Wreck Report for 'Expert' and 'Countess of Durham', 1879

(257.)

"EXPERT" and S.S. "COUNTESS OF DURHAM."

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal investigation held at the Sheriff's Court, Stonehaven, on the 4th and 5th April 1879, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Rear Admiral APLIN, R.N., and Captain WARD, as assessors, into the circumstances attending the loss of the British Sailing Ship "EXPERT," of Stonehaven, and of the lives of three of her crew, through collision with the British Steam Ship "COUNTESS OF DURHAM," of Sunderland, off Stonehaven, on the 25th of January last.

The Court having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons annexed:-

1. That Alexander Christie, the master of the "Expert," is to blame for having failed to carry the light required by article 9 of the regulations for preventing collisions at sea.

2. That George Mason, the mate of the "Countess of Durham," is to blame for not having kept a proper lookout on board on the evening of the 24th of January last, he being the officer of the watch at the time; for having failed to comply with the fifteenth article of the regulations for preventing collisions at sea, which required him to keep out of the way of the "Expert"; and for having by his default caused the loss of the "Expert" and three of her crew.

3. That Charles Murton, the master of the "Countess of Durham," is not to blame, for that he took all proper measures to save the lives of the crew of the "Expert," when she was run down on the morning of the 24th of January last.

The Court accordingly orders the certificate of the said George Mason to be suspended for six months from this day, but returns to Charles Murton his certificate.

The Court makes no order as to costs.

Dated the 5th day of April 1879.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

ELPHINSTONE APLIN,

 

 

 

Rear Admiral,

Assessors.

 

"

C. Y. WARD,

 

MINUTES of PROCEEDINGS taken before HENRY CODOGAN ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, with ADMIRAL APLIN, R.N., and CAPLAIN WARD, assessors at the Sheriff's Court, Stonehaven, Saturday 5th April 1879, upon an inquiry into the collision between the "EXPERT" and "COUNTESS of DURHAM."

Mr. Duncan appeared for the Board of Trade.

Mr. Prosser for the owners, master, and mate, and second engineer of the "Countess of Durham."

Mr. Crockatt for the master and owners of the "Expert."

Mr. Main appeared for George Main, a survivor.

Mr. Duncan opened the case on behalf of the Board of Trade and called evidence; and he then handed in a copy of the charges preferred by the Board of Trade, upon which he desired the opinion of the Court, and wherein he charged-

"1. Alexander Christie, the master of the "Expert," " with having failed to carry the lights required by article " 9 of the regulations for preventing collisions at sea:

"2. George Mason, the mate of the "Countess of " Durham," with having failed to keep a good and proper " look out on board the 'Countess of Durham' on the " morning of the 24th day of January 1879, when that " vessel came into collision with the fishing vessel the " 'Expert'; with having failed to comply with article 15 " of the regulations for preventing collisions at sea; and " with having on, the occasion referred to, by his default, " caused the loss of the said vessel the 'Expert,' " whereby three of her crew were deprived of life:

"3. Charles Murton, the master of the 'Countess of " Durham,' with having failed to make every possible " effort to save the lives of three of the crew of the 'Ex- " pert' when she was run down by the same vessel the " 'Countess of Durham' on the 24th day of January " last."

Mr. Duncan further stated, that in the opinion of the Board of Trade the certificates of the said George Mason and Charles Murton should be dealt with.

Mr. Duncan then called further evidence.

Mr. Prosser called evidence.

Mr. Crockatt was heard to address the Court for the master and owners of the "Expert."

Mr. Main was heard for George Main.

Mr. Prosser was heard for the owners, master, &c; of the "Countess of Durham."

Mr. Duncan was heard in reply.

Judgment.

The Commissioner.-This is an inquiry into the circumstances attending the loss of the fishing cutter "Expert," with three of her crew, by collision with the screw steamship "Countess of Durham," which occurred on the 24th day of January last, about four or five miles from Stonehaven.

