Wreck Report for 'Damietta', 1877

"DAMIETTA," (S.S.)

Report of Court.

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal investigation held at Westminster on the 3rd day of July 1877, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Commander VISCONTI, R.N., and Captain PARFITT, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the stranding of the steamship "DAMIETTA," of London, on the Bragene Shoal, off the west coast of Jutland, on the 6th day of June 1877.

Judgment.

The Commissioner.-This case is certainly the simplest that has come before the Court; and although the witnesses who have been examined, the officers as well as the men, have shown an extraordinary forgetfulness, both of the time at which they went on watch and of the courses that were steered, a forgetfulness which would be altogether inconceivable, if it were not perhaps intentional, we think that sufficient has come out to enable us to form a tolerably correct judgment as to the manner in which the vessel was stranded.

The "Damietta" was an iron screw ship of 682 tons gross and 434 tons net register, was fitted with two engines of 90 horse-power combined, and belonged to Mr. Joseph Whitwell Pease, of Darlington, and two other gentlemen. She left Riga on the 1st of June last with a cargo of about 660 to 670 tons of oats, bound therewith to Rotterdam. She drew 13 feet 11 forward and 14 feet aft, had a crew of 18 hands all told, three boats, and appears to have been well and sufficiently equipped for the voyage. According to the master, Captain Dixon, after passing the Skaw, which she appears to have done at about 2 a.m. of the 6th, she was steered west-by-south until 7.30, when her course was altered to west-south-west. At 8 o'clock he says that he hauled her in some four or five miles towards the land, and after that put her on a south-westerly course, which was continued until about 11, when her head was laid to the west, and at 12 or a little before 12 he ordered her to be steered west-by-north-half-north. At 12.30 she ran aground.

Now the difficulty that we have in this case is to understand, if those really were the courses steered, how it was that the vessel ran aground, as she undoubtedly did, upon the Bragene Shoals. If we turn to the log-book as explained by the mate, the difficulty is not wholly removed, for we find it stated that at 2 a.m. of the 6th the course was west-by-south, at 7.0 it was south-west-by-west, at 9.0 west-south-west, and at 11 west-by-north-half-north. The mate has told us that the last entry is a mistake, that it was not till 12.0 o'clock that her course was laid west-by-north-half-north, and that from 10 o'clock she was steered west-by-north, although no entry of the fact was made then in the log-book. Still that does not explain how, after steering for so long a time west-by-north and west-by-north-half-north, she came to get upon the Bragene Shoal, unless indeed she was down in the bight of the bay between Hirtshall's Point and Bragene Shoal, and where she certainly would not have been if she had steered the courses described by the master and the mate.

The difficulty, however, was somewhat removed when the second mate was examined; for he told us that at 8 o'clock the vsssel's head was laid to the south, and was continued on that course up to 10 minutes to 9, and as he was in charge of the deck during that time, the master and first mate being below at breakfast, no one can know the fact better than he. How much longer she was continued on a south course we do not know, for the men who were produced before us seem to have agreed to forget what courses they were steering at any time. If, however, she was continued for a sufficiently long time on a south course, heading for the land, we can quite understand how she would have got right into the bight of the bay between Hirtshall's Point and Bragene Shoal, and how, if she was in that position, only some two or three miles from the shore, a course west-by-north or west-by-north-half-north even, might take her on to the Bragene Shoal.

The nautical assessors tell me that a course west-by-south, which the master steered, was a proper course after passing the Skaw in order to clear Hirtshall Point, and that then he should have steered a west by south had south course, which would have taken him clear of Haust-holm Point. Instead of that, lie seems to have laid her, even according to his own account, more to the south, and therefore nearer to the shore, and according to the second mate's account he laid her south, and directly for the shore. Indeed it is clear front the evidence of all the witnesses who have been called, that she must have got close into the land, and must have skirted it at a distance of some two or three miles until they got quite down into the lower part of the bay between Hirtshall's Point and Bragene Shoal, when a course west-by-north or west-by-north-half-north would be quite sufficient to account for her getting on the Bragene Shoal. This seems to be the true explanation of the casualty.

