(No. 326.)
"ESTHER SMEED."
The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.
IN the matter of the formal investigation held at Westminster on the 14th and
15th of November 1878, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner,
assisted by Captain PICKARD, R.N., and Captain NICOLAS, as assessors, into the
circumstances attending the stranding of the sailing ship "ESTHER SMEED," of
Rochester, on the north side of the island of Gottska Sando, in the Baltic, on
the 30th of September 1878.
The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the
above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons annexed—
(1.) That the stranding of the said vessel was due to gross negligence and to
the improper navigation thereof by James Bennett, the master, and William
Hambly, the chief officer.
(2.) That the course steered from the Svenska Lightship was not a proper course.
(3.) That the alterations in the course made by the master were not justifiable.
(4.) That the master neglected to be on deck at a time when the safety of the
ship required his personal supervision.
(5.) That the neglect of the lead did not conduce to the casualty, inasmuch as
the Gottska Sando Lights, which would show the ship's true position, were in
view until shortly before she struck.
(6.) That the chief officer was not to blame for not having used the lead at and
after 2 a.m. of the 30th of September, inasmuch as the Gottska Sando Lights,
which would show him her true position, were in view at that hour and until
shortly before she struck.
(7.) That the land being in sight, and the Gottska Sando Lights plainly visible,
the stranding was wholly inexcusable.
(8.) That both the master and chief officer were to blame for having improperly
and negligently navigated the said vessel.
The Court accordingly orders—
(1.) That the certificate of the said James Bennett, the master, be suspended
for a period of 12 months from this day, with a recommendation that he be
allowed a first mate's certificate during the period of such suspension.
(2.) That the certificate held by the said William Hambly, the mate, be
suspended for a period of six months from this day, with a recommendation that
he also be allowed a first mate's certificate during the period of such
suspension.
The Court makes no order as to costs.
Dated this 15th day of November 1878.
(Signed)H. C. ROTHERY,
Wreck Commissioner.
We concur in the above report.
(Signed)BENJN. S. PICKARD, R.N.,Assessors.
"B. G. W. NICOLAS,
Reasons.
The Commissioner.—The "Esther Smeed," of Rochester, was a barque of 519 tons
gross, 493 tons net register, and at the time of the casualty which forms the
subject of the present inquiry she was the sole property of Mr. George Smeed, of
Gore Court, near Sittingbourne, Kent, who was also the managing owner.
In September last she was at Gafle, in Sweden, and having there taken in a cargo
of 800 tons of deals she left on the 29th of the same month bound for London At
this time she had a crew of 10 hands all told, and her draught of water was 15
feet forward and 17 feet 3 aft. Between 3 and 4 p.m. of the same day she passed
two miles to the eastward of the Svenka Bjorn Lightship, and a course was then
steered with the view of passing outside Gottska Sando. We have had a good deal
of contradictory evidence as to what that course was, but it will be sufficient
at present to say that at 1 a.m. they sighted the Gottska Lights, but whether
more or less on the starboard bow is another point in dispute. From that time
all the witnesses agree that the vessel was laid on a course south by west. It
was the chief mate's watch from 12 to 4 o'clock that morning, and he has told us
that at about 2.25, observing the land on his starboard side, and thinking that
he was too close to it, he ordered the vessel's course to be altered to south.
Ten minutes afterwards he laid her south by east, and within a few minutes
afterwards the ship grounded on the north side of Kyrk Point, which is the most
easterly point of Gottska. At the time she took the ground she was going at the
rate of from 8 to 9 knots an hour with the wind almost dead aft. The captain,
who was below at the time immediately came on deck, and ordered the sails to be
furled. On the following morning, a communication having been established with
the shore, a steamer was sent for, but on its arrival some few days afterwards
the vessel had become seriously bilged, so that it was impossible to get her
off, and she ultimately went to pieces and was lost, together with the greater
part of the cargo. Happily no lives were lost.
No charge is made against anyone on board for what occurred after the stranding.
As usually happens in these cases, they seem to have done everything that might
reasonably be expected of them after the vessel was aground; but what we have to
do with is what occurred previous to the stranding.
Now the Board of Trade have asked the opinion of the Court upon the following
questions:
1. What was the cause of the stranding?
2. Whether the course steered from the Svenska Lightship was a proper course?
3. Whether the alterations in the course made by the master were justifiable?
4. Whether the master neglected to be on deck at the time when the state of the
ship required his personal supervision?
5. Whether the total neglect of the lead was justifiable?
6. Whether the chief officer ought not to have used the lead at and after 2 a.m.
on the 30th September?
7. Whether, the land being in sight and the lights plainly visible, the
stranding was in any way excusable?
8. Whether the master and the chief officer, one or either of them, was in
fault? And finally the Board of Trade state that in their opinion the
certificates of both those officers should be dealt with?
