14332

(No. 409.)

"CALDERA."

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal investigation held at Westminster on the 3rd and 4th March 1879, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captain HOLT, I.N., and Captain PARFITT, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the stranding of the British sailing ship "CALDERA," of London, on the Ridge Sand, on the 13th ultimo, whilst on a voyage from Shields to Leghorn.

Report of Court.

The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons annexed, that the stranding of the said vessel "Caldera" was due to the wrongful acts and defaults of William Armstrong, her master, in having, after Cape Grisnez Light had been observed bearing S.E. distant five miles, kept the vessel too long on a course, which, if continued would, as he might have seen from his chart, inevitably land her on the Ridge.

The Court accordingly suspends the certificate of the said William Armstrong for three months from this date.

The Court makes no order as to costs.

Dated the 4th day of March 1879.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

G. TREFUSIS HOLT,

Assessors.

 

"

WM. PARFITT,

 

Reasons.

The Commissioner.-The "Caldera" is a barque belonging to the Port of London, of 741 tons gross and 714 net register. She was built at Sunderland in the year 1853, and at the time of the casualty which forms the subject of the present inquiry was the property of a Mr. John Coulson, Mr. William Reed, of Norfolk Street, North Shields, being the manager. She left South Shields on the 8th of February last, bound to Leghorn, and having on board a cargo of 915 tons of coal, and a crew of 16 hands all told. She appears to have been in good condition, and is stated to have been classed in American Lloyd's for four years. Nothing material occurred until the 13th of the same month, when she had arrived within two or three miles of Dover; the weather, however, was then so misty that it was not possible to see the castle, or even to make out the town distinctly.

Now the master has told us in detail (and he is the only witness who has done so) what courses were steered from that time. According to him the vessel was at 12.30 p.m. laid with her head off shore, steering a course east southeast, or E. by S., varying, as he stated, a point or two either way, the wind being south to S. by E. Her speed we were told was from 41/2 to 5 knots; subsequently, however, the master admitted that he might have stated in his deposition made before the receiver of wreck that she was going from five to six knots. She continued on that course for three hours, and at 3.30 p.m. she was laid on the port tack close hauled, heading W.S.W. or W. by S., the wind being as before south to S. by E. At 6.30 Cape Grisnez was sighted nearly right ahead or a little on the port bow, bearing S.W. by W., distant from six to seven miles. Soundings were thereupon taken, which gave 15 fathoms; upon which she was kept away a couple of points for the purpose of clearing Cape Grisnez. Up to this time the vessel had been under all plain sail, but between 7 and 8 o'clock, the wind having freshened, the topgallant sails, mainsail, and outer jib were taken in. At 8 p.m. Cape Grisnez, the master told us, was abeam bearing S.E., distant about five miles; upon which the vessel was again put upon her original course, W.S.W. or W.S.W., and was continued on that course until she struck, the wind being all the time from south or S. by E. Some half an hour or so, however, before she struck soundings were taken giving 29 fathoms, from which the master concluded that she was in mid-channel, and very shortly afterwards Cape Grisnez Light, which we are told had not been seen since 8 p.m., when they were abreast of it, came suddenly into view again, and the captain and the mate then, after taking a bearing of it, went into the cabin to consult the chart, and whilst there the vessel struck. The place where she took the ground was afterwards found to be on the S.W. extremity of the Ridge Sand. All the sails were immediately put aback, but she continued to strike heavily for about an hour, when the tide having risen she came off, and she was then laid with her head towards the English Coast, and as it was found that she was making a great deal of water, all hands at once went to the pumps. In about four hours afterwards she was picked up by a steam barge, and to prevent her sinking in deep water was laid upon the beach at Kingsdown. Hands were then employed to pump her and to discharge a part of the cargo, and after remaining on the beach for about 12 hours she was taken in tow, and with a number of hands on board to assist in pumping her she was brought up to the Victoria Docks, where the cargo was discharged, with a view I presume to repair her, the vessel all the time making a great quantity of water.

Such, briefly, are the facts of the case, and the questions upon which the opinion of the Court has been asked are:-

"1. What was the cause of the casualty to the " Caldrea?