Now the excuse that has been made for the master by Mr. Botterell his solicitor is, that he laid the vessel in for the land, being anxious to avoid the current which sets strongly to the east. But, according to his own evidence, that current only sets strongly to the east when the wind blows strongly, and at the time in question there was hardly any wind. According to the log, the winds throughout that day are described as being light, and the sea smooth. The nautical assessors inform me that they see no reason to think that had he made a straight course Hirtshall's Point to Haustholm he would have met with any current which would have materially impeded his progress. The excuse therefore, that he wanted to save time to his owners by going inshore to avoid the current, is not entitled to much weight, and it is certain that by following the bend of the bay instead of cutting across it, he would go much farther round, and thus lose time to his owners.

Mr. Botterell has also offered as an excuse for the master, that no damage was done to the ship. That may be so; but whether this be or be not a valid excuse for his conduct, one thing is certain, namely, that he had to throw overboard some 60 or 70 tons of the oats in order to lighten her before she would come off; and that was no inconsiderable loss to the owners of the cargo, and indeed to the owners of the ship itself in the loss of freight and general average.

Although, then, the master appears to have done everything that a prudent master would do after the vessel got on shore by laying out anchors, &c., and although there is no charge against him of any want of sobriety, still we think that he has been guilty of gross carelessness in this case, a carelessness which the Court would not be justified in passing over. It was said by Mr. Botterell that it was rather an error of judgment and not a neglect of duty, but we do not think so. We think that there was great neglect of duty on the part of the master in not taking bearings as he skirted the land down from Hirtshall Point, which would have shown him at any time his true position. If he did not know his position, it was a gross neglect of duty on his part not to have taken the bearings of the ship, and thus ascertained her true position. If he did know his position, it was equally great neglect of duty on his part to go down below to his dinner at 12 o'clock, as he admits he did, just when he was approaching this dangerous shoal, leaving the deck in charge of the second mate. We think, then, that the charge which has been preferred against the master has been fully proved; and although we are very unwilling either to cancel or suspend the certificates of masters, and thus throw them into a position in which probably they would obtain no employment, we do not consider that we should be doing our duty in this case if we did not suspend the master's certificate for six months. In order, however, to give him during its suspension an opportunity of earning his livelihood, whilst at the same time he would be able to acquire a little more experience and caution in the navigation of a vessel, we shall recommend to the Board of Trade that he should have a first mate's certificate.

As to the question of costs, I presume, Mr. Cottingham, you do not ask for costs.

As regards the owners we have nothing to say against them, the vessel having been fully and efficiently equipped in every respect.

As regards the master, we think that the punishment of suspending his certificate will be a sufficient punishment, without adding to it a condemnation in costs.

Mr. Cottingham.-I have no instructions on the subject of costs. I leave it in the hands of the Court.

The Commissioner (to Mr. Cooper.)-You do not ask for your costs?

Mr. Cooper. No, Sir.

Mr. Botterell.-On the part of the captain I have to thank you, sir, for the recommendation which you have said you will make to the Board of Trade.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

 

 

Wreck Commissioner.

Finding.

The Court having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons stated in the annexed judgment, that the stranding of the said vessel on the Bragene Shoal was due to negligence in the navigation thereof by George Dixon, the master, in standing in too near to the shore after rounding Hirtshall's Point, in not taking bearings to ascertain his true position, and in leaving the deck when he knew or ought to have known that he was approaching a dangerous shoal.

The Court accordingly suspends his certificate for six months, but recommends that during its suspension he should be allowed a first mate's certificate.

The Court is also of opinion that there should be no costs of this investigation.

Dated this 3rd day of July, 1877.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

 

 

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

E. G. F. G. VISCONTI,

 

 

 

Commander R,N.

Assessors.

 

"

Wm. PARFITT,

 

(No. 94.)

W. 1023. 60.-7/77. Wt. 3011.