necessary, and he could not see that the plaintiff wa? blameable on that account; more especially as it had not been shown that any damage ha J resulted from his absence. In the second place, as regarded the question of the sale, the master, he thought, was placed in a very awkwaid position, having to exercise his discretion in a responsible and difficult matter. Jt was very easy for landsmen to express opinions and give advice to sea-faring men in cases of difficulty, but they were very differently situated from the master of the vessel. Had the plaintiff, for instance, sold the vessel on Friday afternoon, as advised, and the sea had calmed down shortly after, allowing the buyers to repair and launch the vessel, at their leisure, the owners no doubt would have been exceedingly displeased, and would probably have brought an action against him for damages. There did not seem, under the circa instances of peculiar difficulty which this ca.se presented, any ground for the accusation of wilful neglect. The fact of an official enquiry being fixed for the Saturday was in itself an obstacle to proceedings in the meantime. Before the plaintiff could be shown to have forfeited his wages, neg-

lect on his part should bo clearly shown —not merely that he had neglected to. adopt what ultimately could be seen to have been the right course, for it was very much easier to look back and point put what should have been done phan to look forward and see what was the best course to pursue. Not being satisfied that there had been wilful neglect, lie did not consider the plaintiff to have forfeited his wages. There appeared to have been no proper agreement as to the aniounc of wages the plaintiff was to receive ; but as the defendants had brought no evidence by which he might be guided as to the ordinary rate, he would allow the amount as claimed on that item. He then refeu ed to the disputed items. One of these was ,£1 2s 6d expenses of certain, visits to Port Chalmers on defendant's account. He considered that in this case the plaintiff had gone beyond his instructions, and therefore struck out the item. A disputed item of .£1 16s, provisions for the ciew, he considered sustained, and would allow it to stand. A further item of 5s he.struck out.— Judgment for j£ll 7s sd, with £1 10s costs.