The story told by the two survivors from the "Expert" is, that she left Stonehaven at about half-past six in the morning of the 24th of January, in company with about ten or eleven other fishing boats, for the purpose of proceeding to their fishing grounds, and having a crew of five hands all told. The morning was very cold, and there was a frosty haze on the land, but it was clear out to sea. On leaving the harbour they proceeded to the southward, Alexander Christie, the master, being at the helm. The vessel had a large lug sail set with five reefs to windward, and four to leeward, and was on the starboard tack, the wind being from the westward. After rounding Downey and Bowden Points she was kept in with the land, heading about S.S.W., steering not by the compass, but keeping the land in sight, the day having begun to break. They had not made up their minds how far they would go to the southward before striking out for the fishing grounds, their intention being to take the southernmost station of the fishing fleet, and at the same time they wanted the ebb tide to run out. They had got down as far as Tremuda Bay, being at the time about a mile or so from the shore, when they observed a steamer's mast head light on the port bow, distant a mile to a mile and a half off. Neither Christie, the master, nor George Main, the other man who was saved, appear to have seen the steamer's red light; but they said that it was then sufficiently light for them to be able to make out that her port side was towards them. They consulted together as to what they should do, and determined to lie high, as they called it that is, as I understand, to keep the vessel close up to the wind; for, as the master observed, " although we are not exactly afraid of these steamers, " we are jealous of them." Accordingly the vessel was laid with her head about two points nearer to the land, thinking that the steamer would pass on her course outside of them. All of a sudden, however, one of the men, but which of them we have not been able to ascertain, observed that the steamer had starboarded her helm; and George Main then went forward to see what she was doing. Soon afterwards the green light of the steamer appeared, and they concluded that she was going to pass ahead, and inside of them; but when very close, the course of the steamer was suddenly altered, and she came straight at them, striking the cutter on the port side, a little forward of midships. We shall presently have to inquire what steps were taken to save the crew of the "Expert." it is sufficient here to say that the cutter almost immediately sank, and that three of the crew were drowned, two only being saved by a boat lowered from the "Countess of Durham."

The case of the "Countess of Durham" is, that she was a screw steam-ship, of 539 tons gross, and 420 net register, and having engines of 80-horse power. She was built at South Shields in the year 1855, and, at the time of the accident was the property of Mr. Henry Thomas Morton,-a Mr. Charles S. Mills, of the Coal Exchange, London, being the managing owner. She left Sunderland at 3.45 p.m. of the 23rd with a cargo of 650 tons of ??cals, and a crew of 17 hands all told, bound to Aberdeen. At about 9 p.m. they were abreast of the Far Islands, and she was then laid on a N. by E. course. At 4 a.m. the master went below, leaving the deck in charge of George Mason, the chief mate. The vessel was continued on a N. by E. course until shortly before 7 o'clock, going at full speed, which we are told was from 7 to 7 1/2 knots. The morning was intensely cold with a frosty haze upon the land, but clear out at sea, the wind, it is said, being about W.S.W. The watch consisted of the mate and a man named James Sloanes, who were on the lower bridge looking out, and of John Hawes, who was at the wheel. At about five minutes before seven, the mate, thinking it was then sufficiently light, discharged Sloanes from the look-out, and thenceforth kept the look-out alone. Almost immediately after Sloanes had left the bridge, the mate observed the loom of the land dimly visible through the haze, and on his attention being called by Hawes to another part of the horizon, where the land could be more distinctly seen, he ordered the course of the vessel to be altered to N.N.E. At about the same moment he observed the "Expert" from a mile and a half to two miles away on his port bow; and he has told us that it was then sufficiently light to see that she had her starboard side towards him, and was heading to cross his bows from port to starboard. The mate continued his course until he had got to within about half a mile of her, when he ordered the helm to be starboarded with a view of passing astern of her, and when he had got her ahead he ordered the helm to be steadied. According to the mate, the vessel was brought up to N. 1/2 E., but, according to the man at the wheel, to N. 1/2 W.; and at this time the "Expert" was from three to four ship's lengths ahead of them. The mate has told us that what he expected was that, before he reached the spot where she was, the "Expert" would have passed on to his starboard side clear out of his course. Suddenly, however, and when only within one or two ship's lengths of her, the mate observed that she was standing across his bows from starboard to port, and be immediately gave orders for the helm to be put hard-a-port, and the engines to be stopped and reversed; and this was done; but before the way could be taken off the vessel, and the helm had had time to act, she came into the "Expert," striking her on the port side, and sinking her almost immediately. No time was lost in lowering a boat from the "Countess of Durham;" but as to this we will presently speak.

