STRANDING OF THE JOHN

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8349, 8 February 1913, Page 6

STRANDING OF THE JOHN

CONCLUSION OF THE INQUIRY. The magisterial inquiry into the stranding of the steamer John at the mouth of the Tuki Tuki river on December 19th was resumed yesterday before Dr. A, McArthur, S.M., assisted by Captains Black and Gillespie as nautical assessors. Mr S. Rose represented the Marine Department; Mr E. K. Kirkcaldie appeared for Captain Holm; Mr H. Buddie for the first officer; and Mr T-. M. Wilford for the second. a Cyril B. Atkinson, second mate, said that when he relieved the first mate at midnight, tho latter gave him the course as S.W by W.JW. Ho first saw land about 2.20 a.m., and consulted the “Nautical Almanac” to see tho proper course between Portland Island and Cape Turnagain. He went to the cabin for this purpose. After an absence of a minute, he returned, and saw land more distinctly and, put tbe engines full speed astern. This was about 2.25 a.m. He ‘thought the land was further off than it .was, and he wanted to make sure before altering tho course. The first mate dm not tell him they were heading for land. In the evening was taken. At the conclusion tho president said the first question to answerwas: Should the master have given written instead of verbal orders in regard to the course to be steered? The answer of the Court was that it was strongly of opinion that masters should give written instead of verbal orders. This, however, was a practice more observed in the breach than in the observance. The Court only wished to give captains a little hit of advice on the matter The second question was: Should the first or second officers lay down tho course on the chart? The Court certainly thought that the first officer should in the present instance have laid down the course. The Court was strongly of opinion that the wrong course was given by the first officer to the second officer. At the same time the Court thought tire second officer should at any rate, after 2 o’clock, have satisfied himself more particularly as to the course he was steering. The second officer either became confused, or did not know where he was. The court considered that the first officer was the chief offender. He would t>e ordered to pay £3 3s to the expenses of tbe inquiry, and the second officer £1 Is.