Wreck Report for 'Erato', 1880

(No. 479.)

"ERATO."

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at Westminster, on the 14th of January, 1880, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captain HARRIS and Captain RONALDSON, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the material damage caused to the sailing ship "ERATO," of London, through striking on a rock near Carnsore Point, county Wexford, on the 27th of September 1879.

Report of Court.

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

(1.) That the striking of the vessel on the Barrel Rock, near Carnsore Point, was due to her having been laid on too northerly a course from about 9 p.m., having regard to the fact that the ebb tide was all the time sweeping her to the westward.

(2.) That, assuming the position of the vessel to have been correctly ascertained at noon of the 27th, the courses steered from that hour to 9. p.m. were not proper, as they put her too far to the westward; and that from 9. p.m. the course steered was too northerly to clear the Tuskar.

(3.) That, having regard to the state of the weather and the increasing fog, the lead ought to have been used for some considerable time before the vessel struck; and that the neglect to use the lead did contribute to the casualty.

(4.) That the master was not justified in giving up the sole charge of the vessel to James Andrews, he having taken no sufficient steps to ascertain that the man was properly qualified for the duty.

(5.) That the master was not justified in leaving the deck and turning in as and when he did, seeing that the vessel was approaching dangerous waters, that the weather was foggy, and that he was not certain of her exact position.

(6.) That the master was not justified, after he had given the order to take a cast of the lead, in leaving the deck before this had been done, and in omitting to see that it was done.

(7.) That the master was not only not sober before and at the time of the casualty, but that it has been proved to our satisfaction that he had been repeatedly intoxicated during the voyage whilst on board and in charge of the vessel, and that such intoxication did, in our opinion, contribute to the casualty.

(8) That the casualty was caused by the negligence and misconduct of the master, and of the so-called pilot, James Andrews.

The Court accordingly orders the certificate of John Dice, the master of the "Erato," to be cancelled.

The Court makes no order as to costs.

Dated this 14th of January 1880.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

 

 

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

HY. HARRIS,

Assessors.

 

"

A. RONALDSON,

 

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Westminster on the 14th of January instant, when Mr. Potter appeared for the Board of Trade and Mr. Cottingham for the master of the "Erato." Seven witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. Potter stated that the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court upon the following questions, viz:-

" 1. What was the cause of the vessel striking upon the " Barrel Rock?

" 2. Were proper courses made?

" (a.) After the position of the vessel had been ascer- " tained by observation at noon of the 27th.

" (b.) By dead reckoning at 6 p.m. of the 27th.

" (c.) After the steam tug was spoken at 9 p.m.

" 3. Having regard to the state of the weather and the " increasing fog ought not the lead to have been used " some time before the period when the vessel struck, and " did the neglect of this precaution contribute to the " disaster?

" 4. Was the master justified in giving up the navigation " of his ship to an uncertificated Channel pilot?

" 5. Was the captain justified, having regard to all the cir- " cumstances, in leaving the deck and turning in at the " time he did, and did his conduct in this particular " contribute to the disaster?

" 6. After giving orders to have the lead used, was the " captain justified in leaving the deck before this had " been done, and omitting afterwards to take any step to " ascertain that his order had been complied with?

" 7. Was the captain sober or intoxicated shortly before " and at the time of the disaster, and, if intoxicated, did " such intoxication contribute to the disaster?

" 8. Was the disaster caused or contributed to by any " negligence on the part of the captain, and of any other " person?"

He also stated that "the Board of Trade are of opinion that the certificate of the master should be dealt with."

Mr. Cottingham then addressed the Court on behalf of the master of the "Erato," and Mr. Potter having been heard in reply, the Court proceeded to give judgment upon the questions on which its opinion had been asked. The circumstances of the case are as follow:-