Now, before we proceed to deal with the charges which have been preferred by Mr. Duncan on behalf of the Board of Trade, it will be well to inquire what was the cause of the casualty, and whether either and which of these two vessels is to blame for the collision. By the regulations for preventing collisions at sea, it was the duty of the "Expert" to keep her course, and of the "Countess of Durham" to get out of her way. Briefly, the stories told by the respective parties are as follows: According to the "Expert" she was on the starboard tack, heading about S.S.W., when she observed the "Countess of Durham" away on her port bow distant a mile to a mile and a half, and heading so as to pass clear away to seaward, port side to port side. The "Expert," we are told, continued her course, bringing her head about two points nearer to the land, so as to give the steamer a wider berth, but all of a sudden the steamer starboarded her helm, and seemed as if intending to pass ahead of her, and to go between her and the land. The "Expert" says that she nevertheless continued her course as she was bound and ought to have done; but that the "Countess of Durham," when close to her, suddenly ported her helm and ran into her, striking her on the port side. On the other hand the story told by the "Countess of Durham" is that she was steering about N.N.E. when she observed the "Expert" at a distance of from 1 1/2 to 2 miles off on her port bow, and that it was then sufficiently light for her to see that the "Expert's" starboard side was towards her, and that she was heading about S.S.E. to cross their course from port to starboard; that the "Countess of Durham" continued her course until she had approached within half a mile of her, still having the "Expert" on her port bow, and that she then starboarded her helm until she brought the "Expert" right ahead, upon which she steadied her helm, trusting that the "Expert," which was then three or four ship's lengths off, would, before she reached the spot, have passed away to starboard: that all of a sudden, and when they were only one to two ship's lengths off, the "Expert," which had before been upon the starboard tack going free and heading about S.S.E., put her helm hard down and came round across the steamer's bows, bringing the wind on to her port side, upon which the "Countess of Durham" put her helm hard a-port, but it was too late to avoid a collision. Now, apart from the statement that the "Expert." when the "Countess of Durham" was within one or two ship's lengths, suddenly put her helm hard down so as to bring herself from the starboard on to the port tack, and across the steamer's course, the two stories are identically the same. According to the steamer she was heading so as to pass to seaward of the "Expert," having her on her port side; she does not alter her helm until she is within half a mile of her and then starboards to pass inshore of her, but steadies the helm when she is within three or four ship's lengths of her, having the "Expert" right ahead of her; and then, when only one or two ship's lengths off, she ports and runs into her. This is precisely the same story told by the "Expert," namely, that when they first saw the steamer she appeared as if passing to seaward of them; that when she had approached to within some three or four ship's lengths she starboarded, apparently as if going to pass ahead and inshore of them, but when close to them ported and ran into them. The question then seems to turn upon this, whether the "Expert," immediately before the collision, put her helm down and came round from the starboard on to the port tack, and across the "Countess of Durham's" course. If she did, she would clearly be to blame. If, on the other hand, she continued her course, only luffing up a couple of points into the wind, the blame of the collision would rest with the steamer, whose duty it was to keep clear of her.

