Wreck Report for 'Bessie' and 'Jane', 1879

(No. 353.)

"BESSIE" and "JANE."

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at the Sessions Court, Guildhall, Plymouth, on the 19th August 1879, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Rear-Admiral APLIN, R.N., and Captain BEASLEY, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the loss of the fishing vessel "JANE," of Plymouth, and the loss of the life of her master, through collision with the schooner "BESSIE," of Plymouth, near the Eddystone Lighthouse, on the morning of the 11th ultimo.

Report of Court.

The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the above-mentioned shipping casualty, found, for the reasons stated in the annex hereto,-

1. That the collision and the loss of life consequent thereon was caused partly by the insufficiency of the light exhibited by the "Jane," partly by the want of a good look-out both on the "Jane" and on the "Bessie."

2. That the light exhibited by the "Jane" was not such a light as is required by Article 9 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea.

3. That a good and proper look-out was not being kept on board the "Jane."

4. That the lights exhibited by the "Bessie" were such as are required by the said Regulations, and were burning brightly at the time of the collision.

5. That a good and proper look-out was not being kept on board the "Bessie."

6. That, having regard to the wind and the weather at the time, the master of the "Bessie" was not justified in not lowering a boat, and that every possible effort was not made to save the life of the master of the "Jane."

7. That the masters of the "Jane" and "Bessie" were both to blame for the collision; and the master of the "Bessie" for not having made every endeavour after the collision to save the life of the master of the "Jane."

Dated 23rd day of August 1879.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

ELPHINSTONE APLIN,

 

 

 

Rear-Admiral, R.N.

Assessors.

 

"

THOS. BEASLEY,

 

Annex to Report.

This case was heard on the 19th instant, when Mr. Wolferstan appeared for the Board of Trade, Mr. Brian for the owner and for the widow of the master of the "Jane," and Mr. Shelley for the master and owner of the "Bessie." Four witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. Wolferstan asked the opinion of the Court upon the following questions :-

" 1. What was the cause of the collision and of the loss " of life which thereby ensued?

" 2. Whether the lantern exhibited by the 'Jane' was " such a bright white light as is required by Article 9 of " the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea?

" 3. Whether it was exhibited as required by the said " Regulation? and whether a proper look-out was kept on " board the 'Jane'?

" 4. Whether the 'Bessie' carried the lights required " by the said Regulations? and whether they were kept " brightly burning on the night from the 10th to the 11th " of July last?

" 5. Whether a good look-out was being kept on board " the 'Bessie' on the last-mentioned night?

" 6. Whether, having regard to the wind and sea on " such a night, the master of the 'Bessie' was justified in " not putting out his boat? and whether every possible " effort was made to save the life of the master of the " 'Jane'?

" 7. Whether proper measures were taken to avoid a " collision?

" 8. Whether both vessels were navigated with proper " and seamanlike care?

" 9. Whether the master of the 'Bessie,' or any other " person, is in default

The owner was then called by Mr. Brian to describe the nature of the lantern carried on board the "Jane," and Mr. Shelley and Mr. Brian having been heard for their respective parties, Mr. Wolferstan stated that he was specially desired by the Board of Trade to ask the Court to express an opinion as to whether the light on board the "Jane" was a sufficient light in accordance with the provisians of Article 9 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea.

This was an inquiry to ascertain the circumstances attending a collision between the dandy-rigged hooker "Jane" and the schooner "Bessie," both belonging to the Port of Plymouth.

