Wreck Report for 'Denmore', 1879

(No. 258.)

"DENMORE."

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal investigation held at the Court House, Aberdeen, on the 7th day of 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 stranding of the British steam-ship "DENMORE," of Aberdeen, on May Island, in the Firth of Forth, on the 20th day of March last, whilst on a voyage from Leith to Aberdeen, and the subsequent loss of the said vessel.

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

1. That the casualty was due to the master, Robert Crombie, having continued his course from Inch Keith at full speed, without making any allowance for the set of the wind and tide, or for the deviation of the vessel's course to leeward, partly owing to bad steering, partly to avoid the lights which he saw.

2. That, knowing as he should have done, that he had nearly run the distance between Inch Keith and May Island, and not seeing the light, and being therefore uncertain as to his position, the said Robert Crombie should have put the vessel down to half speed, so as to have had her more under control.

For these wrongful acts and defaults the Court suspends the certificate of the said Robert Crombie for three months, but recommends that during the period of such suspension he be allowed a first mate's certificate.

The Court makes no order as to costs.

Dated the 7th 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 HENDY CADOGAN ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, with Admiral APLIN and Captain WARD, Assessors, at the Sheriff Court, Aberdeen, on Monday, the 7th day of April 1879, on an inquiry into the stranding of the "DENMORE."

Mr. Duncan appeared for the Board of Trade.

Mr. Prosser appeared for the master of the "Denmore."

Mr. Duncan was heard to open the case on behalf of the Board of Trade, and called evidence.

At the conclusion of the evidence Mr. Duncan handed in a copy of the questions on which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court, and stated that in "the " opinion of the Board of Trade the master's certificate " ought to be dealt with."

Mr. Prosser then called evidence and was heard on behalf of the master.

Mr. Duncan was heard in reply.

Judgment.

The Commissioner.-This is an inquiry into the circumstances attending the stranding of the British steam-ship "Denmore," of Aberdeen, on May Island, in the Firth of Forth, on the 20th day of March last. The circumstances are as follow:-

The "Denmore" was an iron screw steam-ship of 328 tons gross, and 212 tons net register, and was fitted with engines of 50 horse-power combined. She was built at Aberdeen in last year, and at the time of her loss was the property of Mr. Alexander Nicol, of Marischal Street, Aberdeen, and a number of other gentlemen, Mr. Alexander Nicol being the managing owner. The vessel left Leith a little before midnight of the 19th March last, with a cargo of flour and a crew of 12 hands all told, bound to Aberdeen. The wind was at the time blowing a moderate breeze from the N.E., and the sea was smooth. On leaving Leith a course was steered so as to pass to the northward of Inch Keith Island, and at about 12.30 a.m. of the 20th the light on Inch Keith Island bore S. by E. distant from three quarters of a mile to a mile. The vessel was thereupon laid on a course E. 3/4 N. by compass, which was equivalent to not quite E. 1/2 N. magnetic, the compass having a deviation of about one-third of a point on that course. At this time the watch consisted of Robert Crombie, the master, John Bruce, the boatswain, and an A.B. named Thomas Henderson. The master was on the bridge, John Bruce, the boatswain, was at the wheel, and Thomas Henderson was on the look-out. I should state that the ship was steered from amidships, the wheel being on the bridge, so that they were all very near one another. The vessel was continued on an E. N. course until 2 a.m., when the patent log showed 12 knots to have been run from off Inch Keith Island, or at the rate of eight knots an hour. At this time Thomas Henderson went to the wheel, and John Bruce on the look-out, and thereupon the vessel's course was altered to E. by N. by compass. She continued on that course until about 23 or 24 minutes past two, at which time the patent log, we are told, registered 15 knots. At 2.23 or 2.24 the course was altered half a point to the north, to E. by N. 1/2 N., and she was continued on that course for a mile. At 2.32 the course was again altered half a point to E.N.E., and she continued on that course until about 2.50, the log at the end of that time indicating 18 knots. The master then ordered the course to be altered another half a point to the north, to N.E. by E. 1/2 E.; but at the same moment a bright light was seen ahead, and as the master was in doubt whether this might not be the mast-head light of a steamer, and was therefore afraid of starboarding his helm, he ported it, and continued his course until he came abreast of the light, when he found it to proceed from a ship at anchor. Immediately after passing that vessel he observed two other bright lights on the starboard bow. The helm was accordingly again ported to pass between them. It was now about 3 three o'clock, and immediately after passing them the master tells us that he observed a kind of glare or haze right ahead. He instantly ordered the helm to be put hard a-starboard, and the engines to be reversed full speed; but before she could come round, and just at about the time when the engines had begun to get stern way, she struck with her starboard bow against the rocks, the place where she struck being the north-west point of May Island.

