VICE-ADMIRALTY COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4573, 16 November 1875, Page 2

VICE-ADMIRALTY COURT.

Monday, November 15. (Before the Worshipful James Prendergast, Esquire, Judge.) IN THE MATTER OF THE YOUNG DICK (SCHOONER). The Jiulge delivered his judgment in [this case as follows ; It appears from the evidence that Jon the night of the 4th of September, at about ten o’clock (the night being moderately clear, the stars visible, and the lights of the lighthouses at Man a and Pencarrow visible at a considerable distance), the barque Jane Spiers was in Cook Strait, bound outwards from Wellington at the time mentioned. The wind was N. by W. i W. or N.N.W. The barque was steering a west course on the starboard tack, the lights at Mana bearing N.E. J 13., the Capo Campbell lights. }W„ and Pencarrow light E.N, $ N.. and the barque was at a distance of eight or nine miles off Capo Terawiti. The barque had her regulation lights in proper situations and brightly burning. There was as look-out an able seaman, William Taylor, on the topgallant-fore-castle. The master was on deck with his second officer, who were walking the deck aft, and a seaman also on the look-out on the main deck forward. It was sworn

on the part of the barque that she was going closehauled. It was contended at the hearing on behalf of the Young Dick, that on the evidence |lt appeared that this was not so, but in fact she (the barque) was going free. I have arrived at the conclusion that she was not going free, but close-hauled within the meaning of the sailing rules.

llus being the position of affairs with regard to the barque, the look-out man reports a vessel without lights on the lee bow. It appears probable from the evidence that at this time the vessel sighted was distant somewhat less than half a mile. Upon this report the captain ordered the man at the wheel to luff a little, and went forward immediately. The vessel was visible, but it could not be seen how she was steering. As no lights were visible, the captain ordered a flash-light to bo shown, which was done, and according to some of the evidence of those on the barque, done twice before any response from the other vessel. I consider from the evidence on both sides that the barque was unable to determine, until the answering light was shown from the other vessel, what course that vessel was steering, though she was able to determine she was on the port tack. I also conclude that at the time when the light was shown to the barque from the other vessel that a collision was imminent though not inevitable.

The barque, it is contended, did wrong in porting her helm. It is contended that she did not, within the meaning of the sailing rules, keep her course, but thereby altered her course. On this I consider that she did not, within the meaning of the rnles, do otherwise than keep her course, and that if she did so when she put her helm hard aport, that she did so under circumstances of peril, brought about by the conduct of the approaching vessel, and to lessen the effects of the collision. The vessel was the Young Dick, then standing north-east on the port tack admittedly, with a starboard light not burning brightly, and otherwise not in accordance with the regulations, and with such a look-out that the schooner did not see the barque first, notwithstanding the great difference of size of the two vessels. Indeed, admittedly the schooner did not see the barque till too late to avoid collision, while the barque’s evidence is that the schooner was seen at about half a mile off. I conclude on the evidence that the schooner did not exhibit proper lights ; that being so, the onus is on her to prove that the omission was not the cause of the collision. (See the Fenham, L.R. 3, P.C. 212.) She not only has not so proved, but she has proved I think that her look-out was bad, and brought her into an improper position with regard to the barque ; and by her defective light she also prevented the barque from taking measures to avoid the collision. Ido not think that the barque refused or wilfully omitted to stand by the schooner. I think that the schooner could have come to the barque had she wanted assistance. I therefore pronounce the Young Dick alone to blame.

Mr. Allan (on behalf of the Jane Spiers) intimated his intention, by leave of the Court, to ask next day that the question of damages and costs might be referred to the Registrar and merchants. The Court then rose.