Apart from the very great improbability that the "Expert" would throw herself across the course of the steamer when she was close upon her, it seems almost impossible that, in the short time required by the "Countess of Durham" to traverse one or two ship's lengths, the "Expert" should have been able to come round from S.S.E. to North of West, or through some ten or twelve points. But it was said by Mr. Prosser that there seems to be no reason why the "Expert" should have been heading along the coast, and why she should not have followed the same course that the other 10 or 11 fishing cutters that left the harbour with her, had taken, namely, stood away for her fishing ground towards the S.E. We are told, however, that it was her intention to take up a position to the south of the other vessels, and not to begin to fish until the ebb tide had run out, and for a reason which has been given to us to-day, and which appears to be a very good one, namely, that when the flood had begun to make they would have the tide and the wind in opposite directions, and would then be able to lay their lines more easily. Now, if this really was their intention, it is obvious that their proper course would be to keep near the coast, where we are told that the ebb tide ceases to run for an hour or two before it does in the offing, so that by keeping inshore she would avoid the strength of the ebb tide. So far, therefore, from thinking that it is improbable that we should find the "Expert" heading down the coast, I think that it would be the most natural course for her to take; and, indeed, we find that two or three other fishing cutters, which followed her out of Stonehaven, and who were on the spot very soon after the collision, ssem to have taken the same course.

Two witnesses, however, have been produced to-day, on behalf of the "Countess of Durham," with the object of showing that the "Experts" people must have been deposing falsely when they said that on sighting the "Countess of Durham" their course was S.S. W. They were a Mr. Alexander H. Taylor, an old shipmaster at Aberdeen, and Mr. Joseph Leeman, an examiner to the Local Marine Board at Aberdeen. Mr. Taylor told us that if the "Expert" had steered a S.S.W. course after rounding Downey Point, the southern point of Stonehaven Bay, she would very soon have been ashore; in fact, that she would have run on the next point, Bowden Point. But, unfortunately for Mr. Taylor's theory, it was never pretended that the "Expert" had steered a S.S.W, course from Downey Point; the "Expert's" people said that they did not steer on that occasion by compass, but from point to point as fishermen do, keeping the land in sight, and that when the collision occurred they were off Thorneyhive Bay, at the distance of a mile or a mile and a half from the coast; and Mr. Taylor was bound to admit, after looking at the chart, that, to arrive at the place where the collision is said to have taken place, they would have had, after rounding Bowden Point, to steer somewhat to the west of south. But Mr. Leeman's evidence was as extraordinary as any that I have ever heard, coming from a gentleman calling himself an examiner in navigation. He told us that in order to get to the place where the fishermen said that the collision had taken place, namely, a mile to a mile and a half off Thornyhive Bay, she must have steered a S.E. course from Downey Point; and in proof of his statement he produced an Admiralty chart on an enlarged scale, on which he had laid down the courses and the place of the casualty. I thereupon asked Mr. Leeman to take a pair of parallel rulers, and tell us whether from Downey Point to the spot where he had placed the vessel was really a S.E. course; and after a good deal of quibbling ??nd prevarication, which called forth some strong remarks from the Court, Mr. Leeman was obliged to admit that the course was not S.E. but S. 1/4 E.; and he attempted to justify himself by saying that it would perhaps have been more correct if he had said that the course was to the east of south, instead of being S. E. I am inclined to think it would have been, and I only hope that Mr. Leeman, or, as he called himself, Lieutenant Leeman, does not exercise his duties of examiner to the Local Marine Board of Aberdeen in the same loose and inaccurate way as he gave his evidence before us.

The evidence too of the second mate and chief engineer of the "Countess of Durham," who were produced to speak to certain conversations which they had had with Alexander Christie after he had been brought on board the vessel, instead of contradicting him, tend strongly to confirm the evidence which he gave; for all that they could say was that Christie had told them them that they had luffed up before the collision,-which is exactly what he did do, and which is a very different thing from saying that she had gone round just before the collision through 10 or 12 points from the starboard to the port tack.

On the whole we think that the evidence is conclusive that the "Expert" did continue on the starboard tack close hauled to the wind, merely luffing up a couple of points when she first sighted the "Countess of Durham," in order to give her more room. But if so, in what position does the "Countess of Durham" stand? According to her account she sees the "Expert" on her port bow from a mile and a half to two miles off, and she continues her course without altering her helm at all until she is within half a mile, when she starboards her helm so as to bring the cutter right ahead, still going at full speed; and it is only when she has got within one to two ship's lengths of the "Expert" that she sees that the "Expert" is crossing her bows from starboard to port, upon which she ports her helm, but it is then too late. In our opinion this casualty is mainly due to the "Countess of Durham" having starboarded her helm so as to pass ahead of the "Expert," instead of porting it, as she ought to have done, so as to pass under the cutter's stern.