The "Erato" is an iron sailing ship belonging to the Port of London, of 1,205 tons net register. She was built at Ramsay, in the Isle of Man, in the year 1864, and at the time of the casualty was the property of Mr. George Lidgett, of No. 6, Billiter Square, in the city of London, and two other gentlemen, Mr. Lidgett being the managing owner. Some time in 1878 she left Plymouth with emigrants bound to Sydney, in Australia, and having there landed her passengers she proceeded to Java, and thence to Samarang, where she took in a cargo consisting of rum and sugar, with which she left for this country bound to Falmouth for orders. She arrived in due course at Falmouth, and after staying there for about a week she received orders to proceed to Greenock, there to discharge her cargo. She accordingly left Falmouth on the 25th of September last, having on board a crew of 24 hands all told, besides a person named Andrews, whom the master had engaged to pilot the vessel through the St. George's Channel. At 2 a.m. of the 27th they sighted the Long-ships, and at noon an observation was taken, which placed the vessel in latitude 51° 3' north and longitude 6° 4' west; whence a course was steered to make the Tuskar. From 6 p.m. we are told they steered a N.N.E. course, making 5 knots, having all plain sail set, the wind blowing a moderate breeze from the south-west. At 8 p.m. the chief officer went below and the second officer came on deck, Andrews, the so-called pilot, and the master being likewise on deck. At about a quarter to 9, at which time it was more or less misty or hazy, a Liverpool tug boat was spoken, and in answer to their inquiry informed them that they believed Tuskar Light bore about N.E., but that they had not seen it since the previous day. The course was thereupon altered to N.E. by E., and the master went below, leaving the deck in charge of Andrews and the second officer, and telling them that they were to take a cast of the lead. At about 10 p.m., the weather having become very thick, the crew were sent aloft to shorten sail, and in about half an hour afterwards, and whilst the men were still aloft, the second officer saw something forward of the beam on the port side, and standing some 14 to 15 feet out of the water. He could not at first make out what it was; at length, however, he saw that they were rocks, and on telling the pilot the latter ordered the helm to be put hard down, but finding that they could not get the yards over, the men being aloft, he ordered the helm to be put hard up. Almost immediately afterwards the vessel struck the rock, but cleared it without stopping, and shortly afterwards they passed a buoy which showed them that they must have struck on the Barrel Rock, off Carnsore Point. The vessel appears to have been stove in forward, but being fitted with water-tight compartments, only the fore compartments filled, which brought her down by the head. Having obtained the assistance of a Liverpool tug, she was taken to Holyhead, whence she proceeded to Greenock. where the cargo was discharged, and the vessel was subsequently repaired. No lives were lost.

Such, briefly, are the facts of the case, and the first question upon which the opinion of the Court has been asked is, "What was the cause of the vessel striking on the Barrel Rock?" The master told us that from the observation taken at noon and the courses steered after that time he supposed that when they spoke the Liverpool tug they were about 10 miles from the Coast of Ireland, between the Saltees and Carnsore Point, and about 15 miles from the Tuskar; and at Mr. Potter's request he marked the chart at the place where he believed the vessel to have been at that time. From this place we are told that she was kept on a N.E. by E. course until they sighted the Barrel Rock; and if this was so, and the place where the vessel was when she spoke the Liverpool tug has been correctly described by the master, we can have no difficulty in explaining the cause of the casualty. If a line be drawn on a chart in a N.E. by E. direction from the spot where the master has placed his vessel, it will pass a little to the eastward of Carnsore Point, and between that point and Tuskar; but we are told that the tide was ebbing, and as the ebb tide between Carnsore Point and the Saltees runs parallel with the coast, or in about a W.N.W. direction, this would tend to set the vessel's head to the westward, causing her to make not a N.E. by E. course, but a much more northerly one, and would inevitably take her on the Barrel Rock. This, in our opinion, was the cause of the casualty.

The next question on which our opinion was asked is, " Were proper courses made?

" (a.) After the position of the vessel had been ascer- " tained by observation at noon of the 27th.

" (b.) By dead reckoning at 6 p.m. of the 27th.

" (c.) After the steam tug was spoken at 9 p.m.

It is clear that if the vessel's position was rightly ascertained at noon of the 27th, and if at 9 p.m. the vessel was where the master has told us she was, the proper courses could not have been steered between those hours, for she had no right, having had a favourable wind from the S.W. all the time, to have got so far away to the westward as she seems to have done. But however this may be, it is quite certain that if the vessel was at 9 p.m. where the master has placed her, namely, 10 miles from the Irish Coast, between Carnsore Point and the Saltees, and 15 miles from the Tuskar, and consequently at no great distance from the Coningbeg Lightship, a N.E. by E. course was not a correct course, having regard to the fact that the ebb tide was running, and would be setting the vessel to the westward. The only reason, so far as we can see, why a N.E. by E. course was steered, was because some one on board some unknown tug boat told them that they believed that the Tuskar was about N.E. from them; and to have acted upon this information without consulting the chart, and without taking any steps to verify their position, allowing only 1 point to clear the Tuskar with the ebb tide setting them all the time to the westward, appears to us to have been quite unjustifiable.

