THE HONGKONG GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, FEBRUARY 8, 1918.
45
so the Court are of opinion that the lights seen were those of a steamer hove to and perhaps yawning off and to the wind. So that in that case her stern light would have been also visible to the Manapouri.
The question now arises "Was defendant justified in his action in taking the ship out of the Master's hands in the manner in which he did on November 12th?
""
Mr. MAJER in his evidence states that he was greatly exercised in his mind during the p.m. of the 12th November by the muddled state of the Master, and the dangerous position of the ship. The Court can hardly understand this, as Mr. MAJER seems to have had a considerable voice generally in the navigation of the ship heretofore, and it would seem a simple matter for him to have discussed the situation with the Master and then if satisfied that the Master was incapable of understanding, and the safety of the ship was threatened decided action should then have been taken by the Chief Officer with all the other Officers, and the Master placed below by force or otherwise as necessary. The ship then should have been navigated by the Chief Officer into Saigon and the matter at once reported to the British Consul there, a full report being written in the Official Log and signed. We therefore consider that for the reasons given Mr. MAJER's action was not justified.
The defendant alleges that the Master was still drunk at the time he took charge of the ship, and calls the 2nd Officer and Chief Engineer to corroborate this charge. Now the Chief Engineer had not seen the Master during the day on November 12th or until 8.10 p.m. or thereabouts, when he came on the Bridge by request of the Chief Officer, at which time the Master was very excited at the action of the Chief Officer. So that the Court are of opinion that the Chief Engineer's evidence is naturally pre- judiced by the state of excitement in which he then found the Master to be.
The 2nd Officer would seem to be uncertain in his mind between the time he signed the report written to the owners by the Chief Officer, and the 5th January when he signed a contrary statement as to whether the Master on the 12th of November was under the influence of drink or only highly excited. So the Court are not satisfied that on November 12th the Master was under the influence of drink and unfit for duty.
Now we come to the conduct of the Master after what happened on the 12th Nov- ember between 6.30 p.m. and 8.45 p.m. The ship had been taken out of his hands by the defendant, and his orders countermanded. Yet there is no entry in the Official Log. No report is made to the British Consul or to his owners, and the incident is slurred over as if it were an every day occurrence.
In justification of this he the Master pleads that Mr. MAJER was an excellent officer of long experience, and that up to this there had been no friction between them, and that when angry he had called defendant hard names.
Taking all this into consideration we are strongly of opinion that the Master's con- duct after the trouble was over, was contemptible and detrimental to all good order and discipline and taking also into consideration all the circumstances of this case and Mr. MAJER'S previous blameless record extending over some 30 odd years we dismiss the case against him with a severe caution.
Given under our hands at Victoria, in the Colony of Hongkong, this 4th day of February, 1918.
(Signed)
"
""
C. W. BECKWITH, Commander, R.N.,
Stipendiary Magistrate and President of the Court.
F. D. B. GIBSON, Commander, R.N.,
H.M.S. Tamar.
W. DAVISON,
Master, British S.S. Empress of Asia.
T. A. MITCHELL,
Master, British S.S. Chipshing.
R. A. BIRSS,
Master, British S.S. Taishan.