"2. Whether her stranding and the serious damage and " injury done to her was due to the wrongful acts and " defaults of her captain, William Armstrong, more par- " ticularly in keeping the vessel on an unsafe course, " having regard to the weather and the set of the tide, " and in not paying sufficient attention to the position of " Cape Grisnez Light, and to such set of the tides, and " not taking proper care to ascertain his ship's position, " and in not sufficiently using the lead, if he was ignorant " of his ship's position?"

Mr. Bowen further stated that "in the opinion of the " Board of Trade the certificate of William Armstrong " should be dealt with."

In the course of the master's examination Mr. Bowen requested him to lay down on a chart the course which in his opinion the ship had made. With much difficulty, and after a very considerable time, the master did lay down a course, which I think that I am justified in calling "a fancy course." What the master did was this, he takes a point some two miles from Dover as his point of departure, and from there draws a line in an E.S.E. direction for 12 miles. that being the distance which he seems to have thought they had run in the three hours from 12.30 to 3.30. He then lays off a course for seven miles in a S.W. 1/4 S. direction, that being the distance and course which he seems to have thought she had run between 3.30 and 6.30 p.m. Then he lays off a course for five miles in a S.W. 1/2 W. direction, which brings him within four miles of Cape Grisnez, bearing S.E. From there a W.S.W. course is laid, which takes her a mile or two to the southward of the Ridge. I should add that in laying down these courses the master told us that he had made allowance for the tides, which he supposed would be setting him to the east from about 12.30 to 3.30, and after that to the southward and westward, it being high water that day at Dover at 3.38 p.m.; in other words, he supposed that the tide was all the time with him, setting him to the east when he was on an E.S.E. course, and to the west when he was heading in that direction. Let us now see how far the courses which the master has laid down on the chart is consistent with the evidence which he has given.

And first as to the distances run. The master in laying down his course on the chart assumed that in the three hours from 12.30 to 3.30, the vessel ran 12 miles, which would be at the rate of only four miles an hour, but he told us in his evidence that during that time she was going 41/2 to 5 knots, and in his deposition before the receiver he put it as high as from five to six knots an hour. According to him, too, she had the tide with her during all this time. Instead, therefore, of placing her as he does on the chart at a distance of only 12 miles from the point of departure off Dover, he ought, in order to be consistent with his evidence, to have placed her some 16 or 18 miles from the point of departure at the very least. Again, the master, in laying down his course on the chart, assumed that between 3.30 and 6.30 p.m. the vessel ran only seven miles, which is a little more than two miles an hour, whereas in his evidence he had told us that he thought she was then going from 4 to 41/2 miles an hour, and according to him she had again the tide with her. From 6.30 to 8 p.m. with the tide as he supposes still with him, he gives her on the chart only five miles, whereas he has told us in his evidence that during that hour and a half he thought that be had made about 71/2 miles. So far, therefore, the tracing on the chart is quite inconsistent with the master's evidence as to the distances run; let us see whether it is any more consistent as to the courses steered.

Now the course which the master has laid down on the chart as that steered from 3.30 to 6.30 p.m. is a S.W. 1/4 S. course, whereas in his evidence he tells us that during that time he steered W.S.W. to W. by S. But if, as the master tells us, the wind was from the south to S. by E., and the vessel could not lie nearer than from six to seven points of the wind, a S.W. 1/4 S. course would be an impossible course. I may also observe that if the vessel could have lain a S.W. 1/4 S. course we are at a loss to understand why the master should have stood over towards the French Coast at all, seeing that he could in that case have made a straight course from Dover, which would have carried him clear of Dungeness, to the north of the Varne and Ridge, which is the proper and usual course. Again, a S.W. 1/2 W. course, which the master has laid down on the chart as that steered from 6.30 to 8. would equally be an impossible course with the wind from south to S. by E., and the vessel not able to come nearer than from six to seven points of the wind, and is quite inconsistent with what he had told us as to the course steered during that time, when as he said he had put her off a couple of points which would bring her head to west or W. by N.

Again, we find that if we place the vessel where the master has done on the chart, 12 miles E.S.E. of his point of departure from off Dover, and steer a W.S.W. course from that point, it would take him on the N.E. end of the Ridge Sand, which is probably the reason why he has laid the course on the chart S.W. 1/4 S., which, as I have already shown, is an impossible course with the wind as it then was.

