(No. 796.)
"ADINA."
The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876
IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at the Small Debts Court, County Buildings, Glasgow, on the 22nd of November 1880, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captain H. D. GRANT, R.N., C.B., and Captain KENNEDY, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the supposed loss of the British sailing ship "ADINA," of Glasgow, and the loss of the lives of all on board her, whilst on a voyage from Glasgow to Exeter.
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 Adina," when she left the Clyde on the 20th of April last, was in good condition and well found.
2. That the means for ventilating the hold were wholly insufficient, but that the loss of the vessel is probably not owing thereto.
3. That the cargo was properly stowed, except that no clear space was left between the top of the coal and the deck for the purpose of ventilation.
4. That the vessel was overladen.
5. That she had not sufficient freeboard.
6. That she was not, so far as appears, over-masted.
7. That she had sufficient stability.
8. That the loss ot the vessel is probably due to her having been too deeply laden.
No application for, and consequently no order was made as to the costs.
Dated this 22nd day of November 1880.
(Signed)
H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner.
We concur in this report.
(Signed)
HENRY D. GRANT,
Assessors.
Captain, R.N.,
H. C. KENNEDY,
Annex to the Report.
This case was heard at Glasgow, on the 22nd of November instant, when Mr. Douglas appeared for the Board of Trade; Mr. Alexander Gillies, the managing owner was present, but was not represented. Seven witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. Douglas asked the opinion of the Court upon the following questions:-
" 1. Whether, when the "Adina" left the Clyde on " the 20th April last, she was in good condition and " well found?
" 2. Whether, having regard to the nature of the " cargo, and to the recommendation of the Royal Com- " mission, the owners were justified in sending this " vessel to sea, with no other means of ventilation for " her hold than the booby hatch?
" 3. Whether the cargo was properly stowed?
" 4. Whether the vessel was overladen?
" 5. Whether the vessel bad sufficient freeboard?
" 6. Whether she was over-masted?
" 7. Whether, having regard to the height of her " masts, and the depth to which she was loaded, the " vessel had sufficient stability?
" 8. What, in the opinion of the Court, is the cause " of this vessel not having been heard of since she left " the Clyde on the 20th April 1880?"
Mr. Douglas having addressed the Court on behalf of the Board of Trade, judgment was about to be given, when Mr. James Reid, the partner of Mr. Gillies was, at his own request, and by permission of the Court, sworn and examined. The Court thereupon proceeded to give judgment on the questions, on which its opinion had been asked. The circumstances of the case are as follow:
This is a case, the importance of which can hardly be exaggerated, for the "Adina was one of three vessels, all of them built in the year 1878, by the same shipbuilders, for the same owners, and on one and the same specification, and they have all since disappeared with every soul on board. The "Dreamland" was lost in 1878, having at the time, 176 tons of coal on board; the "Kersland," which left this country with 184 tons of pig and bar iron on board, was lost in 1879, on her return voyage from Seville to Antwerp, with a cargo of barley; and lastly there is this vessel, the "Adina," which has been lost in the present year, under circumstances, which I am now about to state. The case, I say, deserves our most careful and attentive consideration.
The "Adina," which was an iron schooner, belonging to the port of Glasgow, of 106 tons gross and 92 tons net register, was built at Paisley, in the early part of 1878, by the firm of Messrs. Hugh McIntyre and Company, and at the time of her loss was the property of Messrs. Gillies and Reid, of 74, Broomielaw, Glasgow, and others, Mr. Alexander Gillies being the managing owner. She left Glasgow on the 20th of April last, with a cargo of 176 tons 6 cwt. of coal, and having a crew of five hands all told, bound for Exeter, and from the time the pilot left her off Greenock to the present day, she has never been seen or heard of, and it is under these circumstances that an inquiry has been ordered.
Now the first question upon which our opinion has been asked is, "Whether, when the 'Adina' left the " Clyde, on the 20th of April last, she was in good con- " dition and well found?" It seems that she was built uuder special survey, and was classed 100 Al at Lloyds; and there is nothing to shew that she was not in good condition and well found when she left the Clyde.
