884
THE NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE.

and examination of witnesses aforesaid, I find and
beg to report to the Honorable the Commissioner of
Customs of New Zealand as follows, that is to say:—
I. That the official number of said ship called
the "City of Newcastle" is 43,329, of which
John Bain is Master, who holds a Certificate
of Service, and which ship belonged to
Messrs. Dransfield and Gannaway.
II. That the loss or damage herein more par-
ticularly mentioned happened on the four-
teenth day of November, 1872, at about four
o'clock in the morning, on Wellington Head.
III. That the loss or damage appears by the
evidence to have been caused by the negli-
gence or incompetency of the master, John
Bain.
IV. That the nature of the loss or damage done
was total wreck. That the vessel was in-
sured for £1,200 in the New Zealand Insur-
ance Company. That the "City of New-
castle" is barque-rigged; her Port of
Registry, Wellington; her registered tonnage
538. That two lives were lost through the
wreck.

And I, the said Justice of the Peace and Resident
Magistrate, further state my opinion on the matter
aforesaid to be as follows:—

That the chief cause of the disaster arose from
the negligence or incompetency, or both, of the
master, John Bain, in not ascertaining the
proper rate at which the ship was sailing, and
in not making due allowance for the influence
of the tide; with a patent log on board, the
omission to use it in navigating the narrow
part of the Straits is wholly inexcusable.
The chief mate, who had the watch from 8 to
12 p.m. on the 13th, states that the night was
clear until 11 p.m., but that he did not see
any fixed light until 12 midnight. Now where
the ship had been at anchor was only about
two miles from the radius of Pencarrow Light,
and in steering the course which is stated the
ship must have passed twelve miles within the
radius of this light; it is therefore inexplicable
why the light was not seen before midnight,
and then taken for Mana Light. The master
states that he altered his course to N. W. at
1.30 a.m., at which time the light bore
E. N. Pencarrow Light, on this bearing,
cut Sinclair Head about one mile inland;
this involves an impossibility, and shows how
carelessly the vessel was navigated. It would
appear probable that no proper look-out was
kept all through the night. The master also
exhibited the greatest negligence in leaving
the deck in charge of a person unacquainted
with seafaring matters, particularly while in
narrow waters. At a time of danger, when
promptitude is of the utmost consequence,
it is possible that the ship might have been
saved by a rapid bracing up of the yards, for
some time must have been lost, however short,
in going below to call the master. Had a
qualified officer been in charge of the deck, his
suspicions would probably have been aroused
when he suddenly lost sight of the supposed
Mana Light (it is clear that this was the
shutting in of Pencarrow Light by Sinclair
Head); he would probably have made further
inquiry, and at least have been very particular
in his look-out. The attempt to show that
Smith was second officer and in charge of
the deck, seems incompatible with the position
which he occupied during the middle watch,
being two hours at the wheel and two hours
forward. With regard to the boats, it appears

that two of them had not been in the water
for a considerable period, and they were
in consequence probably leaky; indeed they
were said to have had sun-cracks, although the
evidence tends to show that they were other-
wise kept in order and painted. A want of
coolness and steadiness in getting them
launched also seems apparent. Either they
were previously too leaky to be safe, or they
were fatally damaged in launching and getting
over the side. There appears to have been
nothing either in the state of the weather or
of the sea to have prevented all three being
safely floated alongside if ordinary precautions
had been taken, or if they had been in a sound
state.

It is difficult to say who is chiefly to blame for
the accidents which are stated to have oc-
curred to the long boat and to the whale boat.
If the master sent the women away in the best
boat, he must have been aware that the third
boat was in bad order, as the shaking in get-
ting her into the water happened afterwards.
The weather must have been fine, otherwise
an old ship like the "City of Newcastle"
could not have lasted so long exposed on a
lee shore: the evidence of Fox and others
shows this.

After duly weighing and considering the evi-
dence, the Court was unanimously of opinion
that the cause of the disaster was to be en-
tirely attributed to the negligence of the
master (John Bain), as above stated, and to
no one else, and they order his certificate of
service to be cancelled.

Given under my hand, this nineteenth day of
November, one thousand eight hundred
and seventy-two, at Wellington, in the
Province of Wellington, New Zealand.
JAMES C. CRAWFORD,
Justice of the Peace and Resident Magistrate.

Opinion of Nautical Assessors.

WE, Robert Johnson, Master Mariner, and Robert
Edwin, Commander Royal Navy, Nautical Assessors
on the Inquiry into the loss of the "City of New-
castle," do fully concur in the above Report concern-
ing the loss of the said vessel.
R. JOHNSON, } Nautical Assessors.
R. A. EDWIN,

Master's Certificate cancelled.

Customs Department (Marine Branch),
Wellington, 4th December, 1872.
IT is hereby notified for public information, that
the New Zealand Master's Certificate of Service,
No. 2002, held by
JOHN BAIN,
late Master of the barque "City of Newcastle," has
been cancelled.
WILLIAM H. REYNOLDS.

NOTICE TO MARINERS.
No. 24 of 1872.
Customs Department (Marine Branch),
Wellington, 27th November, 1872.
THE following Hydrographical information, with
reference to Islands in the South Pacific Ocean,
received from the Marine Board of New South
Wales, is published for general information.
WILLIAM H. REYNOLDS.