There are also other facts which show the utter inconsistency between the master's evidence, and the courses as laid down on the chart. Thus, he tells us that at 6.30 p.m. Cape Grisnez bore S.W. by W., but from the place where he has put the vessel on the chart at that hour Cape Grisnez bears S. by W. In his evidence, too, he told us that at that time he got 15 fathoms soundings, but at the spot where he has placed the vessel at 6.30 we find 25 fathoms marked on the chart.

In every respect the tracing made by the master on the chart is totally inconsistent with the evidence which he has given as to the distances run, the courses steered, and the bearings and soundings taken, and as we are not disposed to think that the master has endeavoured wilfully to deceive the Court, we can only suppose that the discrepancies between the chart and the evidence arise from the master's ignorance of the mode of pricking off his course on a chart, and they tend very strongly to show that except when Cape Grisnez Light was in sight, the master was quite ignorant of the true position of his vessel.

And here it may be well to say a few words in regard to the tides in Dover Straits, as to which the master appears to have been totally ignorant. What he seems to have thought was that the flood tide would set him to the east, and the ebb tide to the west, but that this was not so will at once be seen from the following remarks on these tides. At page 93 of the Pilot's Handbook for the English Channel occurs the following passage: "The channel streams " meet in Dover Straits, while the water is rising at Dover " and separate while it is falling. The point of meeting" (and I will add of separation also), "is not, however, stationary, " but moves from west to east between Beachy " Head and the North Foreland, both on the rising and "falling water." The limits within which this meeting and separation of the water takes place are from a line joining Beachy Head and the River Somme on the west, to a line joining the North Foreland and Dunkerque on the east. In other words from high water, when the water begins to fall, the line of separation of the waters joins Beachy Head and the River Somme, the stream to the west of this line going west, and that to the east of the line going east. As the tide continues to fall this line moves to the east, and as we learn from page 269 of Part I. of the Channel Pilot, at three hours after high water the line of demarcation joins Hastings and Cayeux, at four hours after high water the line joins Folkestone and Calais, all the water to the west of the line flowing westward, all to the east of it eastward. So, too, with the rising tide; at low water, and when the tide begins to make, the waters meet on a line joining Beachy Head and Pointe d'Ailly, all the waters to the west of this line flowing east, all to the east of it flowing west. As the water rises the line of meeting moves to the east, until at high water it reaches the North Foreland and Dunkerque. But without entering more at length into the question of the tidal streams in Dover Straits, it may be sufficient to say that for the first hour or so after leaving Dover the vessel would have had the stream against her, and for the last two hours only she would have it with her, and not as the master supposed with her during the whole three hours that she was on an E.S.E. course. Again, for between three and four hours after high water she would have the stream against her, and not, as the master supposed, with her during the whole time she was heading to the southward and westward. I should add that the ebb tide, so long as it was against her by striking on her port bow, would tend to throw her head if anything to the west, and consequently towards the Ridge Sand. But of all these peculiarities of the tidal streams the master appears not to have been aware, not knowing whether the tide was with him or against him, whether it was setting him to the east or to the west, and being, therefore, quite ignorant of his true position.

It being clear, therefore, that no reliance whatever can be placed upon the courses which the master has traced on the chart, let us see whether there is anything in the evidence which will enable us to fix the position of the vessel at any time, and from which we may thus be able to ascertain the true causes of the casualty. Now there is one point as to which the master expressed himself as being very positive, and which may help us to this end, namely, the bearing of Cape Grisnez at 6.30 p.m., which the master said was S.W. by W., and as he thought about six or seven miles distant. He told us also that at this time he took a cast of the lead, and that he got 15 fathoms. If then the master took this bearing correctly, and we have no reason to think that he did not, the vessel must at that time have been close over on the French Coast. Now if a line be drawn in a N.E. by E. direction from Cape Grisnez we shall find that it runs near the French Coast, and in soundings, and that at a distance of six or seven miles from Cape Grisnez there are 15 fathoms, which are the soundings the master tells us that he got at that time. His evidence here is consistent with the facts. I think, therefore, that we may fairly conclude that the master is correct in saying that at 6.30 p.m. Cape Grisnez bore S.W. by W. from the vessel, and that she was at that time from six to seven miles from the point. I may observe that for three hours before this the vessel had, as the master has told us in his evidence, been on a W.S.W. to W. by S. course; the tide, too, as we have seen, being all the time strongly against her, which would place her at 3.30 p.m. some 18 miles from her point of departure off Dover, which is also quite consistent with the master's statement to the receiver, that she was going from five to six knots an hour during that time, remembering also that she would have had the stream with her for about the last two hours before high water.

