(No. 184.)
"JULIA."
The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.
IN the matter of the formal investigation held at Westminster, on the 31st
January 1878, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esq., Wreck Commissioner, assisted by
Captain HOLT, I.N., and Captain CASTLE, as Assessors, into the circumstances
attending the stranding of the British sailing ship "JULIA," of London, on a
reef near Ungskär, in the Baltic, on the 11th November last, whilst on a voyage
from Viborg to Shoreham.
Report of Court.
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 immediate cause of the stranding of the "Julia" was that a
light, which was seen and reported at 2 a.m. of the 11th November, and which
proved to be the Utklippor Light, was mistaken by the master for the Ertholms
Light, and that thereupon by his orders the helm of the vessel was ported.
The Court is further of opinion that the casualty was due to the misconduct of
the master,
(1.) In having neglected to keep himself informed of the true position of his
vessel from the time when Hoburg Light was sighted, on the morning of the 9th
November, until the morning of the 11th, when she grounded.
(2.) In having neglected, after a light had been reported to him, to go on deck
to satisfy him, as to what it was, or even to examine the chart and give the
mate directions as to the course to be followed.
(3.) In having been the worse for liquor, both at the time of, as well as before
and subsequent to, the stranding of the vessel.
For these wrongful acts and defaults the Court orders the certificate of Henry
Chaney, the master, to be cancelled.
The Court returns to Sidney Stocks, the mate, his certificate, no blame being
attributable to him.
The Court makes no order as to costs.
Dated this 31st day of January 1878.
(Signed)H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner.
We concur in the above report.
(Signed)G. TRRFUSIS HOLT,Assessors.
"JOHN S. CASTLE,
Judgment.
The Commissioner.-This case is so very clear that it is not necessary to adjourn
for the purpose of further considering our judgment, but I will at once proceed
to state the conclusions at which the Court has arrived. It is an inquiry into
the circumstances attending the stranding of the British sailing ship "Julia,"
of London, on a reef in the Baltic, two miles E.S.E. of Unskar, on or about the
11th day of November, 1877.
The "Julia" was a brig of 237 tons register, built at Rochester in the year
1856, and at the time when the casualty which forms the subject of the present
inquiry occurred she was the property of Mr. John Rains and Mr. Charles Murrell,
Mr. Rains being the principal, and Mr. Charles Murrell the managing owner. The
vessel left Wyborg, at the top of the Gulf of Finland, on the 28th day of
October 1877, bound to Shoreham, and having on board a cargo of deals, battens,
and wood, in addition to a deck load 32 inches high, and drawing 12 feet forward
and 13 feet 1 inch aft. She had a crew of eight hands all told, and so far as
appears from the evidence in the case, she was well equipped for the voyage for
which she was intended.
Nothing particular occurred during the first part of the voyage; but at 2 a.m.
of the 9th of November last Hoburg Light which is on the south-eastern point of
the Island of Gottland, was sighted, distant about eight miles, and bearing
about one point on the starboard bow, the vessel at the time heading about
west-north-west. She immediately put about on the starboard tack, heading
south-south-east, and we are told that she was continued on that course until
she had made a distance of about 34 miles; when she was again put on the port
tack, close-hauled to the wind, and was continued on that tack until 3.15 of the
morning of the 11th, when she grounded on a reef, two miles east-south-east from
Unskar. On the following morning some boatmen came off to her, and with their
assistance one or two kedges were laid out astern for the purpose of
endeavouring to drag the vessel off, but upon hauling on them they came home;
and at about 10 or 11 o'clock of the same morning the captain, after
communicating with a gentleman, who is described as Lloyd's agent, and who had
come on board the vessel, telegraphed for a steamer, or rather he authorised
this gentleman to telegraph for a steamer, to come to their assistance. No other
measures appear to have been taken to get the vessel off; but two days
afterwards, at which time both sea and wind were setting from the
east-south-east directly on shore, a steamer arrived, but for some reason or
other, which neither the captain nor the mate have been able to explain, she
never came to them, but lay off at some distance, and no hawser was passed to
and no attempt made by the steamer to tow the vessel off. Ultimately it seems
she broke up, a large portion however of the cargo having it is said been saved.
Now the first question which the Court has to decide is, how came this vessel to
get on the Unskar Reef? The master told us, although I must say that his
evidence was given in a most confused and unsatisfactory way, that after
sighting Hoburg Light, which he at first thought was at 8 p.m., instead of as it
ultimately turned out at 2 a.m. of the 9th of November, he had laid the vessel
for a certain time, but he could not say for how long, with her head to the
south-south-east, making a south-east course; and that after continuing on that
course for a distance of about 34 miles, he put her on a west-south-west course,
hoping that that would take him clear between Bornholm and the coast of Sweden
it seems that at midnight of the 10th the mate's watch commenced. and the
captain then went below, leaving, as he has told us, orders with the mate to
keep the vessel close-hauled on the port tack, but if the wind headed them, or
if anything particular occurred, to call him, or to put the vessel about. At 2
a.m. it seems that something particular did occur, namely, that a light was
observed one or two points on the vessel's starboard or lee bow. The mate
thereupon went to the cabin to inform the master, who it seems was lying on the
sofa, with his clothes on; but instead of coming on deck to ascertain what this
light was, or even getting up from the sofa to look at the chart, he told the
mate that it must be the Ertholms Light, and that he was to keep the ship away.
