Wreck Report for 'Abrasia', 1879

(No 280.)

"ABRASIA."

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at the Justice of the Peace Court Hall, Glasgow, on the 17th May 1879, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esq., Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captain PICKARD, R.N., and Captain WARD, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the abandonment of the British sailing ship "ABRASIA," of Liverpool, on the 20th ultimo, whilst on a voyage from Glasgow to Cape Breton.

Report of Court.

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

1. That when the "Abrasia" left the Clyde on the voyage in question she was in good condition and well found.

2. That although the cargo was heavy it was not too heavy, and that it was well and properly stowed.

3. That the vessel had a sufficient freeboard.

4. That there is no evidence to show that the vessel did not make as much water on the 20th of April as is stated by Captain McTavish.

5. That the master took all such measures as were in his power to ascertain the cause of the leak, but that he had no means whatever of stopping it.

6. That the master, by going down into the lazarette, ascertained quite as well as if the pump well had been sounded what water there was in the hold.

7. That the vessel was not prematurely abandoned, and that the abandonment was justifiable.

8. That the master was not in any way in default.

The Court accordingly orders his certificate to be returned to Captain Archibald McTavish, but makes no order as to costs.

Dated the 17th day of May 1879.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

BENJN. S. PICKARD, R.N.,

Assessors.

 

"

C. Y. WARD,

 

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS taken before HENRY CADOGAN ROTHERY, Esq., Wreck Commissioner, with Captain PICKARD, R.N., and Captain WARD, Assessors, at the Justice of Peace Court Hall, Glasgow, Saturday 17th May 1879, upon an inquiry into the abandonment of the "ABRASIA."

Mr. Douglas appeared for the Board of Trade.

Mr. Fyfe appeared for the master and owner.

Mr. Douglas having opened the case on behalf of the Board of Trade, and called evidence, asked the opinion of the Court on the following questions:-

" 1. Whether at the time the 'Abrasia' left the Clyde " on her voyage she was in good condition and well " found?

" 2. Whether she carried too heavy a cargo, and whetber " the cargo was properly stowed?

" 3. Whether, having regard to the nature of the voyage, " the vessel had sufficient freeboard?

" 4. Whether the vessel made as much water on the " 20th April as was stated by the master?

" 5. Whether the master took, or caused to be taken, " any proper measures to ascertain the cause of and to stop " the leak?

" 6. Whether the pump well was regularly sounded, and " if so, whether there is any record of those soundings?

" 7. Whether, in the circumstances, the vessel was " prematurely abandoned, and whether the abandonment " was justifiable?

" 8. Whether the master was in default?"

He also asked that the certificate of the master, Mr. Archibald McTavish, should be dealt with.

Mr. Fyfe was heard to address the Court on behalf of the master.

Mr. Douglas left the matter to the discretion of the Court.

Judgment.

