ILL-FATED MARORO

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, 3 December 1927, Page 10

ILL-FATED MARORO

CIRCUMSTANCES ABOUT GROUNDING MAGISTERIAL INQUIRY CONCLUDED. CAPTAIN JONES EXONERATED. The Magisterial enquiry into the circumstances surrounding the recent grounding of the scow Maroro at Blackhead was continued at Napier yesterday altenioon when Mr. A. M. Mowlem. S.M., and Captains H. White-Parsons and W. J. Allen composed the court. Mr W. Rowe appeared on behalf ot the Marine Department and Mr. M. R. Grant represented the master ol the vessel (Captain J. W. Jones).

Just prior to the luncheon adjournment Hector Soares, chief, engineer of the Maroro, commenced his evidence. He stated that about 4 a.m. the main engine stalled but was almost immediately re-started. Witness saw the captain who said, "Things are pretty hopeless, so you may stop it as soon as you like.” Witness stopped the engines, which were in goon order, about 4.10 p.m. Relative to the niater< of lubricating oil, witness stated that this had always been a matter of dispute. He had ordered two barrels but as one was sufficient with what was on board witness took it upon himself to wire Grevmouth to have a barrel of oil ready. The skipper saw the wire and handed it in at Gisborne. Just about the time of going into Blackhead the matter of oil had been discussed. Witness told the captain that if it would take five days to go to Wellington then there would be sufficient oil. TROUBLE ABOUT OVERTIME. Mr. Grant; On November 21 there was a preliminary enquiry neat in Napier?—Yes. lou were not in the Court-room on that day I —That is so. You were paid your'wages?—Yes. The captain said that the owners were not to pay overtime?—Yes. There is no doubt about the whole of the crew and officers working a great deal oi overtime in trying to save the Vessel?—Yes. You and tile crew think it is tin captain who is the cause of you mu getting overtime? —Yes, because he reluses to say that at the mess tabu on October 25 that he had been ashore in communication with tin owners and that we were to stairn by the ship as he was still master of the ship and that we would be paid the usual wages and overtime before stranded. Mr. Duthie, first mate, Mr. Emmes, second mate, Mr. Shearman, second engineer and myself were present.

You don’t believe the captain when he says that the owners told him not to pay overtime?—Well, no. 1 saw the wige from the owners telling the skipper not to pay overtime.

To Mr. Mowlem: Then if there is anyone going back on his wort! it is not the skipper?—Well, looking at it from that light, it would seem so. Then because you had not received your overtime you would not give evidence on November 21 ?—No. You refused to give evidence?— Yes. You said, “You would make it hot for the skipper.”—No, I don't think I said that.

When pressed by Mr. Grant, witness stated that the statement had been given a different meaning to what witness intended. It had nothing to do with the enquiry. Mr. Grant: You would not give evidence until you had seen a solicitor ; then you wrote out your evidence?—Yes. You memorised your evidence?— There is no need to memorise the truth.

Do you realise that your evidence to-day is exactly the same as you’ gave to the Customs officers?—Well, it’s the truth. I don’t have to memorise the truth. / Mr. Grant: Now about that oil?— Well, 1 agreed at- Cape Turnagain to to say that we were short of oil to "save the skipper’s skin.”

Then you are the sort of man who tells any sort of a lie when told to by the captain?—No. You are asking us to believe that the captain said the ship was out of oil?—Yes. You weTe called at 2.15 by the master?—Yes. All hands were called about the same time?—l think so. Did you notice the weather when you came out of the engine-room?— No. ABOUT THE ENGINE-ROOM. Mr. Grant then asked several questions about the engine-room, and witness admitted that between 2.15 and 4 a.m. he hardly spent any time in,the engine-room. The vessel was . almost on the rocks?—Yes, You weren’t going to be caught in the room if it went on the rocks?— 1. wasn’t afraid of that. Il the captain and first mate say that the engine was put on at 2.45 then they are not telling the truth?— It, is a deliberate lie. There was trouble between you and the skipper three months ago, wasn’t there-—He said that unless 1 stopped associating with the crew I would be sacked. Everything you have said to-day is the truth?—Yes. You would’s say anything that was not right and proper for you as a sailor to say?—That is so. What would you say of a man who stole chocolates used for the lifeboats ?—When 1 took them I Ah, you admit it then?—Yet, but it was not from the lifeboats. It was from the ship’s cupboards and Then you admit you took two tins of chocolates from the wreck?—Yes. From out of the lifeboats?—No, out ol the ship's cupboard. How many years have you been at sea?—Nine. Yet you don’t know that they are for the lifeboats?—l have never seen chocolates lor lifeboats done up like those tins were. They are usually in the lifeboats themselves, anyhow. You know that one ounce of chocolate is supposed to keep a person alive for 21 hours?—l wouldn’t like to live, on that lor 24 hours. Mr. Mowlem: But you might have to. Captain White-Parsons: Why did you leave the engine-room and interfere with the anchors? You left your own business and went away to somebody else’s?—Yes. Mr. Mowlem: You are sure about the time you set the engines on?— Yes

