Wreck Report for 'Despatch' and 'J. M. Lennard', 1880

(No. 486.)

"DESPATCH," (S.S.), and "J. M. LENNARD," (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of a formal Investigation held at the Public Board Room, Post Office Chambers, in the borough of Middlesbrough, on the 21st and 22nd days of January 1880, before CHARLES JAMES COLEMAN, Esquire, assisted by Admiral POWELL, Captain CASTLE, and Captain BEASLEY, into the circumstances attending the loss of the British steamship "DESPATCH," through collision with the British steamship "J. M. LENNARD," on the 20th November 1879, off Seaham.

Report of Court.

The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances attending the above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons stated in the annex hereto, the mate in default, and suspends his certificate of competency as first mate for six calendar months from this date, and recommends that he be granted a certificate of second mate.

Dated this 22nd day of January 1880.

 

(Signed)

CHARLES JAMES COLEMAN,

 

 

Judge.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

R. ASHMORE POWELL,

 

 

"

JOHN S. CASTLE,

Assessors.

 

"

THOS. BEASLEY,

 

Annex to the Report.

The "J. M. Lennard," official number 70,435, was an iron screw steamer of 400.51 gross and 209.81 register tonnage, and fitted with two compound engines of 65 horse-power nominal. She was owned by Mr. John M. Lennard, and others, of whom Mr. John M. Lennard was managing owner.

The "Despatch," official number 44,953, was an iron paddle steamer of 62.78 gross and 19.84 register tonnage, and fitted with one engine of 30 horse-power nominal. She was the property of James Henry Ward Culleford and another, who had appointed Mr. Joseph Siddell, of Sunderland, as manager. She was fitted as a steam trawler.

On the 19th November 1879 the "Despatch" left Sunderland in charge of Mr. Benjamin Swinhoe, with a crew of six hands all told, for the purpose of trawling off the coast. At 1 a.m. on the 20th, her trawl being down, she was steaming at the rate of about 1 1/2 knots, her head N. by E. 1/2 E. The master, who had just come on deck, saw a green light on the port bow, which he took to be that of a sailing vessel, as he could see no mast-head light. He again went below, but coming up in a few minutes he saw a steamer close to them, and immediately afterwards the "Despatch" was struck on the bow by the stem of the strange vessel; they separated for a moment, but the "Despatch" was again struck on the bow, further aft. One man, Dixon, endeavoured to get up the bow of the steamer, but must have fallen overboard, as he was never seen afterwards. The rest of the crew escaped in their boat and reached the steamer, which proved to be the "J. M. Lennard." Finding that Dixon was not on board the "J. M. Lennard" they went in their boat to search for him, and the steamer remained on the spot until daylight, hut no traces of the man were found. The crew returned to the "J. M. Lennard" and were afterwards landed at Sunderland. The "J. M. Lennard" appears to have been on a voyage from the Tyne to Rouen with a general cargo of 340 tons.

When one of the fishermen reached the deck of the vessel he complained to the mate that no mast-head light had been exhibited. No doubt it was not alight at that time but was afterwards relighted and hauled up to its place.

The captain had left the deck at 20 minutes after midnight, leaving the first mate in charge of the vessel.

The mate in his evidence swore that the trawler's light was reported to him and that he at first took it to be a stationary light heading 2 points on the port bow, some time after he found that the light grew ahead and then on the starboard bow. The mate further swore he was on the bridge from the time he was on deck until the collision occurred. The look-out man was called and contradicted the mate on two most material points, he denied that he reported the light, stating that he never saw it until a few seconds previous to the vessels coming in contact, he also swore that about a quarter of an hour before the casualty he had been sent below by the mate to warm some coffee for him and that at the expiration of about ten minutes one of the firemen shouted out to him that there was a light close to the port bow, that he returned to the bridge immediately and heard an order given to put the helm hard-a-starboard but that did not prevent the collision.

The man at the wheel swore that about five minutes before the collision the mate passed him on the bridge, but whether he left it or not he could not say, but a few seconds before the collision he saw him on the bridge and he gave the order "hard-a-starboard."

The fireman who warned the look-out man to go on the bridge charged the mate with not being at his post; this the mate denied and a fight took place between them, and in the meantime the others were searching for Dixon, the lost fisherman.

The Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court on the following questions:-

1. What was the cause of the collision between the "Despatch" and the "J. M. Lennard," on the 20th November 1879?

2. Whether the despatch exhibited the lights required by the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, and if not, whether the neglect to do so contributed to the casualty?