The mate, who was a stranger to these waters, never before having been in the
Baltic, a fact well known to the master, thereupon consulted the chart, which
was lying on the table, and believing, as the master had told him, that it was
the Ertholms Light, he determined to lay her on a westerly course, so as to make
the Bornholm Light, which is on the northernmost point of the Island of
Bornholm. On returning on deck he ordered the helm to be put up: how much she
bore away under a port tack is a matter of some doubt, but she must have paid
off a good many points, and ultimately and without any warning, the night being
very dark, she took the ground off Unskar.
Now it is perfectly clear that the light which the mate saw, was not Ertholms
Light at all, but it was the Utklippor Light, some 50 miles to the north of it;
and as that light when first seen was two points on the vessel's starboard bow,
she would, had she continued her course, have passed clear to the southward of
it. By porting her helm, however, at that time, she would necessarily go ashore
on some of the reefs lying to the northward of it.
Now the conduct of the master, when he was informed of this light by the mate,
in not getting up from the sofa and going on deck to see what it was, and in not
taking the trouble even to look at the chart and assist the mate in laying out
the ship's course, appeared to the Court to be so extraordinary, that it was
induced to put questions to the witnesses which elicited the fact that this man
was drunk at the time: on no other supposition can his conduct be accounted for;
indeed some of the witnesses said that he had been drunk for five days before.
The mate not unnaturally showed a great unwillingness to charge the master with
having been the worse for liquor when he went down into the cabin, and it was
only on being pressed that he was at length compelled to admit it; and the way
in which he gave his evidence satisfied the Court that he was speaking the
truth. His evidence, too, was confirmed by that of every one of the witnesses
who were produced, and who had already mentioned the fact to the Receiver of
Wreck when making their depositions. All that the master could say in reply was
that he had certainly taken a glass of brandy that evening; but that he was not
drunk. The Court, however, can only account for his conduct both before and
after the stranding on the supposition that he must have been frequently the
worse for liquor; if not, why did be not get up when the light was reported by
the mate? Why did he not throw the deck load overboard, which would have
lightened the vessel forward? Why did he not accept the services of the steamer,
which came up? And why did he not take measures to get the vessel a float? The
man seems to have been wanting in all the qualities which might have been
expected in a master on an occasion of this kind.
The conclusion, therefore, to which we have come is, that this master has, in
the navigation of this vessel, shown a lamentable ignorance and want of care;
that in the measures which he took after she got on shore he showed an equal
disregard of the duties which properly belonged to him; and that he was at the
time the vessel took the ground, and at different times both before and
afterwards, in a state of intoxication. When a master in charge of a vessel so
far forgets himself as to become intoxicated, and thus risk the lives and
property entrusted to his care, the Court is of opinion that he should be
punished with the utmost severity. A man who so neglects his duty is unfit to
have the command of a vessel. This man, too, took the opportunity of getting
drunk at a time when the vessel was in dangerous waters, and when the
responsibility for its safe navigation rested with him alone. Under these
circumstances, the only conclusion to which we can come is that his certificate
should be cancelled, and we shall cancel it accordingly.
As regards the mate, we think that his position was extremely difficult. I admit
readily that, if the master had been in such a constant state of intoxication as
to render it manifestly dangerous to the lives of all on board that he should
remain in command of her, it might be the duty of the mate to displace him, but
it is a course which can only be taken under very exceptional circumstances. In
this case there is nothing to show that the captain was so continually under the
influence of liquor as to have made it incumbent upon the mate to take upon
himself so delicate and difficult a duty. We therefore think that in this
respect he has not been neglectful of his duty.
We think, too, that the mate was not unnaturally misled by the master as to what
this light was. It is true that the one is described as being a revolving, the
other a flashing light, but I am advised by my assessors that at a distance it
would be very difficult to distinguish them. It was the duty of the master to
regulate the navigation of this vessel, and the mate might naturally suppose
that in laying the vessel's course the master would have brought the vessel
within the range of Ertholms Light, and not of Utklippor Light, which is some 50
miles to the north of it. The mate, I say, did his duty when he saw this light
in going down to the master, and reporting it to him; and we cannot think that
he was much to blame for porting this vessel's helm, so as to bring the light
well on his port side, when the master told him that it was the Ertholms Light.
The blame for that course rests, in our opinion, entirely with the master. We
think that the mate has shown himself to have been throughout attentive to his
duties; and all the crew, who have been produced before us, have so stated. The
loss of this vessel is due entirely to the master and to the master alone, and
on that ground we shall cancel his certificate; but we shall return to the mate
his certificate.
(To Mr. Marsden.) I do not suppose you ask for costs?
Mr. Marsden.-No, sir.
H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner.
W. 173. 60.-2/78. Wt. 3011.