When those charges were given in yesterday I was anxious that the master and
mate, not being represented by either counsel or solicitor, should have an
opportunity of seriously considering the position in which they were placed. I,
therefore, readily acceded to their application that the case should be
adjourned until this morning, in order to enable them to prepare any statements
that they might wish to make to the Court. This morning they have both made
statements before the Court, which I must say have thrown a light upon the case
which it certainly had not before. How far those statements have tended to
relieve them from the charges which had been preferred against them will
presently appear.
Now the first question is, what was the cause of the stranding? which I take to
be the most important question in the case. According to the master, on passing
the Svenska Bjorn Lightship he ordered the vessel to be laid on a south by west
course; and he told us that, so far as he knew and as his orders went, that
course was continued from that time till she struck, with the exception of about
three quarters of an hour, during which she was laid on a south by west half
west course, for the purpose, as he said, of sighting the Gottska Lights to
ascertain the true position of the vessel.
Now if the vessel after passing two miles to the eastward of Svenska Lightship
had been kept on a south by west course it is clear that she would have passed
some 12 miles to the eastward of Gottska. On the supposition, therefore, that
the vessel was kept on the course which the master says he ordered her to be
kept, it is difficult to understand how she could have got so far to the
westward as to have run aground on the north side of Kyrk Point, which forms, as
I have said, the most easterly point of Gottska Sando.
Again, the master says that the lights of Gottska Sando when first sighted bore
south-west half west, distant from 14 to 15 miles; that he took their bearings
by the binnacle; and that seeing he was clear of the island he ordered her to be
kept on a south by west course. Now if we place he vessel from 14 miles to 15
miles, in a direction north by east half east from the lights, and then lay her
on a south by west course, she would, as the master has stated, have passed from
five to six miles to the eastward of Gottska. It is therefore equally difficult
to understand how, if she was where he puts her when they sighted Gottska Lights
at 1 a.m., she could by steering a course S. by W. have got upon the island. In
order to strike the island where she did, instead of steering a S. by W. course,
she must have steered a little to the west of south-west and by south, or two
points at least further to the westward. The master has attributed the stranding
of the vessel to bad steering; but to suppose that the chief officer and the man
at the wheel should have allowed this vessel to run more than two points to the
westward of her course is very unlikely. Moreover, they have both sworn that
after sighting Gottska Lights, the vessel was kept on a S. by W. course until
shortly before she grounded, when her head was laid first S. and then S. by E.,
which would take her still further to the eastward. Let us see then whether we
cannot find some better cause for the stranding of this vessel.
Now the master and the mate are directly at issue as to the direction in which
the Gottska Lights were when first seen. They both place them at about the same
distance, 14 to 15 miles off, but according to the master they bore S.W. 1/2 W.,
according to the mate they were a point or a point and a half on the starboard
bow, or from S.W. by S. to S.W. by S. 1/2 S., a difference of about two points.
If we are to accept the mate's evidence, the vessel, when they first sighted the
Gottska Lights would have been much further to the westward than the master has
placed her; and it would then not be very difficult to understand how by
steering a S. by W. course from that place they would have struck on the north
side of Kyrk Point. The fact then that she grounded on Kyrk Point is quite
consistent with the mate's statement that the lights were first seen in a S.W.
by S. 1/2 S. direction, and totally inconsistent with the master's statement
that they were first seen in a S.W. 1/2 W. direction, it being admitted on both
sides that the course after sighting the Gottska Lights was S. by W.
So the evidence stood yesterday, but this morning the master referred to an
entry in the log-book, which he contended disproved the statement of the mate
that the Gottska Lights were first seen in a S.W. by S. 1/2 S. direction. The
entry is as follows: "1 a.m. made Gottska Sando Light, S.W. 1/2 W." At first
sight this entry seemed to confirm the master's statement that the lights had
been first seen in a S.W. 1/2 W. direction; but on its being shown to the mate
he declared positively that the letters and figures "S.W. 1/2 W." at the end of
the line were not in his handwriting, and had been introduced subsequently to
the log having been written up by him. Now it does not require an expert in
handwriting to see that the letters and figures referred to, "S.W. 1/2 W.," are
in a totally different handwriting to the other entries in the log-book. Who
then could have made this addition to the log? The only person, who had an
interest in doing so was the captain, for it went to support his statement as to
the position of the vessel, when the Gottska Lights were first seen. The master
has sworn that he did not do it. But the fact remains that the log was in the
master's possession, that no one else had any interest in making the entry, that
he first called attention to it, and that it is undoubtedly not in the mate's
handwriting. The circumstances, to say the least, are extremely suspicious. It
is clear, however, that it is no evidence that the mate's statement that the
Gottska Lights when first seen bore S.W. by S. to S.W. by S. S. is untrue. And
we have the fact that the grounding of the vessel on Kyrk Point is quite
consistent with the mate's statement, but is utterly inconsistent with that of
the master, unless indeed we are to assume that the helmsman steered two points
further to the west than he was ordered to do, an assumption that we are not
disposed to make, seeing that both the helmsman and the chief officer have sworn
that the vessel was steered on a S. by W. course until shortly before she
struck. We must, therefore, hold that the Gottska Lights when first seen were,
as the mate has stated, in a S.W. by S. 1/2 S. direction, which would place the
vessel very considerably more to the west than she is placed by the master.
