Wreck Report for 'Joseph Ferens', 1880

(No. 731.)

"JOSEPH FERENS." (S.S.)

(RE-HEARING.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876, and The Shipping Casualties Investigations Act, 1879.

IN the matter of the re-hearing of a formal investigation, held at the Moot Hall, Newcastle-on-Tyne, on the 20th of September 1880, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by J. R. RAVENHILL, Esquire, C.E., and Captains FORSTER and CASTLE, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the supposed loss of the steamship "JOSEPH FERENS."

Report of Court.

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

1. That the weight of the cargo and bunker coal which the "Joseph Ferens" was constructed to carry was 2,650 tons.

2. That the total tonnage of the vessel, including hull, engines, boilers, outfit, cargo and bunker coal, was 3,872 tons.

3. That the total weight of cargo and bunker coal which the vessel had on board when she last left the Tyne Docks was 2,672 tons.

4. That her draught of water when she so left was 21 feet 7 forward, and 21 feet 9 aft, giving a mean of 21 feet 8; and that her clearside was 5 feet.

5. That the load-line was placed at 4 feet 7 below the deck.

6. That the vessel was not overladen.

The Court makes no order as to costs.

Dated this 20th day of September 1880.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

 

 

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

JOHN R. RAVENHILL,

 

 

 

Engineer Assessor.

 

 

 

GEORGE H. FORSTER,

Assessors.

 

 

JOHN S. CASTLE,

 

Annex to the Report.

The re-hearing of this inquiry took place at the Moot Hall, Newcastle-on-Tyne, on the 20th of September instant, when Mr. de Hamel appeared for the Board of Trade, Mr. Ingledew for the owners of the ship, and Mr. Adamson for the owners of the cargo. Five witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. de Hamel asked the opinion of the Court upon the following questions:-

" 1. What was the weight of the cargo and bunker " fuel that the 'Joseph Ferens' was constructed to " carry?

" 2. What was the tonnage, inclusive of engines, " cargo, and bunker coal, that she was constructed to " carry?

" 3. What was the total weight of the cargo and " bunker coal that the vessel had on board when she " last left the Tyne?

" 4. What was her draught of water and what her " clearside when she so left the Tyne?

" 5. Where was her load-line disc placed?

"6. Whether she was overladen?"

Mr. Ingledew then produced the managing owner, and all parties having declared that they had no further witnesses to call, the Court proceeded to give judgment on the questions on which its opinion had been asked.

The case came before the Court for a re-hearing on the application of the owners, an application which, we are very glad to say, was acceded to by the Board of Trade, as it has led to a great deal of very valuable evidence being brought forward, which has thrown an entirely new light on the case. When the inquiry was last before the Court there was no satisfactory information before it as to the vessel's draught of water, or as to her freeboard or clearside, or as to where the disc had been placed; and it could therefore only make a guess whether the vessel was or was not overladen; but we have now had the best evidence laid before us on all these points.

First, then, we learn from the managers for the collieries the exact amount of cargo and of bunker coal that was put into her. Then we have heard from Mr. Tate, the chief draughtsman to the builders, what quantity she was constructed to carry, what was her total weight and capacity, what draught and what clearside she would have with a given weight of cargo and bunker coal on board. Captain Brunton also, the superintendent of the owners, who was unfortunately prevented from attending on the last occasion, owing to the serious illness of a near relative, and who personally directed her loading, has told us to what depth she was laden on her last voyage. And, lastly, Mr. Ramsay, the Board of Trade surveyor, has been produced, and has told us not only what was her draught of water, but what was her clearside when she last left the Tyne Docks. With this full and satisfactory evidence before us we shall have no difficulty in answering the questions that have been submitted to us.

And, first, our opinion has been asked, "What was " the weight of cargo and bunker coal that the 'Joseph " Ferens' was constructed to carry?" Mr. Tate has told us that she was originally designed to carry 2,550 tons of cargo and bunker coal upon a draught of 21 feet 6; but that the owners having subsequently requested that she should be made to carry 2,650 tons on the same draught of water, this was done by filling out her lines forward and aft. The weight therefore of cargo and bunker coals that the "Joseph Ferens" was constructed to carry was 2,650 tons.

The next question on which our opinion is asked is, "What was the tonnage, inclusive of engines, " cargo, and bunker coal, that she was constructed to " carry?" by which I suppose is meant, what was her total weight, including hull, boilers, cargo, bunker coal and everything which she was constructed to carry? Mr. Tate has told us that the total weight of the hull, engines, donkey, boilers, and outfit, including water, was 1,222 tons; adding to this 2,650 tons for cargo and bunker coals, we get a total of 3,872 tons as that which she was constructed to carry.