The "Jane" was a small fishing boat of from 8 to 10 tons, and was the property of Mr. Charles Cload of that place. She left Plymouth at 7 a.m. on the 10th of July last for the purpose of fishing, manned with a crew of three hands including the master, James Mew. After trying two or three places she, at about six the same evening, came to anchor between six and seven miles to the eastward of the Eddystone Lighthouse and commenced fishing. From 6 to 8 p.m. all the three men fished, but at eight James Mew went into the cabin to rest. At 10 o'clock the master returned on deck and told the two men, Gandin and Hooper, to go and get some rest. Before leaving, however, Gandin by the master's directions lighted the anchor light and set it in its usual place. After they had been in the cabin about three hours, the two men were awakened by hearing the master call out to them to come on deck immediately. They at once rushed on deck, and as they did so they saw the jibboom of a vessel over the boat. They sprang at her bows, Gandin got hold of the anchor, whilst Hooper seized some part of the jibboom gear, and at the same instant the vessel, which proved to be the "Bessie," struck the "Jane" amidships, cutting her in two, and she sank from under them. After hanging for some time, according to their own account for three or four minutes, they were discovered by the master and crew of the "Bessie," and with their assistance were hauled up on deck, but the master unfortunately perished. After remaining in the neighbourhood for about a quarter of an hour or 20 minutes in the hopes of picking up the master, but in vain, they proceeded to Plymouth, and there landed the two survivors from the "Jane." Such is the story which has been told to us by these two men.

The story told by the "Bessie" is as follows :-She is a schooner of 144 tons net register, built at Fowey in the year 1863, and at the time of the accident was the property of Mr. David W. Bain and others, Mr. Bain being the managing owner. She left Middlesborough for Britton Ferry, in South Wales, on the 17th June last, with a crew of seven hands all told, and having a cargo of about 265 tons of pig iron on board. Meeting with adverse winds she was compelled to put into Torbay; and after staying there for four days she left at about 8 a.m. on the morning of the 10th July last, the wind at the time blowing a strong breeze from the westward. After rounding Start Point she proceeded to beat down Channel, and when near the New Stone to the eastward of the entrance to Plymouth Harbour she was upon the starboard tack heading S.W., the wind blowing a strong breeze from W. by N., the vessel being under all plain sail and making from 3 1/2 to 4 knots an hour. From midnight the watch consisted of the master, who had been on deck all night, and two seamen, named Samuel Jones and Thomas Ellis; Samuel Jones was at the helm, Thomas Ellis was on the port bow on the look-out forward, and the master was walking the deck from amidships to forward on the starboard side. At about 1 o'clock, when some six or seven miles to the eastward of the Eddystone, a crash was suddenly heard, and on the master going forward he found the jibboom broken, and two men hanging to the bows. Having backed the sails and got the men on to deck, on learning that one of the crew of the "Jane" was still missing, some discussion took place as to whether the boat should be lowered, but in the end it was deemed imprudent to do so. After remaining, according to the master, for about an hour on the spot, the vessel proceeded to Plymouth, where the two survivors from the "Jane" were landed.

These then being the facts of the case, the first question, on which the opinion of the Court has been asked is, what was the cause of the collision and of the loss of life which ensued therefrom? but in order that we may return a satisfactory answer to this question it will be necessary to ascertain what were the lights which these vessels carried, and what was the nature of the look-out kept on board each.

Now the light on board the "Jane" was, we are told, the same as is usually carried by all fishing boats. It consisted of a composite candle set in a square lantern with glass sides. The lantern was placed in a kind of cage on the top of an iron stanchion, which was held in an upright position by two sockets fixed in the port side of the boat about midships. The lantern when in position stood about 3 feet about the rail. A lantern with its iron cage and stanchion, similar we are told in all respects to that which was on board the "Jane," save that the lantern on board the "Jane" had a perforated funnel at the top, which enabled the light to burn more steadily, was brought into Court. Now on examining the lantern with its accompanying fittings, what struck us at once was that owing to its form a great deal of the light from the candle inside must have been obstructed. Thus the glasses, which formed the sides of the lantern, were set in an iron framework, having a broad iron band at each angle; in addition to this the top of the cage, in which the lantern was placed, consisted of another large broad band, which encircled the lantern horizontally about the middle; there were also other broad bands forming the supports of the cage which passed vertically down the centre of each face of the lantern. All these broad iron bands would certainly tend to obstruct a good deal of the light whatever may have been the amount of its illuminating power, and would prevent it from showing "a clear uniform and unbroken light all round the horizon," which is what an anchor light is required to do. As to the light itself we were told by Gandin that when he lighted it at 10 o'clock it consisted of about three parts of a composite candle, and that it would burn for four or five hours. If so, there is every reason to suppose that at 1 o'clock, when the collision occurred, it would still be alight; but whether such a candle would be likely to give a sufficient light is a question, which may be more conveniently considered when we see what is the character of the light, which the Regulations require fishing boats to carry. Its position, too, must not be forgotten, which, as I have stated, was amidships, on the port side, and standing about 3 feet above the rail; so that to a vessel approaching her from the starboard side, apart from the broad iron bands, of which I have spoken, there would be very considerable risk that the light might be obscured by the mainmast.