The Commissioner.-This is an inquiry into the abandonment of the British sailing ship "Abrasia," of Liverpool, on the 20th April last, in about latitude 55° 18' north and longitude 13° 32' west. The circumstances of the case are extremely simple. The "Abrasia" was a sailing vessel of 193 tons gross and 179 tons net register, after deducting for crew space. She was built at Murray Harbour, Prince Edward Island, in the year 1875, and at the time of her abandonment was the property of Mr. Archibald McTavish, of Havelock Terrace, Kirn by Greenock, who was also her master. She left Glasgow on the 9th of April last bound for Sydney, Cape Breton, with a crew of seven hands all told, and a cargo of between 280 and 290 tons, made up of about 100 tons of bricks, 70 tons of pig iron, 20 tons of iron bars, 18 tons of iron machinery, and the rest casks of tar oil and other goods. Her draught on leaving Glasgow was stated by the master to be 10 feet 6 or 10 feet 8 forward and about 11 feet 3 aft. According to the official log-book she drew 10 feet 8 forward and 11 feet 6 aft. She proceeded down the river in charge of a pilot, and brought up at the powder buoy off Greenock, where she took in about 20 tons of gunpowder, for which a space had been left amidships. There she remained for about a week, the master having to arrange some matters connected with the inward freight, but on the morning of Wednesday the 16th she set sail and proceeded on her voyage. Until midnight of the 18th, at which time she was about 40 miles N.W. of Tory Island, the weather appears to have been favourable, but the wind then came on to blow from the S.E. and the ship began to labour, and to ship a considerable quantity of water. At about 1 a.m. the sea broke over her, and stove in the cabin skylight. The weather continued to be very bad with a heavy cross sea during the whole of the day, and until midnight of the 19th, when it fell suddenly calm, and remained so until about 5 a.m., there was however a heavy cross sea which caused the ship to labour a good deal. At about 8 a.m. of the morning of the 20th the wind had begun to freshen again, the sea being still very heavy, and setting in both from the S.W. and from the S.E. It seems to have been the practice on board this vessel to try the pumps every watch, and up to this time they had had no difficulty in keeping her free, the vessel making very little water; but at about 9 a.m. it was found that the pumps could not be made to suck, and accordingly all hands were called up and were set to work at the pumps, the master taking the helm. At 10, finding that they could not free her, the master went down into the lazarette, and, as he told us, found three feet and a half of water in her. He accordingly came up again and returned to the helm, the pumping still continuing. At about 11 a.m. I think it was he went down a second time, this time accompanied by the mate, and in about half an hour afterwards he went down a third time, and either on the second or on the third occasion he observed that the water had gained some 6 to 8 inches against the pumps. Thinking that there was no hope of saving the vessel, he then directed a signal of distress to be hoisted, so as to attract the attention of a vessel which was seen in the distance beating to windward. Upon which the vessel, which proved to be the "Annie," of Glasgow, bore down towards them, and was hailed by Captain McTavish and asked to stand by them. Not being able to make out the answer, the longboat was sent, manned by the mate, two able seamen, and the steward, to speak the "Annie." Of these four persons the only one who has been produced before us is the steward, and he was not able to tell us what had passed between the mate of the "Abrasia" and the master of the "Annie," but according to the master of the "Abrasia" the message brought back by the mate was that the "Annie" would take them on board, but that she would not stay for them, and accordingly preparations were at once made for abandoning the vessel. It seems that whilst the captain and mate were in the cabin collecting their effects the crew who were in the boat had become extremely impatient to be off, finding themselves in a position of considerable danger from the boat striking against the side of the vessel, and they told the master that unless he came away at once they should be obliged to cast off. Upon that the master and mate left, got into the boat and were taken on board the "Annie." It was now about mid-day, and at this time the "Abrasia" was upright, and without any list to either side, but we are told that she was somewhat down by the stern. The "Annie," which was inward bound and was beating to windward, then stood off on the port tack and on going about on the other tack the "Abrasia" was still seen, but at about 3 p.m. the same day they lost sight of her, and she appears not to have been seen or heard of since then. The "Annie" arrived at Greenock on the 29th of April, and having there landed Captain McTavish proceeded on to Glasgow, where she arrived on the following day. Such being the facts of the case, Mr. Douglas on behalf of the Board of Trade has submitted a number of questions, upon which he has asked for the opinion of the Court, and I propose to deal with them in the order in which they have been laid before us.

The first question upon which our opinion is asked is, whether at the time the "Abrasia" left the Clyde she was in good condition and well found? It seems from the evidence of the master, Captain McTavish, that he purchased her in the year 1876, the vessel having been built in 1875, for the sum of 1,350l. or 1,450l.; that in the same year he spent about 300l. upon her; in the following year 225l.; and that in April 1878 he spent no less than 665l. upon her. He told us also that when she left the Clyde this last time she had two excellent boats and two pumps with pipes, I think, of 9 inches, sufficient to throw a considerable quantity of water. This evidence was confirmed by all the witnesses who have been examined before us. First there was Mr. McCallum, the stevedore, who told us that before stowing the cargo he went into the hold and saw that the vessel was perfectly clean inside, perfectly sound, and had no appearance of leaking. Cumming, the pilot, also told us that he took her down the river, and that she was perfectly well found, and in perfectly good condition; he said that having charge of the vessel, the master not being on board, he had tried the pumps, and found them to be in perfect working order; the boats also he said were good boats. In fact there is not a particle of evidence to show that she was not in every respect in good order and condition.

