The Sun.
London, England, 1865-03-22 00:00:00

great default of navigation, or that some extraordinary
and unknown cause of deviation has existed. It is not at
all improbable that, owing to occasional haziness of the
weather, the distance of the lights at Capes Barfleur and
Levi may not have been accurately ascertained. When
there are no cross bearings, or bearings taken at intervals
of time, it is very easy to make an error in calculating dis-
tances, and it is not improbable that Cape Barfleur might
have been loss than 4 miles distant, and Cape Levi consi-
derably less than 10. But making large allowance for any
inaccuracy of this kind, it is impossible by that means to
account for so great a deviation in so short a time. From
the supposed position of the ship at 10 15 to the rocks of
Omonville (a distance of 10 to 12 miles), would be a devia-
tion of 4 to 41 points from the course:appearing in the log.
The evidence of Capt. Trivett is an attempt to explain the
cause of this deviation. After referring to the usual and
ascertained causes of disturbance of compasses on board
iron ships, viz., the vertical iron of the ship and transverse
beams of the deck, the heeling deviation, and that arising
from the permanent magnetism of the ship contracted from
her position in building, he concludes thus :—" The effect
of these combined causes, in my opinion, would draw the
needle to the port beam of the ship, and would fully ac-
count for destroying the directive power of the needle."
He adds :—" I have heard the evidence given in this case,
and the courses steered, and the position of the ship off
Capes Barfleur and Levi, and believe that the catastrophe
was caused by the total loss of the directive force of the
needle." Without going the length of Capt. Trivett's
opinion, it is sufficiently evident that there must have been
some powerful and unobserved cause of deviation, and it
remains to be considered whether the result, viz., the loss
of the ship, was caused or might have been prevented by
the master. When the master altered the course of Cape
Barfleur to N.N.W. it was a prudent measure, and it would
have been still more prudent if he had taken a cast or
two of the lead at thq
_same timo. .It is jiist possible he
might have found himself even nearer land than he
supposed ; at all events it would have evinced a care-
fulness which would have stood him in good stead in
the event of any unforeseen accident occurring afterwards.
This may, therefore, to a certain extent, be considered as a
default on his part; but, as it would not in all probability
have caused him to take such a different course as would
have counteracted the effect of the subsequent deviation of
compasses, it cannot be treated as a "default causing the
loss of the ship," within the meaning of the statute. Having
once set his course when off Cape Levi, it is not probable
he would have used the lead again in the interval between
that time and his going ashore. In this view of the case it
was the opinion of the nautical assessor; in which I con-
cur, that the loss of the lowa was not proved to have been
caused by the wrongful act or default of the master, and
that his certificate should be returned to him with a strong
admonition that it would have been a prudent measure to
have ascertained by soundings the exact position of his
ship when shaping his course from Cape Barfleur as a point
of departure. The very general and prevailing neglect of
the use of the lead on board of steamships requires a con-
stant repetition of this caution, which becomes more espe-
cially necessary in the case of iron ships, in which, from
the numerous disturbing causes, the correctness of the
compasses can be less relied on.

JAMES TRAIIL, Stipendiary Magistrate.
We concur in this report.
JonN Cow, 1
Nautical Assessors.
JOHN DOMETT,