The third question upon which our opinion was asked is, " Having regard to the state of the weather and the in- " creasing fog ought not the lead to have been used some " time before the period when the vessel struck; and did " the neglect of this precaution contribute to the disaster?" Had a cast of the lead been taken at any time after speaking the Liverpool tug they would have known that they were shoaling their water, and were running into danger. The master himself has admitted that they ought not to have got into less than 30 or even 40 fathoms of water; and if they had taken a cast of the lead for an hour or more before they would have seen that they were in less water than that. In our opinion there was no justification whatever in this case for not using the jead, and the neglect thereof did undoubtedly contribute to this casualty.

The fourth question upon which our opinion is asked is, " Was the master justified in giving up the navigation of " his ship to an uncertified Channel pilot?" The master told us that he met Andrews in the street, and on the man offering his services he engaged him to pilot the vessel to Greenock, his agent telling him that he had piloted many ships for their firm before, and that he could be relied on. According to the pilot what happened was this: he says that he was standing at the door of the Globe Hotel, and understanding that there was a captain going to Greenock he offered his services, and produced his testimonials; but that the captain told him that he did not want to see them, and that he then put them into his pocket. It is admitted that Andrews is not a pilot in the strict sense of the term, and that he has no certificate, and so far as we may judge from the facts of this case he seems hardly to be a person to whom the sole charge of such a vessel should have been entrusted. He told us that he supposed when they spoke the Liverpool tug that they were some 40 or 50 miles from the Smalls, which would place her near to if not to the westward of the Coningbeg Lightship; and yet he seems to have thought that a N.E. by E. course from that place would take her clear of the Tuskar. The man seems to have had little acquaintance with charts, and does not pretend to have looked at one when he laid her on a N.E. by E. course. He evidently relied implicitly on the information received from the Liverpool tug, and made no allowance for the tide, expecting, as he said, that it would carry him as far one way as the other. His practice, no doubt, was to find his way relying upon picking up the lights from point to point, a very unsafe course on such a night as this, when, according to one of the witnesses, you could not see the length of the vessel, and according to all of them it was very foggy. One answer which the man gave sufficiently shows his qualifications for having the sole charge of this vessel. He considered that the casualty was entirely due to an error in the compasses, and said "we should not have struck that rock for an hour and a half more if the compasses had been right;" as if the effect of an error in the compasses was not to cause her to deviate from her course but to set her ahead of her reckoning. But whatever may have been this man's qualifications, the master seems to have taken no trouble to ascertain whether he was or was not competent, and he now seeks to throw the whole blame of the casualty upon him; but in our opinion he is not justified in doing this, and before giving up the sole charge of the vessel to him, more especially when they were approaching dangerous waters, he should have assured himself of the man's competency.

This brings us to the fifth question, namely, "Was the " captain justified, having regard to all the circumstances, " in leaving the deck and turning in at the time he did, " and did his conduct in this particular contribute to the " disaster?" it was the duty of the master, after they had spoken the Liverpool tug, and when as he tells us he had fixed the position of the vessel on the chart, to have seen that a proper course was then laid so as to take her clear of the Tuskar; instead of which he at once turned in, leaving the vessel in the sole charge of an incompetent man, and without even troubling himself to go and examine his chart. Such conduct was, in our opinion, quite unjustifiable, and it did undoubtedly contribute to the casualty.

The sixth question is, "After giving orders to have the " lead used, was the captain justified in leaving the deck " before this had been done, and in omitting afterwards to " take any step to ascertain that his orders had been " complied with?" in our opinion he was not so justified. Knowing that he was nearing the Irish Coast, and was therefore in dangerous waters, and being uncertain as to his exact position, he ought not only to have ordered a cast of the lead to be taken but to have seen that it was taken, and what depth of water it gave. Had this been done they would have seen that they were shoaling their water, and this casualty would probably not have occurred.

The seventh question is, "Was the captain sober or intoxi- " cated shortly before and at the time of the disaster, and, " if intoxicated, did such intoxication contribute to the " disaster?" This charge is one which will require to be very carefully investigated, and I will therefore proceed to state how the evidence on the point stands.