The master tells us that from 6.30 p.m. he kept the vessel away a couple of points, and that at the end of an hour and a half he found Cape Grisnez bearing S.E., distant as he thought about five miles. Now the course on which the vessel had been before 6.30 was, we are told, W.S.W. to W. by S.; if, therefore, she was kept off a couple of points, her course from 6.30 to 8 p.m. would have been west to W. by N., and during that time the master tells us she made 71/2 knots. Taking then the vessel's position at 6.30 p.m. to have been with Cape Grisnez bearing S.W. by W. distant from six to seven miles, a course west to W. by N. for 71/2 miles from that point would bring her with Cape Grisnez, bearing, as the master has stated, S.E., distant about five miles, which is the second point as to which the master seems to have been very confident. And here I may observe that we are disposed to believe the master's statement that at 8 o'clock Cape Grisnez bore S.E., rather than that of the mate, that it then bore about south or S. by E., for the master told us that he took the bearings by the compass, whereas the mate does not pretend to have done so; he says that he guessed the light to bear about south or S. by E.

Having thus got the vessel at 8 p.m., with Cape Grisnez bearing S.E., distant as the master supposed at the time, and as seems to be most probable from the courses steered, about five miles, the master then brings her back to her former course, close-hauled to the wind on the port tack, which we are told was W.S.W. to W. by S. And we have only to look at a chart to see at once that such a course would take him as nearly as possible to the spot on the Ridge where the vessel grounded.

This, then, is in our opinion the true explanation of the casualty. The master lays her on an E.S.E. course, close-hauled on the starboard tack from about two miles off Dover, which is his point of departure, and continues that course until he has got well over on to the French Coast. He then lays her on a W.S.W. to W. by S. course until he sights Cape Grisnez bearing S.W. by W., distant six or seven miles. Then he keeps her away two points, heading west to W. by N., and continues that course for an hour and a half, which brings Cape Grisnez to S.E., distant five miles. He then lays her again on a W.S.W. to W. by S. course, which as a matter of course lands him on the Ridge Sand. If the master had exercised only a reasonable amount of intelligence he would have seen on consulting his chart that such a course, with Cape Grisnez bearing S.E., distant five miles, must inevitably, if continued, take him on the Ridge Sand.

Nor is the master free from blame in regard to the soundings which he obtained. When he got 15 fathoms at 6.30 p.m., and with Cape Grisnez bearing S.W. by W., he ought to have been able to determine almost accurately the position of his vessel. Again, he was to blame when he got 29 fathoms some half an hour or more before the vessel grounded in jumping to the conclusion that he was in midchannel and on a safe course; for it will be seen on referring to a chart that he would get 27 fathoms at a distance of some two to three miles from the sand, and when heading directly for it and on the course on which he was.

On the other hand, we are disposed to acquit both the master and the mate of any wish to mislead the Court when they told us that they had lost sight of Cape Grisnez at 8 p.m., and had not seen it again until shortly before the vessel grounded it is true that Bradford, one of the seamen, stated that he had seen the light all along from 6.30 till the vessel grounded, but we think that he must have been mistaken. Bradford it must be remembered was at the helm, and as the vessel was on the port tack he would necessarily be on the port side of the wheel; he would therefore have his back to the light, which was away on the port quarter. To see it at all he would have to look over his shoulder, and it is not to be supposed that he was constantly doing this whilst he was at the wheel. We are not saying that Bradford has wilfully endeavoured to mislead the Court; he may indeed have seen the light when he looked for it, but this could only have been occasionally, and there is nothing in our opinion to show that the master and mate were not speaking the truth when they said that they had not seen the light from 8 o'clock until shortly before the casualty.

