MISHAP TO PAKEHA.

Hokitika Guardian, 11 February 1925, Page 1

MISHAP TO PAKEHA.

NAUTICAL INQUIRY. FINDING OF THE COURT. WELLINGTON, February 7. At the nautical inquiry into the alleged grounding of the s.s. Pakeha at Bluff Harbour. Hr Prendcville, on uehalf of the Marine Department, said that the questions he wished to put t > the court were:—Where was ,'t tha; the Pakeha stranded or touched? and What was the' cause -of her doing so? Mr O’Leary; for' the owners, eiiL mitted that by tile report of Lloyd’s Surveyor and the evidence of the urn at Port Chalmers it was clear that the Pakeha had struck or groan fed •somewhere on or about June 3 and from the evidence of eight or one in-n on the Pakeha he contended that ti e had struck when entering Bluff IL.rhour on the morning of June 3 The vessel was pumped dry before reading the harbour. She was dry half >i hour after she entered, but after that an inflow of water was found. As' against the evidence of the eight or nine witnesses referred to, all they bad was the suggestion hat the grounding took place before ‘hi- I i.kclia reached Bluff Harbour, and ti e insinuation that the grounding occurred off Waipapa Point. The chairman of the Harbour Board find said that the hoard had been unable to find any obstruction that she could have si' ook, but the Pakeha had found an ohstn c-t-ion in flic fairway. That was clear. The Tvaramea went through at. high tide and there was no evidence that she had followed exactly the same course at the Pakeha. Mr Kirkcnldie, for the master, also stressed the evidence as to the V«ss >1 striking when entering the hariour, and scouted any suggestion th.it lie ship's company had been toiruplco and had not been tolling the triitn. The captain's case was one of direct assertion of fact, supported hv oii'Ct assertions of eight other witnesses, while the Harbour Board’s case wrs only one of suggestion, insinuation and theory, lie submitted that the captain and officers of the ves ;el should tie completely exonerated. Mr Mac Alister, for the boar 1, s.’d the Bluff Harbour Board was not set ting up any theory at all ; s to l.c.w the accident happened. It was ret concerned with theories at all, hut it maintained that as a matter ol fact the grounding could not have happened in the entrance to Bluff Harbour, as the evidence of a diver and othcis showed. He argued that even it the Bazorhaek Rock had been 2dft instead of 30ft below the surface at Jew i:de, that would still have given the Piteba 3ft to 4ft of clearance. Many vessels of greater draught- than tl,c Pakeha had entered and left the harbour for years past without finding that alleged pinnacle. Tie submitted that it was quite impossible for the court to come to the conclusion that there was a rock there. The finding was delivered as foi lows:—

The Court finds that it is impossible to say the exact causes which contributed" to the steamer touching, hut the low state of the tide, the position of tlie vessel in the channel, the draught and list of the ship, and probably a slight range were factors. The Harbour Board’s denial of tho possibility of such an accident casts upon it the onus of proving that it was impossible in the circumstances. The Court is unable to accept as conclusive _ the statement that no obstruction existed in the channel near Mararoa Bock. The master and officers exercised all reasonable care, and the pilot was acting to the best of his knowledge and ability. An order was made that the expenses of assessors and witnesses should he borne equally bV the Marine Department and the Bluff Harbour Board.