And now let me endeavour to answer the question upon which our opinion has been specially asked by the Board of Trade, namely, whether a light such as I have described is or is not such as is required by Article 9 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea. The words of the Article, so far as they bear upon the present case, are as follow: "Fishing vessels and open boats, when at anchor, " or attached to their nets and stationary, shall exhibit a " bright white light." Now what is a "bright white light" within the meaning of this Article, and at what distance is it required to be seen? There is no definition of it in this Article, and the only other places in the Regulations where they speak of a "bright white light" is in Article 3 (a) and in Article 4, where the lights which steamships when under weigh are required to carry at their mastheads are defined. Now in Article 3 (a) it is said that this "bright white light "is to be" of such a character as to be visible " on a dark night with a clear atmosphere at a distance of " at least fire miles." Where, however, the Regulations speak of the lights to be carried by "ships, whether steam " ships or sailing ships, when at anchor in roadsteads or " fairways," it is said in Article 7 that they are to exhibit a "white light," not a "bright white light," and that it shall be placed "in a globular lantern of 8 inches in " diameter and so constructed as to show a clear uniform " and unbroken light all round the horizon, and at a " distance of at least one mile." If now we are to apply the strictest principles of construction, seeing that the expression "bright white light," and not merely "white light," has been used in the 9th Article, we ought perhaps to hold that fishing boats are bound "when at anchor or attached to their nets and stationary "to exhibit a light, which would "be visible on a dark night with a clear atmosphere at a distance of at least five miles;" but that would be imposing upon them a greater burden than is required of steam and sailing ships at anchor. On the other hand, if we are to take the definition of a "white light" given in Article 7 as explaining what is meant by the "bright white light" mentioned in Article 9, then not only must it be visible "at a distance of at least one mile," but must be "so constructed as to show a clear uniform and unbroken light visible all round the horizon," which the "Jane's" light certainly did not do. In default then of any definition of what the light is to be which fishing boats are to carry, except that they are to be "bright white lights," let us see whether the light exhibited by the "Jane" on the occasion, assuming it to have been alight, was a sufficient light; and the assessors are of opinion that it was not. They think that a fishing boat being a very small object, and not so readily seen as a larger vessel ought to have at least as good a light as that required by the 7th Article for ships at anchor; and they are of opinion that the lantern exhibited by the "Jane" with its broad bands of iron obstructing the light, and its composite candle, did not constitute a sufficient light for her. They think that it is very doubtful whether under the best conditions it could have been seen at the distance of a mile, and that it certainly would not show a "clear uniform and unbroken light visible all round the horizon."

As to the "Bessie," there seems to he no doubt that she had the proper Regulation lights exhibited, and that they were burning brightly on the night between the 10th and the 11th of July.

The next question is as to the look-outs, and first, as to the look-out on board the "Jane." Now it seems to be quite clear that no warning was given by the master to the two men who were in the cabin until almost immediately before the "Bessie" was upon them. They were lying down in the cabin with their clothes on, and they told us that the instant the master called them they jumped up and rushed on deck, and that then the "Bessie's" jibboom was over them. Now if the "Bessie's" lights were as good as they are admitted to have been it certainly does seem very extraordinary that she should not have been seen by the master until she was close upon them. It was proved that he was a very steady man and a teetotaller, and there is not the least reason to believe that he was, as has been suggested, in the cabin with the other men, and asleep at the time; it did, however, come out in the course of the inquiry that the vessel had had four fishing lines out at the time, and that it would be the duty of the master to attend to them all. Is it possible that at the time when the "Bessie" was approaching her the master of the "Jane" was so engaged with these lines that he did not see the "Bessie" until she was close upon him? This seems to be the only reasonable explanation why the "Bessie" was allowed to approach so close to the "Jane" before any warning was given by the master to the two men who were asleep in the cabin.