Under these circumstances it only remains for us to say what we ought to do with this gentleman's certificate, it being clear that if anyone was to blame for the casualty it is the master, he having been in charge of the vessel all the time, and all the orders having been given by him. But here an objection was taken by Mr. Nelson, who has appeared for the master, that counsel for the Board of Trade having failed to prove that any serious or material damage had been done to the vessel we have no power whatever to touch the master's certificate. Now I am quite prepared to admit, on the authority of Storey's case, that there must have been serious or material damage to the vessel before the master's certificate can be dealt with. But how stand the facts? It seems that after the vessel grounded she continued upon the sand bumping heavily for an hour. On coming off she was found to be making so much water that all hands were at once sent to the pumps. She is then taken in tow, and is beached to prevent her sinking in deep water. A number of men are then engaged to pump her and to lighten her by discharging a part of the cargo. Arter 12 hours she is taken in tow, and a great number of hands (50 I think), are hired to pump her on the voyage to London. On her arrival she is placed in the Victoria Docks; and on the 15th we are told that she is full of water, and 18 men are employed to pump her night and day; on the 16th they are pumping night and day, 18 men being employed; on the 17th they have to get the steam engine to pump, there being 7 feet water in the hold, and the people are employed at the pumps night and day; on the 18th the engine is again at work, there being 12 feet water in the hold; on the 19th they are pumping night and day; on the 20th people are at the pumps; on the 2 st they are pumping night and day; on the 22nd the engine is again brought alongside, there being still 6 feet water in the hold, and the engine is going all night. And so it goes on from day to day until all the cargo has been discharged. All these details as to the condition of the vessel, and the daily operations are taken from entries in the log-book made by the mate. Now it is quite true that we have no specification of the particular damage sustained by this vessel whilst she was on the sand; but to ask us to say that a vessel, which before she got on the sand had been making no water, and which was afterwards found to be making so much water that it was necessary to beach her to prevent her sinking in deep water, had not sustained any serious or material damage is asking rather too much. It certainly would be very strange that an owner, who had despatched his vessel to a foreign port, should have had her towed back to London, should employ great numbers of men to pump her, and should discharge the whole of her cargo at a very heavy expense, and all this without her having sustained any serious damage. We think that there is abundant proof that this vessel had been seriously damaged; and that the damage was the result of her grounding on the Ridge; and I have therefore no hesitation in saying that we have power to deal with the master's certificate, it having been proved to our satisfaction that the casualty was "caused by his wrongful act and default."

There was also another objection taken by Mr. Nelson, and to which it is necessary that I should refer before stating what we propose to do as regards the master's certificate. Mr. Bowen in the course of the examination of the master put into his hands the deposition which he had made before the receiver of wreck, with the view of showing that the evidence which he then gave was not consistent with that which the witness was giving to the Court. I wish to state the case in a way most favourable to Mr. Nelson's party. Mr. Nelson's objection was that the master being a witness for the Board of Trade, Mr. Bowen had no right in examining him in chief to put questions having for their object to show that the evidence which he was giving could not be relied on. Such an objection, however, as it appears to me, is founded upon a total misapprehension of the nature of these proceedings. They are a species of inquisition or inquiry to ascertain the facts of the case, and more resemble prize proceedings than any others with which I am familiar in prize proceedings the master, officers, and crew of the captured ship are no doubt produced by the captors, but that does not prevent the captors from putting questions to them with a view to test their evidence; in fact it is one of the principal objects of the examination to see if they are speaking the truth. They are not, and are not considered to be the witnesses of the captors, they are rather the witnesses of the court. So also do I consider the people who were on board the ship at the time of the casualty; they are not so much the witnesses of the Board of Trade as the Court's witnesses; and as such the Board of Trade are not only entitled to, but it is their duty to put to them all such questions as may appear likely to elicit the truth, even to the extent of testing their evidence. This is the principle upon which I have hitherto acted, and on which I intend to act until I am corrected by higher authority; and I think it right to state it thus clearly, in order that Mr. Nelson may, if he thinks fit, take the opinion of a superior court upon the point. It appears to me that if the Board of Trade were limited to putting only such questions as a plaintiff or defendant may put to their respective witnesses, the utility of these inquiries would be much diminished, and that in order to elicit the truth, the Court would have to place itself in the very false position of appearing to be antagonistic to the master and officers of the ship, upon whose conduct it would afterwards have to pronounce a judicial opinion. I think therefore that Mr. Bowen was quite justified in cross-examining the master as to the deposition made by him before the receiver of wreck, whether the object was to refresh the witness' memory, or to contradict him as to the evidence which he was giving.