Having backed the vessel clear of the rocks, the master proceeded to examine the condition of the vessel, and finding that the forehold was fast filling, he caused the sluices between it and the main hold to be closed, and determined to try to get her to Leith or Granton. With that view the vessel was put about and steamed to the westward; the boats having been first lowered over the side, in case the vessel should sink under them. At 4 a.m. the main hold was still free from water, but at 4.15 it was reported that there were nine inches of water in it, and at 4.30 there were 12 inches. At this time the vessel had got so much down by the head that it became difficult to steer her; and shortly afterwards her head having fallen off to the northwest, the wind being from the north-east, she fell over on to her port side. Orders were at once given to stop the engines, and all the crew, with the exception of the master, the mate, and the carpenter, got into the boats; and at 5 a.m. they also were obliged, for the safety of their lives, to abandon her. After a time they observed the lights of a steamer, and having pulled towards her succeeded in inducing the master to lend a hand to save the vessel. Robert Crombie, the master of the "Denmore," thereupon returned to his own vessel for the purpose of getting out a hawser to pass to the steamer, but whilst doing so she fell over further to port, and he was obliged to leave her. In about 10 minutes she had disappeared. Such being the facts of the case, Mr. Duncan has asked for the opinion of the Court on the following questions:-

" 1. Whether the vessel, being within a distance from which " the light on May Island ought to have been seen, proper " caution was used in navigating the vessel when that " light was not visible, and the vessel was going amongst " shipping?

" 2. Whether the said vessel was lost by the default of " the master?

" 3. Whether a satisfactory reason has been given for " the loss of the vessel?"

Now it is said by Mr. Prosser that it is not for the master but for the Board of Trade to show how this casualty occurred. But I confess that I do not concur in that view. The only persons who can tell us how this vessel got on shore are those who were on board her at the time; they, and they alone, know what was done; and the principal object of this inquiry is to ascertain from them how it was that this valuable vessel and cargo, worth together, we are told, about 10,000l., came within three hours of her leaving port to be utterly lost to the owners. It is therefore for the master and for those who were with him to explain how it was that this casualty occurred; and that, I think, they have not succeeded in doing satisfactorily. So far as we are able to judge from the evidence that has been laid before us, the casualty occurred in this wise:-

On the morning in question it was high water at Leith at about one o'clock, but we are told that in the middle of the channel the flood would continue to run for about an hour after it was high water at Leith. The vessel, then, when off Inch Keith Island, would have the flood tide against her; but as her course, we are told, was between E.1/4 N. and E.1/2 N., the tide, which would be setting out of Largo Bay, would take her on her port bow, and so set her, if it set her at all, towards the south. In crossing Largo Bay she would have slack water, but by the time she got off Elie Ness the ebb tide would then be with her, and this again would set her on, but to the southward withal of her course, the tide, as the Admiralty chart shows, setting out of Largo Bay. Moreover she would have the wind, which was from the north-east, also upon her port side, setting her again slightly to the southward. We are also told that the vessel was steered, not by a binnacle compass before the wheel, which the helmsman would always have before his eyes, but by a pole compass, up to which he would have to look in order to see whether he was on his right course or not; and it was admitted by the boatswain that it is very difficult for the helmsman to keep a vessel on her course, when he has only a pole compass to guide him. That this too was so on the present occasion is clear from the evidence of the master, the boatswain, and Henderson, who all told us that the vessel had occasionally run off to leeward. The master said that he observed it twice, the boatswain that he had observed it once, and Henderson told us that, whilst he was steering, she went off to leeward three times. Furthermore she had twice ported her helm, once to pass the vessel at anchor, and again when she saw the two boats on her starboard bow, and ported to pass between them. Now it must not be forgotten, that a very slight deviation from the proper course to the southward and leeward would be quite sufficient to set her on the Isle of May, the distance between the island and the mainland being only four miles, and from midchannel to May Island only two miles. A deviation then of only half a point to leeward, in a run of 20 miles, would be sufficient to take her on the Island. I think, therefore, that we have here a reasonahle explanation of how this vessel came to get on May Island:-first, there is the flood tide acting on her port side after leaving Inch Keith Island; then we have the ebb tide still upon her port side, after she had passed Elie Ness Point; thirdly, there is the wind on her port side; fourthly, there is the bad steering of Henderson, caused in part probably by his having to steer from a pole compass and not from a binnacle compass; and, lastly, there is the twice porting, once to avoid the vessel at anchor, and again to pass between the two boats. These circumstances are, in our opinion, quite sufficient to account for the vessel getting to the south of her course; and the fact that the master made no allowance for the tide, which would be with him after passing Elie Ness Point, and perhaps some mistake as to the speed of the vessel, would explain why, when he thought himself to be still some two miles short of the island, he had in fact run the full distance.