The question then which we have now to consider is, how far the respective parties have contributed to this casualty, and whether the charges which have been preferred against them by the Board of Trade have or have not been established. And the first charge with which we shall have to deal is that against Alexander Christie, the master of the "Expert," for having failed to carry the lights required by article 9 of the regulations for preventing collisions at sea. The ninth article is in these words: " Open fishing boats and other open boats shall not be " required to carry the side lights required for other " vessels; but shall, if they do not carry such lights, " carry a lantern, having a green slide on one side, and a " red slide on the other side; and on approaching other " vessels such lantern shall be exhibited in sufficient time " to prevent collision, so that the green light shall not be " seen on the port side, nor the red light on the starboard " side." Now it is admitted that the "Expert" had no such lantern on board; indeed we are told that none of the fishing vessels which sail out of Stonehaven ever carry any such lantern. If this is so, I can only say that I greatly regret to hear it. It was stated that there was an impression amongst them that this provision of the regulations was not obligatory; but it seems to me that it is as obligatory as any other portion of the regulations, and that fishing boats are as much bound to carry lanterns of this description as other vessels are to carry the ordinary side lights. Whether or not the exhibition of such a lantern would have prevented the collision may perhaps be a question; for, according to the witnesses on both sides, the morning was so far advanced that vessels could be distinctly seen without their lights. That is the evidence of the "Countess of Durham's" people; and the two survivors from the "Expert" tell us that they did not observe the steamer's red light, although there can be no doubt that it was burning brightly at the time. No doubt, if the "Expert" had exhibited a lantern such as the regulations require, and the red light had been seen from the steamer, it would have been a clear intimation that the cutter's port side was towards them; and in that case the mate would, doubtless, have ported and not starboarded his helm, and so the collision might have been avoided. But it all depends upon the distance at which the "Expert" was first seen from the steamer; and we are inclined to think, notwithstanding the evidence of the mate to the contrary, that he did not see her until he was close upon her. But 'be this as it may, we are bound to hold that Alexander Christie, the master of the "Expert," was to blame for having failed to have on board and ready to show a lantern of the description required by article 9 of the regulations.

The next charges, with which I propose to deal, are those preferred against George Mason, the mate of the "Countess of Durham;" namely, for having failed to keep a good and proper look-out; for having violated article 15 of the regulations for preventing collisions at sea; and for having caused the loss of the "Expert" and three of her crew. When the mate discharged Sloanes from the look-out the whole duty of keeping the look-out devolved upon him. And how does he proceed to discharge that duty? Why, by remaining on the lower bridge instead of going, as he should have done, on to the upper bridge. The fact that the mate, as soon as he thought that a collision was imminent, jumped on to the monkey bridge, doubtless to get a better view of the cutter, is a sufficient proof to us that he ought to have been there before. The man at the helm too told us that from where he was on the lower bridge he could not see the cutter, owing to the forerigging on the port side. In our opinion, the mate failed to keep a good and proper look-out, and it is to his negligence in this respect that the collision is in our opinion in great part due.