And now let us see whether there was a good look-out on board the "Bessie." It is possible, as I have said, both from the construction of the lantern and from its position on board the "Jane," that her light may not have been visible to those on Board the "Bessie," approaching as they were the "Jane" on her starboard side; but even then ought she not to have seen the "Jane" before she ran over her, for it is admitted that the "Jane" was not seen by them at all, and that the only knowledge they had that they had run over her was from finding their jibboom broken. Admitting that it was a dark night, although as to this the witnesses are not quite agreed, still we have it on the evidence of Samuel Jones, the man at the "Bessie's" helm, that he could distinctly see from where he was at the stern of the vessel the look-out man, Thomas Ellis, on the port bow, that is to say, at something like 100 feet off; but if Jones could see Ellis at 100 feet off, surely Ellis, if he had been keeping a good look-out, should have seen the "Jane" at the same or even a greater distance, or at any rate he should have seen her before they ran into her. It was said by Mr. Brian that Thomas Ellis, the look-out man, had been so affected by the accident that after leaving Plymouth, and when off the Lizard, he had made away with himself, at all events he had not been seen again. But however this may be, we think it quite clear that there could not have been a good look-out kept on board the "Bessie" at the time, or the "Jane" would certainly have been seen before she was run down.

The result then would seem to be, although it is not for this Court to determine the civil liabilities between the parties, that in our opinion the collision was due partly to the insufficiency of the light exhibited by the "Jane," and partly to the bad look-out kept on board both the vessels.

But whatever may be the question as to the liability of the parties for the consequences of the collision, there can, in our opinion, be no doubt whatever as to the conduct of the master of the "Bessie" in not lowering his boat after the accident, for the purpose of saving, if possible, the life of the master of the "Jane," Captain Rogers has given us two reasons why he did not lower the boat; he said that he considered that it would not be prudent to do so, owing first to the darkness of the night, and secondly to the state of the sea. Now Captain Rogers admitted that as there was no fog and no haze on the water his white anchor light could have been seen on that night at a distance of from four to five miles. We are at a loss, therefore, to see what danger there could have been in lowering the boat owing to the darkness of the night, for if the men in the boat could have seen the ship, or rather a white light from the ship, at a distance of from four to five miles, where was the danger? Secondly, as to the state of the sea. Now it must be remembered that the vessel had her topgallant sails set, and that when close-hauled as she was she would be under conditions when the pressure of the wind would have been more felt than under any other circumstances. But says Captain Rogers the sea was worse than the wind, but in the position in which the vessel was, the wind being from W. by N., would to a certain extent be a land wind; so that we have some difficulty in understanding how the sea could have been worse than the wind. We think that both the excuses which Captain Rogers has given for not lowering his boat on the occasion in question are untenable. The only measure which he seems to have taken with a view to save the life of the master of the "Jane" was, according to his own account, to look round the vessel with a latern; he made no other effort whatever. We think that Captain Rogers was greatly to blame for not having done everything in his power to save the life of this unfortunate man, and more especially for not lowering his boat as he might easily have done; and which was the more necessary, seeing that during all the time the vessel was lying to she was drifting away from the place where the boat had gone down. The blame for the collision in our opinion rests partly with the master of the "Jane," partly with the master of the "Bessie," but the blame for not lowering the boat rests entirely with the master of the "Bessie."

No application for, and therefore no order was made in respect to the costs.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

ALPHINSTONE APLIN,

 

 

 

Rear-Admiral, R.N.

Assessors.

 

"

THOS. BEASLEY,

 

L 367. 123. 70.-8/79. Wt. 47. E, & S.