THE WAR LORD.

Hokitika Guardian, 24 October 1924, Page 3

THE WAR LORD.

1 NTERESTING EVIDENCE

GISBORNE, Oct. 22,

Keen interest was taken in the enquiry into the stranding of the schooner war Lord olf Wailtokopu harlxmr on the evening of July 9th. Inst. The enquiry was held before Mr E. C. I.evey, 5.. M., with Captains ,1. W. H. Holmes ami A. S. Miller as nautical assessors. Mr P. W. Nolan appeared for the Marine Department, Mr 11. D. Clirisp for the owners, .Messrs Clare and Clare, Mr L. T. Barnard, lor the Underwriters, and Mr E. H. Mann (instructed by the Merchant Service Guild) for the master ol the vessel, Captain I.owry. Captain Lowry described how the vessel had gone ashore, showing that all that was possible had been done to prevent it. To Mr liurunr*l, the witness said the regulations required the ship to have two bower anchors ol at least s<*wt. each. This was provided in the Marine Department's regulations, hut he did not know it was one of Lloyd’s regulations. Witness had only ouo bower anchor.

Mr Barnard: And therefore the ship was not seaworthy ?—I would not say that.

Will you agree that the rules and regulations of Lloyd's are the test oi proper equipmenti'—l would not like to say so.

Mr Clirisp objected to the lorm of Mi* Barnard's question, stating that it was not the duty of the Court to enquire into the matters opened by Mr Barnard.

His Worship said he thought the question was one for tin* Court. Mr Chrisp submitted that the Court was only there to see whether or not the master of the ship was guilty (.1 negligence. Mr Barnard, on behalf ol the underwriters, wanted to show that the ship was not seaworthy. His Worship said the Court need not refer to the point in its finding, hut the evidence could not he refused, it might inlluencc the Court’s regard of the master.

Mr litirliard said it was the duty *)i the master to see that the ship was properly equipped, and his questions were directed solely to ascertain if this was the ease.

In the course of further questions Mr Barnard asked: Did you ask lor a loan of n tug and other gear:'—Not that I remember.

Did you ring no the owners that morning ! —Yes. And you were told to wait and do nothing:'—No.

Well you did nothing for eight days.*' account of the weather.

For the remainder of tlit* week, from Friday onwards, was not the wind blowing olf the land?—l don’t know about the wind, hut there was a heavy swell.

Mi- Mann objected to the questions as thev did not assist in ascertaining whether the master was responsible for (he casualty.

Mi* Burnard submitted that whether or not there was a casualty depended largely upon the steps taken to get her olf.

Mr Chrisp also objected to tin* tree*! of the examination, contending ni* tbo Court was not entitled to enquire as to what happened after the vessel touched the shore. Ihe (ourt was only interested in the question °f whether the master had heeil negligent. and Mr Burnard was not iiistifi"d in endeavouring to draw evid'uice which might benefit tin* underwriters in an action between them and the

owners. Ilis Worship said the Court was entitled to hear any evidenee that might assist I hem in coming to a finding. 'l'n Mi* Burnard. the witness said the I,each was still unworkable on the Smidny following the stranding. On that day he was visited hv the owners, and also by Mr Cranshaw on behalf of the underwriters. ’I he latter had asked witness what he thought were the prospects of getting the ship oil. Mr Burnard: And voiir reply was: “No chance, she’s here for good i I did not say that. I said I would not give much for her chance on aecaunt lII' the soft nature of the h**nrli. Further questioned. the witness said that the following week the spring tides came ill. and this was the tide which would naturally he used to refloat a stranded vessel. Aeiordiiig to witness's diary. tie* first time Ihe beach as workable was on Monday. July I Ith. when an anchor was laid out, and the consignees were notified that thev could take delivery of their cargo. The anchor was put out to prevent the ship going lurther up the beach as she was lightened. The consignees, however, refused, to take delivery before they could make arrangements with the underwriters. On Friday. July 18th. the consignees notified witness that they were ready to take delivery of the cargo, and its discharge was commenced that day. The spring tide was that morning. Mr Burnard: Did von make any attempt to rollout the shiii?—There was onlv a foot of water at the* ship. Then you made no attempt to refloat her?—No. And you left that day for Gisborne? Yes. ‘

Just at the time when there were the host nrospects for refloating the vessel?—The spring tides finished that

day. . Un to that time you have (lone nothing to rollout her?—We could not on account of the sens. Further questioned, the witness admitted that the only entries in his diary fur each of the live days were “lipsivv sens on beach.” Mr Burnard: Was that put there by instructions too?—t did not say anjthing was done by instructions. Duncan Hector McDonald, after re-

plying to questions as to the anchor, said the master had (lone everything that could he done under the circumstances. Captain Hutchison, in cross-examin-ation by Mr Burnard. said that when the vessel went ashore he was going round to it when he met Captain Lowry. They walked hack to Maiki kopn and discussed tlie position. ' if** ness tillering nuv assistance lie could oive. and saving they would see the Harbour Board's plant— punts, anchors mid other things. Air Chrisp objected to the examumr..ll.r* these lilies, staling that

Mr I’urnard “was only oil a lisliinsr excursion” tr.vint: •<> gut information. Mr Hnrnanl: T understood that was what the Court was for. Ilis Worship rilled that tlio exam, ntiou was in or<l*‘r. . , Continuing, th" witness said ue hail freiif|ontl.v seen the vessel aftei rh> stranding. When the vessel lirstwe: t ashore it would not have heel, dilhe-i t to net her olf. Durum the first fm tnight it would have heen easy to nlloat her if the proper steps ha<W taken, hut as far as he knew no attempt was made to net her oft. • - Ed, an anehor had been put on on the Monday after she we ashore Tu the ordinary course d events endeavours would he made to take a stranded ship off durum S I " tides but just as the spring tales came on the master left for C.ishoino. To Mr Clirisp: Nothing c-utild U done to refloat the vessel the da> aftc she went ashore. His next visit to tl vessel was five days later. He km however, that durum those live »•»>■ the sea had gone down. In lus opinion the vessel could have been got off « the Friday after she went ashore. H. the vessel wanted wear, witness couU have supliod three or four anchoia wire rope and chains, and more cold have boon brought Horn Muiroa hiUi Kven with the additional gear Hon Wairoa, tliev did not succeed in Fi ot tiirn the vessel off when attempts wen Mr°'Burnard: The first attempt made to get tlie vessel off was about a month after, when Captain llood came from Auckland. The most fuvmuahle opportunity for getting O, J soon after the stranding, as >n he mean-time she had shifted fm u alonii the beach. To Ml- Mann: Under the early conditions it might have heen advisable to have removed the cargo. To Afr Clirisp: He knew an anchor hud |>een put out the day following the s ruldiim. but in Ids opinion ,t was not put out with a view to pulling the vessel off. . . . To Air Burnard: In his opinion an

attempt to pull the vessel off with one anchor would he ol no value. After the hearing of further evidence and addresses, the Court icsci\ed decision.

FINDING OF COURT. GISBORNE, Oct. 24. The finding of the Court of Inquiry in the War Lord case, completely exonerated the Master from all blame, and added that in its opinion the Muster was deserving of commendation for the seamanliko manner ill which he had beached the vessel, alter the breaking of the entile chain, thereby avoiding a loss of life.