The next question on which our opinion is asked is, whether she carried too heavy a cargo and whether the cargo was properly stowed? Now seeing that this vessel had a cargo of 307 tons, with a gross tonnage of 193 tons, or more than 150 per cent. of her gross tonnage, she was undoubtedly heavily laden; the cargo, too, consisted of heavy dead weight goods. At the same time we are not prepared to say that it was too heavy a cargo for her to carry; the more so as we are told that she had carried on previous occasions as much as 345 tons of china stone. As to the stowing of the cargo there is not a particle of evidence to show that it was not well stowed. The stevedore has been produced before us, and gave his evidence in a very straightforward manner. He told us that in the bottom of the vessel were stowed 70 tons of pig iron, chequered so as to prevent their shifting, and rising about 10 bars high; above these were laid some iron bars fore and aft to make a floor; on the top of these were planks, and above these were placed bricks, a space being left in the centre for the gunpowder. I am not prepared to say that the arrangements in regard to the gunpowder were all that the Court could have desired; but it is clear that the gunpowder had nothing to do with the casualty, and as to the rest of the cargo there is not a particle of evidence to show that it shifted or that it was not perfectly well stowed.

The third question is, whether, having regard to the nature of the voyage, the vessel had sufficient freeboard? We are told by the master that on leaving Kingston Dock the water was about 6 inches below the lowest part of the disc of the Plimsoll mark, and in this he was confirmed by Cumming, the pilot. On the other hand, Campbell, one of the crew, a young man, who seemed not to have had a very friendly feeling towards the master, told us that the water on leaving Glasgow stood, not 6 inches below the disc, but 6 inches below the horizontal load line running through the centre of the disc. At the same time he admitted that he had not taken any very particular notice of it, and under these circumstances it is impossible that we can accept his evidence in preference to that of the pilot and the master. Now it appears from the official log-book that the load line was on this voyage just 2 feet below the upper surface of the deck; we are told also that the radius of the disc was 6 inches; if then the water was 6 inches below the disc this would give us a freeboard of 3 feet, which is what the captain told us she had. It must, however, be remembered that after leaving Glasgow she took in about 20 tons of gunpowder, which we are told would sink her down about 6 inches, on the other hand she would rise 3 inches by passing from fresh into salt water; so that in this way she would, when she put to sea, have had a freeboard of about 2 feet 9 inches. It seems, however, from the copy register which has been brought in that the depth of her hold was 11 feet and a half, so that she had very nearly 3 inches of freeboard for every foot of depth of the hold, and as we understand that the practice in this port is to allow 2 1/2 inches for every foot of hold, she would according to that have had a sufficient freeboard; and the assessors are of opinion that she had a sufficient freeboard.

The fourth question upon which our opinion is asked is, whether the vessel made as much water on the 20th April as was stated by the master? Upon this we have only the evidence of the master; there is not a word to show that he was not speaking the truth, and we can, therefore, come to no other conclusion than that the vessel did make as much water on the 20th of April as is stated by him. If indeed it was sought to show that the vessel was not making as much water as was stated it should have been proved by the evidence of the mate and some of the crew of the "Abrasia," or, at all events, by some of the officers from the "Annie," who might have told us whether the vessel, when she was abandoned, appeared to be deep in the water. But nothing of the kind was attempted; the only witnesses produced on this point were the master of the "Abrasia," Campbell, the steward, who did not know what water was in her, but said that she was a good deal down by the stern, and that he was very anxious to get out of her, and a boy, who could give us no information at all on the subject. We must, therefore, accept the master's statement on this point, and have indeed no reason whatever to think that it is not quite true.