The third question upon which our opinion has been asked is, "What was the total weight of the cargo and " bunker coal that the vessel had on board when she " last left the Tyne?" According to Mr. Dixon, the fitter for the Burnhope Colliery, who supplied the cargo, she had 1,863 tons put on board her. And Mr. Thomas Glanville Reah, the fitter to the Ratcliffe Colliery, has told us that they supplied the bunker coal, and that the quantity put on board was 810 tons only. Owing, however, to a marginal note on the bill of lading to the effect that there were about 900 tons of bunker coal on board, a question arose whether she might not have had some coals left in her bunkers when the 810 tons were put on board; but Captain Brunton stated that immediately before the last voyage she was put into a dry dock, completely overhauled, and a sum of £750 spent upon her, and that to his certain knowledge the bunkers had on that occasion been quite cleared out. If, then, this evidence is to be relied on-and we see no reason why it should not be-it is clear that there were only 810 tons of bunker coal on board; and the explanation of the note in the margin of the bill of lading that there were about 900 tons appears to be as follows:-It is the practice of a shipowner when he charters his vessel to reserve to himself a certain portion for bunker coals, otherwise the charterers might fill the whole vessel with cargo, and leave him no space for bunker coal. In the present instance the shipowner seems to have reserved space for 900 tons for bunker coal; but when the round had been decided upon, finding that 810 tons would be sufficient for all his needs, he puts on board only 810. The charterer, however, being under an engagement to leave a space of 900 tons to the shipowner for bunker coal, very naturally, when he makes out the bill of lading, inserts 900 tons in the margin, leaving the owner to put in what quantity he thinks fit, provided that it does not exceed 900 tons. This seems to be the natural explanation of this marginal note, and, if so, the quantity of coal on board when she last left the Tyne Docks would be 1,863 tons of cargo and 810 tons of bunker coal, or a total of 2,673 tons.

The fourth question which we are asked is, "What " was her draught of water, and what her clear" " side, when she so left the Tyne?" Captain Brunton told us that before the cargo was put into her he, as the superintendent of the owners, chalked on the outside the depth to which he considered that the ship should be laden, namely, 21 feet 7 forward, and 2 feet 9 aft, making a mean of 21 feet 8; and that she was laden to that draught when she was removed from under the shoot and the hatches put on, and that no more cargo or even stores were afterwards put into her. But the fact does not rest upon the evidence of Captain Brunton alone, for Mr. Ramsay, the Board of Trade surveyor, tells us that he was with Captain Brunton at the time, and that that was the vessel's draught. And now as to her clearside. Mr. Tate told us that on a draught of 21 feet 8 the vessel would have a freeboard of 5 feet 2 1/2 inches; he spoke, however, only from the drawings of the vessel, for he had not seen the vessel when she last left the Tyne. Captain Brunton also, although he could tell us what was the vessel's draught, would not undertake to say what was the amount of her clearside. On the other hand, Mr. Ramsay, the Board of Trade surveyor, says that he measured her clearside when she was in Tyne Docks ready to sail on her last voyage, and that it was exactly 5 feet and no more. Under these circumstances we are bound to accept Mr. Ramsay's positive evidence in preference to Mr. Tate's calculations, and must hold that the vessel's clearside when in the Tyne Docks and ready to sail was 5 feet.

The fifth question upon which our opinion is asked is, "Where was her load line disc placed?" by which I presume is meant at what depth below the main deck. According to Captain Brunton the load-line was fixed by his instructions, and was placed at 4 feet 7 below the deck, which is a shade less than 2 1/4 inches to every foot depth of hold, 2 1/4 inches to every foot of the hold being the rule which he said he always adopted in the case of vessels of this type. At the same time he said that he never did load her down to that point, and that he always took care to keep the whole of the disc out of water, which would give her 6 inches more of clearside at least.

This, then, brings us to the last question, "Was she overladen?" Now, seeing that she had a freeboard on leaving the Tyne Docks, of 5 feet, that she would rise 2 inches on getting into salt water, making 5 feet 2 and that this on a depth of hold of 24.5 feet would give her a clear side of more than 2 1/2 inches to every foot of hold; seeing also that she had a top gallant forecastle of about 6 feet high and a raised quarter deck aft of about 2 feet, we have no hesitation in saying that she had an ample freeboard, and that she was not overladen. To what cause her loss was due, whether to a collision, or to any of the other accidents of the sea, or whether it was owing to the very tempestuous weather which we know prevailed at about that time in the Bay of Biscay, it is not possible for us to say; but, at any rate, we may safely say that it was not due to her having been overladen.

As regards the costs, seeing that the owners did not produce Captain Brunton, nor the Board of Trade Mr. Ramsay, on the last occasion, and that both these gentlemen have thrown a totally new light on the case, we shall not give costs to either party.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

 

 

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

JOHN R. RAVENHILL,

 

 

 

Engineer Assessor.

 

 

 

GEORGE H. FORSTER,

Assessors.

 

 

JOHN S. CASTLE,

 

L 367. 501. 200.-10/80. Wt. 47. E. & S.