The question then arises, how came the vessel to get so far to the westward of
her course, before sighting Gottska Lights? The master told us yesterday very
positively that the course steered after leaving Svenska Bjorn Lightship was
always S. by W., except for three quarters of an hour, namely, from 10 to 10.45
And he was supported in that statement by the boatswain or second mate, who is
his son, and who was the officer of the watch from 8 to 12 p.m. that night; he
said that he was quite certain she was kept on a S. by W. course during the
whole of his watch, with the exception, as he told us, of a full half hour when
she was laid S. by W. 1/2 W.
On the other hand the mate, who was officer of the watch from 6 to 8 p.m., told
us that before he went below the vessel was by the master's orders put upon a S.
by W. 1/2 W. course, and that when he came up on deck again at midnight she was
still on a S. by W. 1/2 W. course, and was so continued till 1 o'clock. Again
Packe, who was at the wheel from 6 to 8 o'clock, told us that before he left the
wheel the master ordered him to put the vessel on a S. by W. 1/2 W. course, and
that that was the course he gave to the man who relieved him. We have also the
evidence of Keenan, who was at the wheel from 12 till 2 a.m., and who told us
that from midnight to 1 o'clock the vessel was kept on a S. by W. 1/2 W. course.
Their statements, too, are in accordance with the entry in the logbook, which
states that the vessel's course from 8 p.m. to 1 a.m. was S. by W. 1/2 W.
Thus the evidence stood yesterday when the Court broke up; on the one side we
had the evidence of the master supported by that of his son, the boatswain, who
told us that the vessel was kept all the time on a S. by W. course with the
exception of for three quarters of an hour, from 10 to 10.45 p.m., when she was
laid S. by W. 1/2 W.; on the other there was the evidence of the chief officer,
and of the two men, Packe and Keenan, tending to show that she was kept on a S.
by W. 1/2 W. course from before 8 p.m. till 1 a.m., or for fully five hours.
Thus the evidence stood yesterday evening, but this morning the master
voluntarily stated that he had made a mistake, when he said that it was from 10
to 10.45 that she was kept on a S. by W. 1/2 W. course, and that he ought to
have said that it was from 12 to 12.45. The master had had time to think the
matter over, and no doubt he felt that the evidence given by Keenan that from 12
to 1 a.m. he steered S. by W. 1/2 W, pressed hard upon him, he thought probably,
that if he could get rid of Keenan's evidence there would be the evidence of
himself and his son to balance against that of the mate and Packe, for the son
also has come forward this morning and in direct contradiction to what he swore
yesterday, has said that during the whole time from 8 to 12, whilst he was
officer of the watch, she was steered a S. by W. course. Under these
circumstances it appears to us that we must accept the evidence of the mate and
of Packe and Keenan in preference to that of the master and his son, and must
hold that this vessel was kept on a S. by W. 1/2 W. course, not for three
quarters of an hour only, as the master has stated, but for fully five hours,
namely, before 8 p.m. until 1 a.m., when the Gottska Lights were sighted. We can
well understand then that a vessel being steered for fully five hours half a
point more to the westward would during that time get considerably to the
westward of her course. To this it is to be added, that she had the wind upon
her starboard quarter, and having also a deck cargo, the effect, as I am advised
by my assessors, would be a tendency to throw her head still further to the
westward.
Here then, as it appears to us, is the answer to the first question, on which
our opinion is asked, namely, what was the cause of the stranding? The master
allowed the vessel to get so far to the westward before sighting Gottska Lights,
that a course S. by W. from the place to which she had been carried would take
her ashore upon Kyrk Point. I am aware that the master has stated, that when he
made those lights he took their correct bearings by the binnacle, but for the
reasons which I have given we do not believe that evidence. Had he taken a
correct bearing of those lights he would never have laid his ship on a S. by W.
course, which would necessarily land him on Kyrk Point. The master has
endeavoured to support his case by what is very like false swearing, and we have
caused the logbook to be impounded, in case it should hereafter be found
necessary to take any further proceedings against him.