The fifth question on which our opinion is asked is, " whether the master took, or caused to be taken, any or " proper measures to ascertain the cause of and to stop the " leak?" Now, seeing that the hold was full of heavy cargo, consisting of pigs and bars of iron, machinery, and bricks, with the exception of a space some 6 feet long quite in the after part of the vessel, it was, in our opinion, quite impossible that the master could have done anything to ascertain the cause of or to stop the leak beyond what he did. He went down into the lazarette and endeavoured to ascertain what water there was in the hold, and where it was coming in. To have opened the hatches, as was suggested, for the purpose of throwing overboard some of the cargo, would, in our opinion, have been an act of the greatest rashness, for with the sea breaking over her it is clear that the water would have got down into the hold and sunk the vessel much sooner than she was. We can, therefore, see nothing at all for which to find fault with the master under this head.

The next question is, "whether the pump well was " regularly sounded, and if so, was any record kept of " those soundings?" Now the mode which the master took to ascertain what water there was in the hold was to go down into the lazarette. She seems, so far as appears, to have had no sounding rod or sounding pipe on board, but what he did was to go down into the lazarette three times to see what water there was and whether it was increasing; and I do not know that he would have had any better information on the subject if he had had a sounding pipe in the vessel or if he had drawn the pump boxes.

The seventh question is, whether the vessel was prematurely abandoned, or whether the abandonment was justifiable? Now considering that, according to the evidence, there was, when the signal of distress was hoisted, above 4 feet of water in the hold, that the hold had a depth of only 11 1/2 feet, and that in one hour the water had gained some 6 to 8 inches against the pumps, it seems to us impossible to say that this vessel was either prematurely abandoned or that the abandonment was not perfectly justifiable. As I have already said, if it was intended to establish this charge against the master, the mate and some of the crew of the "Abrasia," or some of the officers of the "Annie" should have been produced to speak to the state and appearance of the vessel when she was abandoned. The evidence of Campbell, the steward, was, so far as it went, confirmatory of the master's statement that the vessel was in a sinking state; the only other witness from the "Abrasia" could give us no information whatever on the subject. No reason whatever was given why the mate and some of the others of the crew had not been detained for the purpose of giving their evidence. The master told us that he took the mate to the offices of the Receiver of Wreck, and that he was there told by a Mr. Sharp, the gentleman who it seems takes the depositions for the Receiver, that the mate would not be wanted, and he accordingly left in a ship about a week afterwards. That statement was made by the master, and Mr. Sharp, I am told, has since been in Court and might have been called to contradict it if it was not true; but he has not been, and I must therefore assume that it is true. No explanation is given why, if this charge was to be preferred against the master, some of the crew of the "Annie" were not produced to speak to the appearance of the vessel when she was abandoned, and the prospect, if any, of saving her. In our opinion there is not a particle of evidence to show that she was either prematurely abandoned, or that the abandonment was not perfectly justifiable.

It should also not be forgotten that Captain McTavish, besides being the master, was also the owner of this vessel, and that he had therefore a direct interest in doing everything in his power to save her, unless indeed he had hoped to gain by the insurance. But how stand the facts on this point? It appears from his evidence, and there is no contradiction to it, that the vessel was last year insured for 1,500l., but that this year the insurance has been reduced 500l., and that at the time of her loss she was insured for only 1,000l. Now if the master had had any intention to lose her, I think it is pretty clear that instead of reducing his insurance from 1,500l. to 1,000l. he would have increased it from 1,500l. to 2,000l. Probably 1,000l. was a full value for a vessel of 193 tons gross, built in Prince Edward Island in 1875; but it is not an excessive amount, and there is nothing at all to show that the master ever had any intention of throwing his vessel away. The freight, we are told, was uninsured, but a large portion of it, 125l. out of 193l., had been advanced, leaving a balance of about 70l. to be received by him at the port of destination, but out of which he would have had to pay the seamen's wages and port dues. There is, however, nothing whatever in this to show that it was to the master's interest to lose his vessel.

We cannot see then that the master was in any respect to blame, which is the eighth question on which our opinion is asked. And we shall consequently return him his certificate without the least hesitation.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

BENJN. S. PICKARD, R.N.,

Assessors.

 

"

C. Y. WARD,

 

(No. 432.)

L 367. 51 70.-5/79. Wt. 47. E. & S.