Now Mr. Prosser has stated that the master's conduct must be regarded with reference to the three following heads:-first, whether the courses steered were proper ones; secondly, whether he improperly neglected to use the lead; and, thirdly, whether the speed of the vessel was, under the circumstances, justifiable? This appears to me to be a very convenient way of looking at the case, and I therefore, propose to inquire whether the master has been to blame in any of these respects.

And first, as to the courses steered. I quite concur with Mr. Prosser in thinking that the courses on which the master laid the vessel were very proper courses, provided that he had been able to make them good, for in that case they would have led him down midchannel halfway between the Isle of May and the mainland, gradually working round on his course to the north. The only fault was that he made no allowance for the action which the tide and wind would have upon his vessel, and failed to detect as quickly as he should have done Henderson's bad steering. But, apart from these considerations, the courses were proper courses. Again, as to the lead; it seems to have been kept in the boatswain's locker, a very proper place when it is not being used, but when it is required for use it ought to be on deck, and we are told that it was brought up for that purpose at about a quarter after two. Now I should be sorry that anything that the Court might say should deter masters from using the lead whenever they were in doubt as to the true position of their vessels, and the lead would be likely to show it to them; at the same time it appears to us that on the present occasion the lead would have given him very little information that would have been of any use to him. On the course on which he must have been, he would, had he taken a cast of the lead, have found 16 fathoms of water within half a mile of where he struck, and at a distance of three quarters of a mile he would have been on the 20 fathoms contour of soundings; further out he would have had 23 and 25 fathoms. On the other hand, if he had been upon his proper course, midway between May Island and the main, he would have got 25 fathoms, further on 20, then 19, and then 17 fathoms. So that the depth of the water would have been no certain indication to him of the position of his vessel. We cannot, therefore, say that this casualty was in any way due to the neglect of the master to take a cast of the lead. No doubt, if he had taken a cast of the lead shortly before the vessel struck, it would have shown him that he was out of his course, and that he was in a dangerous position; but he must have been very close then, for on the west side of May Island the water is deep to; and as I have already said, at the distance of half a mile or a little more he would have found from 16 to 20 fathoms, and might then naturally have thought that he was on his proper course. We cannot, therefore, say that the neglect to take a cast of the lead was a cause of the casualty. Lastly, then, was the master justified under the circumstances in continuing to go at the speed at which he was? It seems that on leaving Leith the vessel was put at full speed, which we are told was 8 knots an hour; and if that speed was not kept up to the last, it was not the fault of the master, for he kept her going as fast as she could; owing, however, to the badness of the coal, the steam could not be kept up to its full pressure, so that after 2 a.m. the speed fell down to about, I think, 7 1/2 knots; still she was going on as fast as she could. Now this master tells us that at 2.50 the patent log showed that they had run 18 knots from Inch Keith; he knew that the distance between Inch Keith and May Island was only 21 miles; he knew, therefore, that he must be within two or three miles of May Island, and that he should have seen the light, which in clear weather is visible at the distance of 21 miles. And yet he goes steaming ahead full speed until he is so close to the island that he is not able to clear it. Before striking he passes a vessel at anchor, after that two boats, which might have warned him that he was probably out of the fair way. If he had then, not seeing the light of May Island, and seeing this vessel at anchor, put the engines down to half speed, he would, when he saw the loom of the land ahead, have had his vessel more under command, and might have had time to stop her before she struck. Mr. Prosser has contended that the master has been guilty of a mere error of judgment; but I cannot think so; I think that he has shown a want of caution, a degree of foolhardiness and negligence, for which we are bound to punish him. At the same time I do it with considerable regret, for he gave his evidence in a very straightforward way, and I see from his certificate that he has passed for the commercial code of signals, showing a desire on his part to improve himself, and to raise himself in his profession. Indeed, his advocate, Mr. Prosser, who has conducted the case most ably, and in a very proper way, was compelled in effect to admit that there had been a certain want of caution on the master's part. On the whole then, and under all the circumstances of the case, we shall only suspend his certificate for three months, which is as lenient a punishment as we can well inflict, and we shall at the same time recommend to the Board of Trade that he have a first mate's certificate during the period of its suspension. We shall also not accompany our decision with a condemnation in costs.

H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

ELPHINSTON APLIN, Rear Admiral, Assessor.

C. Y. WARD, Assessor.

L 367. 29. 70.-5/79 Wt. B 47. E. & S.