The Late Harbour Accident.

Thames Star, Volume XIV, Issue 4584, 13 September 1883, Page 2

The Late Harbour Accident.

INQUEST ON THE BODY OF > ■ THE ENGINEER. ( - 'After-we wfenfc to press yesterday evi<tjeucej\ of 'which the following is the substance, was taken :—J. N. Cave, mate jof'theTSea'Bird, sworn, deposed—Threw thfeJincfHothe pilot boat; it was coiled on deck a|id hitched to the pin, so that it could.h rave been run out if necessary ; he ,saw<thii§ boat sheer off owing ;i.o three men rifshing to catch the rope, M' turned on its'aljde and nearly capsized. Harris had' t%cj line across his 'chest, and ■it looked;- as if it was foul of his body, bj the wjiy he was dragged. He was pulled out backwards, and was under water,2 or 3 seconds, letting go the rope on rising. Stationed a man at the rope, and on seeing an accident likely to happen, ordered it to be released; this was not done, as the man said he could not let go in time. His attention was then called by the Captain's order to lower the mainsail, but saw deceased astern beating the water and trying to keep afloat. If the boat had been handled smartly Harris could have been saved, but one of the crew seemed quite* helples, though the other made all efforts.^—To Sergt.-Major Kiely: Could swim, but did not know whether any of the crew could. Would have tried to swim had he been at the after end of the vessel or had he not been obliged to obey the captain's orders. After rounding to saw Harris less than two hundred yards distant, but there was no possibility of throwing him a rope. The harbour boat would then be about 50 yards from him, having been blown away by the wind, which did not affect the floating man. Did not see him sink, but saw the harbour-master and one man pulling the boat towards him, the other occupant of the boat sitting' helplessly on one of the thwarts. About two minutes were occupied in stopping the vessel. —To Mr Miller: Had ordered the man at the rope to let go, but before he could do so deceased had been hauled out of the boat. O. Kossarow, sailor on board the Sea Bird, gave evidence somewhat similar to that of the last witness. Eichard E. Schofield, toll-collector, said when the Sea Bird came in sight Captain Bayldon spoke about engaging a crew to go off, and witness offered to go if anybody could be found to attend to his duties. Captain Bayldon replied that both could not well be'a way together, and left to find other men. Thought it his duty to go off in the pilot boat when he could get away. Had/ undertaken the pilot duty, but was then specially employed for the work. On -this occasion the water was nowhere near theTgridiron,, or wherß the pilot boat lay, and the dredge boat had therefore been taken. Considered her safe enough for the purpose, but would not have approached a vessel in motion without a more experienced crew. It was impossible that day to find better men than those taken. With the sail the vessel was carrying he did not think the speed could have been reduced to 3 knots an hour between the fairway buoy and where she, brought up. She was travelling over the ground at about 5 knots. Henry Miller, master of ihep.s. Enterprise s^tw the Sea Bird when abreast of the wfoarf. JBeliflved she had all sail set at the inner-Could only guess the speed, but believed it to be about four knots an hour. / , , , - ■ William Page deposed that he was a publican residing on Tararu road, and had had about 30 years' seafaring experience in various capacities between cook and master. On Saturday, the Ist inst., while standing at his door, he noticed the brigantine advencing up the harbor. Watched the vessel and the harbour boat through a glass, saw them approach each other, and the boat drop astern. The ship carried main-sa:l, two or three stay-sails, top»sail, square foresail, top-gallant sail, jib, and fore-top-mast-stay-sail at the time she passed the boat. Estimated the speed over the grouud at about 6J knots. The ship hove to as soon as possible after the boat dropped astern.-~To Mr Miller: Had not been expressing his opinion upon this matter very freely, but had written to the papers about it. About 12 years had elapsed since he was last at .sea. It was not then customary to board a vessel travelling at the rate of six knots. The Sea Bird had all the sails he had mentioned set at the time she commenced to heave to. —To the Jury: The regular harbor boat would have been safer for boarding the vessel, if manned by half-a-dozen good men. John Galbraitb, formerly master mariner (called at the request of Mr Miller), deposed that he had been pilot at Lyttelton harbor for the last eight years'. He considered Capt. Bayldon quite justified in boarding the vessel at the rate at which she was travelling. He had fre* quently been obliged to board vessels flying at as much as 9 or 10 knots when in narrow water ; in the Thames channel the water was limited. Saw no necessity for the Sea Bird heaving-to, as the top-sail was then aback. Capt. Bayldon could not, with an indifferent crew, have done more than he had. The dredge-boat would not be safe in rough seas, but in smooth water and with the speed at which tlie Sea Bird was travelling it was perfectly safe.—To the Jury : Ho often boarded in light winds with small boats like that used in this instance.—To Mr Miller: Even with the best of boats and crews similar accidents occasionally happened. , The Coroner said a difficult task was imposed upon him,—that of reviewing the evidence, a great deal of it being of an entirely technical character. He could only take it as a person of common sense, and with a sirict desire to deal honestly. It appeared that Captain Bayldon had no better available means of going out to the Sea Bird than the little boat. He had alsq just as little choice as to the crew. The whole might'be summed in this: That the misfortune occurred because of the boat's man being unable to pass the rope around the thwart. Had he succeeded in this there would be, no necessity for any of the crew changing their situations, and the accident would probably have been avoided ; others further astern came forward to assist, and the boat in consequence sheered off. The rope was held by Harris and other s, and deceased, who did not let go when ordered, was drawn overboard. Now a question arose which he personally was incapable of directing him upon—whether or not it was prudent to attempt to board the Sea Bird with such a crew in such a vessel. It was in evidence that there was a fresh breeze blowing, a "joggle" of a sea ou, and tie Sea Bird was passing oVer'the. ground at about five miles au';h#ite. With respect jto the means takon for the rescue itf^waa quite evident that there was no time to do anything. Jlad there been

'ime the proper course would have been to have pulled deceased aboard by the rope.. .After that the boat's crew had made all possible haste, but not being, thoroughly competent they could not do much. Had they beeu trained men they would probably have saved the poor fellow's life, But under the circumstance it was sacrificed^' Their inexperineas not their fault, and they had apparently used their best endeavors. He co^ld now leave the jury to consider their verdict. After about half-an-hour's deliberation it was announced that the jurors were tin able to come to a decision, two of them holding out against the remaining fen. The Coroner therefore ordered them to be locked up until 10 o'clock, when he would return to see whether they could agree then. At 10 o'clock the Coroner returned, and asked if the jury had agreed to a verdict? They replied : They had not, nor were they likely to do so. There were ten of the jury willing to agree to the following :—" We find that the deceased Henry Harris was accidentally drowned in the liiver Thames, on the Ist September, 1883, while assisting to put the pilot on board the brigantine Sea Bird," with the following rider—" But we are of opinion that the Harbor Board should place competent boatmen at the disposal of the Harbor master for such occasions, and that the pilot'boat should be kept in a more suitable place." The Foreman added that two of the jury held out for the following rider:—" And we are of opinion that the pilot should have ordered the Sea Bird to lay to while he went oh board. " —The Coroner said the verdict must be that of 12 men, and if they did not agree, his duty would be to adjourn them to the Circuit Court of the Supreme Court which would be held at Auckland' with Judge Gillies for Chief Coroner. He suggested to the jury whether they could not agree to a verdict without a rider at all. The two dissenting juryman, Messrs George and Wilson, agreed to this, after which the verdict, without any rider, was signed by the whole twelve.