3. Whether the collision was caused by the wrongful acts and defaults of John Lennard, the mate of the "J. M. Lennard"-

1. In neglecting to see that the mast-head light of his vessel was kept burning brightly as required by Article 3 of the said Regulations; and

2. In neglecting to comply with Articles 15, 16, and 20 of the said Regulations?

In the opinion of the Board of Trade the certificate of John Lennard should have been dealt with.

To which questions the Court makes answers as follows:-

1. The cause of the collision between the "Despatch" and the "J. M. Lennard" was the want of a proper lookout on board the "J. M. Lennard."

2. We think the "Despatch" exhibited the light required by the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea.

3. We think the collision was caused by the wrongful act of John Lennard, the mate, in not seeing that the mast-head light of his vessel was kept burning.

We think it unnecessary to answer the rest of the question.

The judge said-

This is a case where a tug under steam was employed for trawling purposes and she was fitted out in all respects as a fishing boat under the new rules, carrying a bell and foghorn. In trawling from Sunderland to Seaham with a white light burning brightly at her masthead she saw the green light of the "J. M. Lennard" coming from the Tyne, and according to the evidence of those on board the trawler that vessel exhibited only two lights, namely, green and red, and no white light at her masthead. For some time they saw the green light bearing down upon them, and being under the impression that as she carried no white light at her mast-head she was a sailing vessel the trawler continued its course. It appeared that the trawler was propelled by steam and was going at the rate of about 1 1/2 knots an hour, having her trawl down and her helm lashed hard-a-port.

The captain of the trawler said that had there been a white light he would have used his bell as a warning to the "J. M. Lennard," that he was a fishing vessel, but that vessel continued her course and struck the trawler on the port bow near the stem and knocked her off, and then caught her again about 6 feet abaft the stem.

The crew took to their boat, with the exception of one man, who endeavoured to escape from the trawler by getting up over the bows of the "J. M. Lennard," but unfortunately he did not succeed in doing so, and lost his life.

It appears that as soon as the crew of the trawler were on the deck of the "J. M. Lennard" one of them complained that no mast-head light had been carried at that time, no doubt the light was out, and I cannot help thinking that it had been out for some time.

The captain of the "J. M. Lennard" had left the deck at about 12.20 a.m., leaving the mate, John Lennard, in charge of the ship.

The mate stated that he had seen the white light of the trawler, and took it to be a fishing vessel or a sailing vessel stationary, which he saw 2 points on his port bow, and shortly afterwards saw it drawing a point on his starboard bow. It is impossible such a change in position could have occurred so long as the "J. M. Lennard" kept the course given to us by her captain.

The mate swore that the look-out man reported the light of the trawler to him, and when he was called he swore he never reported the light and never saw it at all. This man stated that he had been sent by the mate about a quarter of an hour before the collision occurred to make him some coffee, and went below for that purpose, but he was called by a fireman to go on deck, as there was a light just over the port bow of the ship. He immediately ran on deck, just in time, as he said, to hear an order to put her helm hard-a-starboard, and a moment or two afterwards the "J. M. Lennard" struck the trawler.

It is a singular circumstance that the mate, who swore he never left his post, and was on the lower bridge the whole of his watch, should have been accused by the fireman who gave the signal to the look-out man to go on deck of not being on the bridge at all, and speaking for myself I must say that nothing could be more conclusively proved than that this light was either not seen at all, or if seen, taken no notice of, and up to the time of the collision took place there really seems to have been no look-out on the vessel at all.

The absence of the mate from his post cannot be too strongly condemned.

The captain it appears stood by the trawler, which was in a sinking condition, and continued there for some hours to see if Dixon, the unfortunate man who was lost from the trawler, could be found. He is greatly to be commended for this.

We are asked in question three whether the mate had been guilty of any wrongful acts under Articles 15, 16, and 20. 1 think in the circumstances it is unnecessary for the Court to give any opinion with regard to this part of the question. The negligence was conclusively proved, and I think the mate deserves to be properly punished for it.

The case is undoubtedly one of some importance, and might have called upon the Court, had the negligence not been so clear, to have dealt with difficult and important questions, but of this the Court is relieved by the conclusive evidence laid before it of the "J. M. Lennard," through the misconduct of the mate, being solely to blame for the casualty which occurred.

I think the mate's certificate should be suspended for six months from this day, and that the Board of Trade be recommended to grant him a certificate of second mate.

Dated this 22nd day of January 1880.

 

(Signed)

CHARLES JAMES COLEMAN,

 

 

Judge.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

R. ASHMORE POWELL,

 

 

"

JOHN S. CASTLE,

Assessors.

 

"

THOS. BEASLEY,

 

L 367. 256. 100.-2/80. Wt. 47. E. & S.