It then only remains for us to say what in our opinion should be done with this captain's certificate. Mr. Bowen has said that the master has shown "rather a mental than a moral negligence." This may be quite true, but then his mental negligence has been so great that it seems hardly right to allow him to go wholly unpunished. A man has no right to undertake a duty involving the loss not only of valuable property, but of still more valuable lives, unless he has, I do not say extraordinary, but at all events the ordinary and usual qualifications required for the performance of that duty. The master told us that he had been for 22 years a master, and that during all that time he had never met with any casualty, except on one occasion, and that was in the Barcelona River. But if this is so, I think we must attribute it rather to good luck than to good management; for the way in which he laid down his course on the chart convinced us that he was not much accustomed, notwithstanding his long experience as a master, in dealing with charts; he seemed to us not to have that knowledge of how to prick off his course on a chart which might naturally be expected of the master of a ship. It is not a mere error of judgment; that he should, when he thought himself to be five miles from Cape Grisnez bearing from him S.E., have laid his vessel on a W. by S. course, which a glance at his chart would show him must inevitably place him on the Ridge. How any master of a vessel should have done so is to us inconceivable. It was said that he had been continually on deck since passing Flamborough Head, owing to the misty state of the weather; but how this can be we can hardly understand, seeing that the log-book states that on the day before the casualty there was a light breeze from the north-east, and clear weather; and during that time he might certainly have taken a rest. Looking, however, at all the facts of the case, and considering his long service, and that he certainly appears to have been on deck, attending, although in a somewhat careless way, to the navigation of the vessel, we shall suspend his certificate for only three months.

Before I conclude, it may be well to refer to the log-book, as our attention has been pointedly directed to some erasures occurring therein. And certainly the log-book does appear to have been kept in a very extraordinary way; for the only day on which I find the entries made in the way in which we are accustomed to see them is the day on which the casualty occurred; on all the other days, both before and after, the entries are of the most meagre description. But it was to one erasure to which our attention was more especially called, where the time at which the last cast of the lead was taken, when 29 fathoms were obtained, is recorded. Mr. Nelson contended that the entry stated it to have been taken at 9.40, some five or ten minutes before she grounded; but this was shown to have been impossible, the nearest depth approaching those soundings being 27 fathoms, but even that was at a distance of from two to three miles from the spot where she grounded. The mate at first stated that the entry was 9.40, but after a time he admitted that he thought it must be 9.10, and he added that he thought it must have been about half an hour before the casualty occurred, when the last soundings were taken; and this indeed appears to be in accordance with the facts. Why the erasure was made the mate was not able to tell us; Mr. Bowen disclaimed any imputation of its having been made for the purpose of deceiving the Court; he thought that it was the act of a man not much accustomed to enter these things in detail, and anxious to do it very carefully. And in that opinion the Court is disposed to concur; at the same time it ought always to be remembered that erasures should never be made in a logbook; if a mistake is made which requires to be amended it is always better to interline the alteration so as to show clearly what the original entry has been. An erasure in a log-book throws grave suspicion upon it, and is calculated to destroy its authority. (To Mr. Bowen.) Do you ask for costs?

Mr. Bowen.-No, sir.

The Commissioner.-Our order then will be that the master's certificate be suspended for three months; and there will be no order as to costs. Mr. Nelson will thus have an opportunity, if he desires it, of raising the question of the legality of our proceeding before a superior court. (To Mr. Nelson.) Is there any application that the master should have a mate's certificate?

Mr. Nelson.-No, sir, thank you.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

G. TREFUSIS HOLT,

Assessors.

 

"

WM. PARFITT,

 

I 101. 218. 70.-3/79. Wt. B 612. E. & S.