That the mate also violated the 15th article of the regulations by not keeping clear of the "Expert," as he was bound to do, seems to be quite clear; nor, in our opinion, is there any excuse for his conduct. According to his own account he sees her on his port bow at the distance of one and a half to two miles off, and, as he believes, crossing his course from port to starboard, and yet he does nothing until she gets within half a mile of him, and then he starboards his helm, and brings her right ahead; then steadies his helm when she is only three or four ship's lengths off, trusting that she will have got out of his way by the time he reaches the spot; and it is only when she is from one to two lengths off that he observes that she is crossing from starboard to port, and he then ports his helm, but too late. This is his own account of the matter; and we think that it affords no excuse whatever for his conduct. When he saw the vessel, as he says, from a mile and a half to two miles off on his port bow, and crossing his course from from port to starboard, he had no right to go on steaming ahead full speed without altering his course, knowing that, if his supposition was correct as to the course she was on, she would eventually come ahead of him, and if he did not alter his course he would most probably run her down. Again, when he had got within half a mile of her, and still found her on his port bow, it ought to have been an indication to him that she was not crossing him from port to starboard, or at all events that she was making very slow progress across his bows; and in that case he had no right whatever to bring her right ahead, hoping that she would have got out of the way before he reached the spot where she was. He tells us that he thought she was on a S.S.E. course; but, according to his own evidence, his course when he steadied his helm was N. 1/2 E., according to the man at the wheel it was N. 1/2 W.; the two vessels therefore were not very far from being on opposite courses, and in that case he had no right to be steaming on at full speed with this vessel right abead of him. If, as turned out to be the case, she was then crossing him from starboard to port, heading about S.S.W. to S W., his starboarding his helm was almost certain to bring about a collision. The true explanation of the case, in our opinion, is that he did not see the "Expert" until he was close upon her, owing to his not keeping a good-look out; and that he first starboarded, and then ported his helm, and ran her down. It is, in our opinion, not, as it has been contended by Mr. Prosser, a case of a mere error of judgment; it is a case of grave neglect of duty. This man failed to keep a good look-out, when it was his duty to do so; he neglected to take any steps to get out of the way of this vessel, until he had approached very near her; and then when he did take any steps, owing to want of care and attention, he took the wrong course; and that course has resulted in the loss of this cutter and three of her crew. In our opinion this man is very greatly to blame, and we should not be doing our duty unless we suspended his certificate for six months.

The last charge is one against Charles Murton, the master of the "Countess of Durham," for having failed to make every possible effort to save the lives of three of the crew of the "Expert" when she was run down. Let us see what the facts are. It seems that within five minutes of the "Expert" being run down, a boat was lowered from the "Countess of Durham," and four of the crew having got into her, and amongst them the 2nd mate, who was only in his shirt and drawers as he had turned out of his berth, they pulled at once for the wreck. Having picked up Alexander Christie, the master, and George Main, one of the men, under circumstances to which I will presently refer, they returned with them to the steamer, George Main being at the time in a state of insensibility. Both the men were at once taken down into the engine room, and stripped, and it then became a question what should be done, George Main being still in a state of insensibility in the meantime two or three fishing boats which had come out of Stonehaven after the "Expert" had arrived on the spot, and the master of the "Countess of Durham," seeing that George Main still continued insensible, determined to steam away for Stonehaven for the purpose of obtaining medical assistance. Before, however, he arrived there, George Main had recovered consciousness, and it being low water, and therefore impossible for the steamer to get into the harbour, the master had to determine whether to land George Main in an open boat, or to proceed on to Aberdeen. He determined to go on to Aberdeen, thinking, and with some reason, that if he put George Main into an open boat in his then feeble condition, it might be attended with very great risk. In the meantime one of the fishing boats, after the steamer had left, discovered Robert Main, another of the crew of the "Expert," standing upright in the water, but with his head forward on his chest, and completely submerged, the top of his cap alone being above the water. Having taken the body out of the water they proceeded at once with it to Stonehaven; and we have been told by Dr. Thom, who examined the body at about 10 o'clock the same morning, that at that time there was a great deal of animal heat in it. Now it is admitted that after the collision the "Countess of Durham's" boat was lowered with very great expedition; but it is said that if the master, instead of steaming off at once towards Stonehaven, had remained on the spot, and sent his boat to examine the neighbourhood of the wreck carefully, the body of Robert Main would have been discovered, and his life probably saved. Dr. Thoms had certainly been struck with the quantity of animal heat in the body, and had been under the impression that if the body had been taken out of the water a little sooner, life might possibly have been restored. But when he heard of the position it which it had been found, with the whole of the head submerged except just the top of the cap, he was obliged to admit that probably life was extinct when it was taken out of the water. It seems also that the body, when recovered, had a very great number of clothes on, and it is very likely that this might account for the animal heat having been so long retained in it. In our opinion, therefore, there is no reason to believe that Robert Main's life would have been saved had the "Countess of Durham" remained on the spot; nor do we think that the master is to blame for having steamed away as he did towards Stonehaven. Let us put ourselves in his position. He had at the time a man on board who was in a state of insensibility, and for whom he was anxious to obtain medical advice: he was told by Alexander Christie, the master, that he was quite satisfied that all the rest of the crew had gone down with the vessel, and there were two or three boats about the spot, to whom the duty of looking over the wreckage might safely be left. The master, no doubt, particularly after the assurance that he had had from Alexander Christie, thought it better to go on at once to Stonehaven to obtain medical advice in order to save George Main's life, which seemed to be in peril, rather than to remain on the spot and lose precious time. We think that the master of the "Countess of Durham" is not to blame for having left the spot, and we entirely acquit him of the charge that has been preferred against him.