Do you challenge the mate's log?— If the record is there it must be true. Mr Mowlem then asked several questions regaiding times in the log book and witness declared them all correct with the exception of the one as to when the engines were put on on October 21. THE CREW'S VIEW’S. Annoe J. Fargerholm, a member of tbe crew, stated in evidence that when he came on deck the weather was very bad. When witness went to get coffee about 2.45 the captain and the two mates were on deck; the engines were not going then. James Cameron, another member of the crew, gave evidence as to being on deck from 12 until 4 a.m. At 2.45 there was no engine going. To Mr. Grant, witness stated that lie expected to receive overtime, but witness did not blame the captain for not getting it. Witness helped to take soundings and at the time it was pitch dark with a howling gale blowing. Thomas Houston, another member of the crew, stated he was one of the men taking the soundings. There were several helping in the dropping of the anchor. He was not sure when the engine was running as lie was quite busy. To Mr. Grant, witness said that the skipper could not have done any more to save the ship. It was lucky that the ship was not broken to pieces on the rocks. • This concluded the evidence for the inquiry on behalf of the Marine Department. Mr. Mowlem then asked Captain Jones to again enter the witness box. "When you took the ship from Gisborne did you not realise that it was very light and had no ballart?” asked Mr. Mowlem. Witness: Yes, I did.

Did you not try to remedy that?— I have beseeched the owners to give me something even if it was run ,for nothing as I knew it would save them money some time or other. Their orders were?—“Carry on; we’ll see about it for the next trip.’ That’s how it’s been for the last three trips.

You of course realised the dangers of Cook Strait? —Certainly. I have nearly lost her twice. Captain White-Parsons: It was the lack of oil that made you go into Blackhead?—Yes. 1 wanted to save it to get to Napier. If I had had the other barrel then I would not have gone in.

CAPTAIN CLEARED OF BLAME.

After adjourning lor 45 minutes, the Court returned with the following verdict:—“Our duty in this matter is to ascertain whether any act of default, neglect or mismanagement of the master of the Maroro, or of any other officer thereon, was the cause of the stranding ol the ship at Blackhead on October 23. Relative to Captain Jones, the Court is unanimously of the opinion that in the first place the captain, having as lie admits no local knowledge of this particular locality, placed too much reliance on the "N.Z. Pilot” with re lerence to the anchorage to which he went in search of shelter. The Court is unanimously of the opinion that under the circumstances, as they existed prior to and on October 23, the captain did the reasonable thing in deciding to anchor at Blackhead. Particularly is this so in view of the chief engineer, the person respon sible, stating that the supply ot oil was not sufficient to take the ship to Wellington; and secondly, in that lie contemplated coming to Napier for ballast which was absolutely necessary for the proper navigation of the ship It is clear to the Court that when the ship was anchored the wind changed and so compelled the captain to try to leave the anchorage for the open sea—a contingency which the captain had anticipated! by the fact of his earlier preparations to slip the starboard anchor and cable. It is equally clear that he would not get to sea owing to the change of wind and a lee shore. Appreciating this he tried to slip his anchor but the engines would not bring his ship to it so as to allow the anchor to be slipped, so the only alternative was to drop the port anchor to see if both would hold the vessel. ■

OFFICERS’ SKILFUL DIRECTION’ “This, however, the anchors failed to do and after being directed with considerable skill by tile captain and first mate through an opening in the rocks tbe vessel eventually was driven ashore on the northern side of Blackhead. The Court is unanimous in that after anchoring the captain did all he could to save the ship and the lives of the men in his charge and can find no evidence that the accident was due to any act of default, or omission on tbe part of Captain Jones. “Nor does the Court think that the first mate of the ship failed in his duty in any respect. “The Court does say that 'the evidence of the chief engineer has no appeal principally because the Court cannot -understand, and no reason lias been given, why the engineer, during the crisis, was not found in the engine-room instead of being on the deck.”