The next question on which our opinion is asked is, whether the course steered
from the Svenska Lightship was a proper course? Had the master steered, as he
has stated, a south by west course from Svenska Bjorn, that no doubt would have
been a proper course, and would have taken him well clear to the eastward of
Gottska Island; but a south by west half west course, with the wind upon his
starboard quarter and a deck load, would carry him much too far to the westward,
and was consequently not a proper course.
The third question is, whether the alterations in the course made by the master
were justifiable? An alteration of the course to S. by W. 1/2 W. for three
quarters of an hour would have been justifiable, if, as he says, it was done for
the purpose of sighting the Gottska Lights to ascertain his true position; but
an alteration of the course for fully five hours was not justifiable, as it took
him much too far to westward, unless indeed he took correct bearings of those
lights as soon as he had sighted them, and then laid his vessel on a course to
pass clear of the island.
The fourth question which we are asked is, whether the master neglected to be on
deck at the time when the safety of the ship required his personal supervision?
On this point we are clearly of opinion that he did neglect his duty. After
passing the Svenska Bjorn Light-vessel and when he had laid the vessel on a S.
by W. course, it would have been better for himself, and better for the ship
too, if he had gone below and taken some rest, for he would then have been
prepared as they neared the Gottska Lights to have paid that attention to the
navigation of the ship which might have resulted possibly in her not being
wrecked. Instead of that, at the time when his presence was of little or no use,
he was knocking about the deck, and when his services really were required he
was down below in his berth. We think, therefore, that the master has been
negligent of his duty in not being on deck at the time, when the safety of the
ship required his personal supervision.
The fifth question is, whether the total neglect of the lead was justifiable? We
think that, seeing that it was a clear night and that the lights were distinctly
visible, there was no need to take a cast of the lead. The lead is no doubt
indispensable in foggy weather, but when you can see the lights clearly, and can
therefore fix the exact position of your vessel, there is little use in taking a
cast of the lead, which would only give you imperfectly what the lights would
show correctly, namely, the position of the vessel.
The sixth question is, whether the chief officer ought not to have used the lead
after 2 p.m. on the 30th September? We do not think, seeing that the lights were
visible until only a few moments before she took the ground, that there was any
necessity for the officer to have taken a cast of the lead. He saw the land, and
he saw the lights, and he ought to have known that he was approaching too near
the land. His proper course under those circumstances would have been to have
hauled off the land, and to have called the captain. A cast of the lead would
not have given him any more information than he then had, namely, that he was
very close to the shore.
The seventh question is,. whether the land being in sight and the lights plainly
visible, the stranding was in any way excusable? Wethink that it was wholly
inexcusable. We think that the chief officer was greatly to blame (and he has
admitted that he was to blame) for not having called the captain when he saw the
land on his starboard side. We think that, holding as he did a master's
certificate, he is greatly to blame for not having assured himself, by looking
at the chart, of the exact position of the vessel, and the danger that there was
of approaching too near the coast, and for having, when he saw the land so close
at hand, merely altered the vessel's course one point, instead of laying her
head off shore. We think that his conduct is utterly inexcusable.
The eighth question is, whether the master and the chief officer, one or either
of them, was in default? We think they are both in default, the master for
laying a course which must if pursued inevitably take the ship on shore, and
when he made out the Gottska Light, for not taking correct bearings, for had he
done so he would never have laid her on a S. by W. course, which must inevitably
take her on shore, but would have laid her head much further to the east, so as
to have gone clear to the eastward of the island. The chief officer is also to
blame for not having assured himself of the ship's position when he saw that he
was nearing the land, and for not having called the master, instead of which he
starboards the helm one point first, ten minutes afterwards he starboards one
point more, and then finds himself ashore.
Now the Board of Trade have stated that in their opinion the certificates of the
master and of the chief officer should be dealt with, and in that opinion we
entirely concur. We think that this is a case of gross negligence. Here was a
vessel which had got a good departure from Svenska Lightship; the night was
clear, the lights of Gottska were clearly visible, and the land could be seen;
and yet this vessel, going at the rate of eight to nine knots an hour, runs not
on to a shoal at some distance off the land, but right on to the land itself. We
think that the conduct of both the master and the chief officer is utterly
inexcusable. We shall suspend the master's certificate for 12 months, at the
same time recommending that he should have a first mate's certificate. And we
shall also suspend the certificate of the chief officer for six months, at the
same time recommending that he also should have a first mate's certificate. (To
Mr. Middleton.) You do not ask us to condemn them in costs?
Mr. Middleton.—No, sir, I am not instructed to do that.
(Signed)H. C. ROTHERY,
Wreck Commissioner.
We concur.
(Signed)BENJN. S. PICKARD, R.N.,Assessors.
"B. G. W. NICOLAS,
I 101. 85. 70.—11/78. Wt. B 612. E. & S.
