This passage is intriguing to say the least. It seems strange that both Trott and Shore confused fouling of the anchor with being grounded for 6 hours. Even if Trott and Shore were misled by the anchor problem, it is peculiar that the misconception was not corrected by other crew. 6 hours is a significant period of time, during which it would have been very obvious to the observers that the Waratah was either 'on' or 'off' Kangaroo Island. Having said this, the following extract from the Merchant Shipping Act makes it clear that the logbook was an official, legal document.
The M.S.A. of 1894 reveals significant points relating to the official logbook of the Waratah. It is almost laughable that the master of a vessel would be fined five pounds (not exceeding this) as above, 241. (1). This could hardly be considered a deterrent and one imagines, created a loophole for indiscretions relating to entries made in the logbook. I am not suggesting that the officers of the Waratah intentionally omitted important information regarding the Waratah, but the possibility does exist. Further to this, there is no section in this act referring specifically to vessels running aground. Collisions with other vessels had to be entered into the logbook, but running aground on Kangaroo Island did not necessarily have to be documented in the official logbook. The Waratah may very well have run aground for 6 hours and the Court could not have expected to depend on the logbook to verify this incident. If the Waratah did indeed run aground for 6 hours, being a significantly heavy vessel, hull plate damage, whether patent or latent, may have been the direct result. We know that the Waratah was inspected in dry-dock on her return to London after the maiden voyage. Surely damage would have been detected at this point? I shall return to this important point at a later juncture.