According to the chief officer, who went below at 8 o'clock, the master did not seem to be the worse for liquor at that time. He did not see him again until just as the casualty occurred, but he says that he has no doubt whatever that he was then the worse for liquor. He says that he saw the master come from the cabin and go and take hold of the topsail halyards, and from his manner and the way in which he spoke he is convinced that he was intoxicated. He also told us that during the voyage the master was frequently the worse for liquor. The second officer, who was in charge of the deck from 8 o'clock, said that when the master went below at a quarter to 9 he could not say that he was drunk, but that he had a glass or two of liquor in him. He also told us that when the master came up at the time of the casualty he was not certainly sober; he said "I could not call him drunk, but he was the worse " for liquor; he was very often in liquor on the passage " home, and he used to call me anything he could lay his " tongue to when he was in it, and he was frequently in " it." The next person was the pilot, and he would not swear one way or the other, whether the captain was drunk or whether he was sober, either when he went below or when he came on deck again. He declined to swear either one way or the other, but he did make one remark which is, in our opinion, very significant; he said, "I asked him to let me " alone; he did so, and I did not see him again for some " time," evidently implying that in his, the pilot's, opinion the captain was not in a fit state to take charge of the vessel, for otherwise he would hardly have told the master not to interfere with him. Then we have the steward, who seems not to have had such opportunities of seeing the captain that evening as would enable him to say whether he was or was not the worse for liquor; but he did mention a very important fact: he said that whilst they lay at Falmouth a 2-gallon jar of whiskey was sent on board by the captain; that he put about half of it into from five to seven bottles, and the other half he put into a 1-gallon jar; that he then put the bottles and the jar into a locker or cupboard in the captain's cabin, locked it, and gave the captain the key, and that he does not know what afterwards became of the whiskey further than that the captain put the bottles out when they were empty, and he cleared them away; three of them he says were so put out before they left Falmouth. The steward also said, "I have seen " him sometimes intoxicated on the voyage. I should say " it was a frequent occurrence." The next witness is Stebbing, an able seaman, and his evidence was that he did not know whether the captain was sober or not that evening, he could not swear that he was drunk and he could not swear that he was sober; he could say, however, that he certainly was not so drunk as he had seen him many times during the voyage. He also said, "I should not call him a " sober man. I have frequently seen him the worse for " liquor during the voyage." The only witness who spoke in his favour was a man named Frederick Hayter, who says not only that he did not see anything the matter with the captain that evening, but that he never saw him the worse for liquor at any time during the voyage.

And now what is the answer which the captain gives to this charge; all that he is prepared to swear is that he does not think that he was the worse for liquor that evening; he admits that he is in the habit of drinking spirits, and that he took a glass or two at about 8 o'clock that evening, but he thinks that he was not intoxicated. In the face of this almost unanimous testimony the only conclusion to which the Court can come is that the captain was the worse for liquor that evening; and that this accounts for his having gone below when he did, without examining his chart to see that the vessel was laid upon a proper course, and without seeing that a cast of the lead was taken to ascertain the vessel's position. This is what he would no doubt have done had he been sober and in the full possession of his faculties, and what any prudent captain would have done under the circumstances, and in such weather as then prevailed. And we think that his not having done so did contribute to the casualty.

The last question upon which our opinion is asked is, "Was the disaster caused or contributed to by any negligence on the part of the captain and any other person?" To this our answer must be that the casualty was brought about by the negligence and misconduct of the master, as well as by the negligence and incapacity of Andrews, the so-called pilot. As to the second officer, it was no doubt his duty after the master had given the order to see that a cast of the lead was taken, but he seems to have been placed by the master under the orders of the pilot. The lame therefore of this casualty must rest with the master and the pilot jointly, but principally with the master.

The Board of Trade have accordingly stated that in their "opinion the certificate of the master should be dealt with," and in that opinion we entirely concur. Mr. Cottingham has asked us to consider the character and position of this man, but we have another duty to perform, and that is to consider the lives and interests entrusted to his care. Here is a vessel of above 1,200 tons, laden with a valuable cargo consisting of sugar and rum, which has been placed in imminent peril by this man's negligence and misconduct. Moreover, it has been proved to our satisfaction not only that the property as well as the lives of those on board have on this occasion been exposed to great danger by his drunken habits, but that during the voyage he was repeatedly the worse for liquor. Such a man is, in our opinion, unfit to have the charge of a vessel, and we have therefore cancelled his certificate; as we shall always do when a master has been proved to be frequently and habitually intoxicated whilst in command of his vessel, as this man has been. We have the less hesitation, too, in cancelling his certificate as the Board of Trade have always the power to restore it to him in the event of his satisfying them that he has cured himself of this disgusting habit.

No application having been made by the Board of Trade for costs none were given.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

 

 

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

HY. HARRIS,

Assessors.

 

"

A. RONALDSON,

 

L 367. 249. 100.-1/80. Wt. 47. E. & S.