I cannot conclude this judgment without adverting to a circumstance, which has arisen in the course of these proceedings, and which in our opinion reflects the greatest credit upon Alexander Christie, the master of the "Expert." When the vessel went down he succeeded in getting hold of a buoy, by which his head and shoulders were kept out of the water, and, being seen from the ship, the boat naturally made for him, but on its approaching him he refused to be taken into her, but directed them to go to George Main, who was lying some two or three boat's lengths off in a state of insensibility. And it was only after they had got George Main into the boat that he consented to be taken in himself. 'To appreciate, as it deserves, the courage, the devotion, and the unselfishness of this act, it is necessary to remember that on that morning it was so bitterly cold that, according to the master and crew of the "Countess of Durham," the spray as it fell upon the fore part of the deck turned into ice, making it so slippery that it was dangerous to put a look-out man forward. And yet this man, although he must have been in the water for something like a quarter of an hour, and might at any moment have lost his hold of the buoy and sunk, was willing to incur this risk in order to save the life of a comrade. It is very agreeable to a Court like this, which has so often to punish masters for acts of negligence and misconduct, endangering the lives and property entrusted to their care, to meet with a case like this, in which a master has shown himself so ready to risk his life for another. It is, therefore, with peculiar pleasure that I refer to Alexander Christie's conduct on this occasion. (To Mr. Duncan.) Have you any application to make to me in regard to the costs?

Mr. Duncan.-I submit, Sir, that the mate having been in default in this case, and having set up a defence which has not been sustained, he ought to be held liable to costs. I do not mean that I should ask for costs as against the mate, but as against the owners, who are here as parties to the cause. It is their case which has been set up by the master and crew of the "Countess of Durham." The result of this inquiry may or may not affect any civil action that might arise out of the circumstances. With that, of course, this Court has nothing to do. The Board of Trade, I dare say, would not press much for costs, but great costs must have been incurred in this inquiry.

The Commissioner.-(To Mr. Crockatt and Mr. Main.) Do you apply for costs?

Mr. Crockatt.-Certainly I do, Sir.

The Commissioner.-Against whom?

Mr. Crockatt.-Against the owners.

Mr. Main.-And I also against the owners ask for costs?

The Commissioner.-Mr. Prosser, I need not trouble you. The application to me is to condemn not the mate but the owners in the costs. I cannot, however, see of what offence the owners have been guilty, that they should be made liable for the costs of these proceedings. It is true that in a collision case the owners are by the general maritime law responsible for the acts of their servants, and there is an obvious reason for that; but in this case it is an inquiry into the conduct of the officers of the vessel, and whether that conduct has been such as to warrant the suspension or cancellation of their certificates; and I cannot see that it is a matter for which we can punish the owners. There will, therefore, be no costs in this case.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

ELPHINSTONE APLIN, Rear Admiral, Assessor.

 

 

C. Y. WARD, Assessor.

L 367. 30. 70.-5/79. Wt. B 47. E. & S.