RONA WRECK.

Taranaki Daily News, 15 July 1922, Page 5

RONA WRECK.

THE DECISION RESERVED. POSITION OF CHIEF OFFICER. AN APPEAL FOR LENIENCY. I B* Telegraph.—Pres* Association. Auckland, July 14. At the Rona inquiry, Mr. Cutten, S.M., said that from the remarks made by the chief officer as to what occurred after the captain left -the bridge, the chief officer never seriously took the responsibility. He had no specific instructions and was looking for the return of the captain. Of course the chief officer was quite wrong, because when he was on the bridge he was in charge and responsible. Mr. Meredith, in reply, said it w« suggested to put aside Grantley’s evidence, in which he stated that no blame attached to the captain. He submitted it was unfair to take one part of the chief officer's evidence and set aside another part. He stressed the qualifications of the mate and the evidence of various ship-masters supporting the action of the master in leaving the mate in charge. Grantley knew where he was and it was a perfectly simple thing to pass the light. The chief officer requested permission to speak. He eaid he had from th* first taken a full share of the blame, and appealed to the court Tor whatever leniency it could show. He was at no time negligent and was keenlv attentive to his duty, but was deceived by the close approach of the light, which he thought was further off. Replying to the chairman, Grantley said he fully understood at the time the master. went off the bridge that he (Grantley) was in charge. Auckland. Last Night. At the Rona inquiry, Mr. Sehvyn Mays pointed out that public interest was a vital point in matters such as this and regret for the effect any finding may have on the careers of th© persons concerned could not be allowed to interfere with public interest. The essential facts were perfectly clear. Under good conditions the casualty had occurred in a ridiculous manner in approaching a perfectly safe harbor that made navigation a farce. Had the chief officer appreciated that he was in charge there would have been no casualty. What happened in this case was that the chief officer took over his watch and did not then pick off the course, but the master came up a little later, went into the chart-, house, picked off the course and told the officer to alter the course. That indicated he was up to bring the ship into port. Just after he said, '‘Steer for the light. I’m going down to get my overcoat.” there was no lack of responsibility so far as the chief officer was concerned, for it must have seemed, to him just before striking that something had to be done and he should have done it. There was no excuse for him, but what probably happened was that he was waiting for the master to come back.

He eventually suddenly woke up to the fact that the light was dangerously near and then it was too late. ' Counsel held that part of the responsibility must rest with the master, in that the manner in which he left the bridge did not indicate to the chief officer clearly that‘he was in charge. It was in the captain's favor that he knew that a thoroughly qualified, competent and reliable man was on the bridge, but still the fact remained that a mistake was made on both sides. The Court adjourned for two hours to frame its finding. Later the Court announced that it had been unable to come to a decision and would give its finding at 11.30 a.m. on Monday