The second question upon which our opinion is asked is, "Whether, having regard to the nature of " the cargo, and to the recommendation of the Royal " Commissioners, the owners were justified in sending " this vessel to sea, with no other means of ventila- " tion for her hold than the booby hatch?" I have stated that the cargo, which this vessel had on board, consisted of 176 tons 6 cwt. of coals. These coals had come from the Heywood colleries, in Lanarkshire, and had been lowered into the hold with cranes, that being the mode usually adopted at Glasgow for the purpose; and they filled the hold chock full. We are told that she had three hatches, a fore, main, and after-hatch, and that upon the after hatch was a booby hatch, standing some 4 feet above the deck with a slide in it, which could be left open in bad weather, and that this was the only mode that they had of ventilating the hold. The owner, on being asked, stated that he had never had any other ventilation for these vessels, and that the Board of Trade officials at this port had told him that the regulations as to ventilation applied only to over sea vessels, and not to coasters. On being asked to give the name of any person who had so informed him, he mentioned the name of Mr. Jago, shipwright surveyor to the Board of Trade at this port. 1 accordingly directed that Mr. Jago should be sent for, and upon his arrival he admitted that he had told Mr. Gillies that they did not require coasters to conform to the regulations for ventilating their holds. On being asked, if he had ever received any instructions from the Board of Trade to that effect, he produced the "Official Caution," relating to coal cargoes, dated in July last, which he said that he was in the habit of distributing every day to ship's captains and others. On being asked to point out the passage in those instructions, in which it was said that they were not to apply to coasters, he read them carefully through, and was obliged to admit that he could find no such passage. Mr. Jago then said that it was the custom at Glasgow not to impose them on coasters, in accordance with instructions which he had received from his superior officer, Captain Price, and the reason he gave was, that coasters did not require to batten down their hatches in the same way that vessels bound foreign did, for that they could easily, in the event of bad weather, take shelter in the creeks and harbours upon the coast. Mr. Moore, the inspector of mines for this district, on being examined, stated that he had heard with the utmost astonishment, Mr. Jago's statement, for that it was a well known fact that gas was more freely given off in the first few days after the voyage commenced than at any other period, and that consequently it appeared to be as necessary for coasters as for over sea vessels, that they should be provided with adequate means of ventilating their holds. Mr. Moore further stated, that the arrangement on board the "Adina," of the booby hatch with a slide in it, would be utterly ineffectual to carry off the gas, and that what was required, was a clear space between the top of the coal and the deck above it, with a cowl at each end, so as to produce a free current of air over the surface, as recommended by the Commissioners, and that in this way any gas, which the coal might give off, would be readily carried off. It is right however, to add that Mr. Moore stated, and we could hardly have better evidence on the point, that the coal from the Heywood collieries gave off very little gas. Unsatisfactory then as the arrangements for ventilation were on board this vessel, we are disposed to think that her loss was not due to an explosion of gas. Spontaneous combustion, as Mr. Moore justly observed, is entirely out of the question, as it requires some weeks to develope itself, and is unknown on a short voyage, like that from Glasgow to Exeter.
The third question upon which our opinion has been asked is, "Whether the cargo was properly stowed?" The principal stevedore was not able to attend owing to indisposition, but it seems to be admitted that the hold was perfectly full. And except that there was not a free space left over the coal for the purposes of ventilation, it does not appear to have been otherwise than properly stowed.
The fourth and fifth questions I propose to take together; they are, "Whether the vessel was overladen," "and whether she had a sufficient freeboard?" The person, who could give us the best information as to the build and carrying capacity of the vessel, was Mr. Hugh McIntyre, the builder; but unfortunately, he had come without the plans of the vessel, with which we are usually supplied in these cases, nor was Mr. Douglas prepared to produce any tracings of them. As however, Mr. McIntyre offered to go at once to his offices at Paisley, and obtain the original plans, I desired him to do so, and he returned in the course of the day, bringing with him the original plans, including the midship section, and the scale of displacement of this vessel. Aided by these documents, Mr. McIntyre was able to give us full information as to the vessel's load line, draft of water, and carrying capacity. He told us that the disc had been put upon the ship's side before she left their hands, but whether on their own authority, or by the instruction of the owners, he was not quite certain. It is clear, however, that during the time they have been sailing her, the owners must have been perfectly well aware of the position of the load line, which it seems was at 1 foot 5 inches below the top of the deck. It was proved also that the 176 tons of coal, which she had in her, would sink her in salt water to about 10 feet 1 inch, and that this would give her a freeboard of about 1 foot 4 1/2 inches. The pilot indeed, told us that he was paid on a draught of 10 feet 6 inches, but that, no doubt, was what she drew aft. We must add, however, the weight of stores and water, which she had on board; and as the builder told us that at a draught of about 10 feet, less than 4 tons would sink her one inch, we may fairly take her freeboard in salt water, when she left on her last voyage, to have been from 1 foot 3 1/2 to 1 foot 4 inches.
Now, according to the specification, it seems that the contract was, to supply a vessel capable of carrying 190 to 195 tons dead weight, on a sailing draught of 10 1/2 to 11 feet, with a freeboard of 2 1/4 to 2 1/2 inches for every foot of draught, or rather as Mr. McIntyre said, for every foot of hold. Now, seeing that the depth of the hold was 9.8 feet, 2 1/4 to 2 1/2 inches for every foot of hold, would give her a freeboard of 1 foot 10 1/2 inches to 2 feet 1 inch; but, as Mr. McIntyre said, she did not get it; indeed he admitted that she could not possibly have carried 190 to 195 tons at all. Mr. McIntyre also informed us that her coefficient of fineness was .68; but Mr. Reid, one of the owners, came after the case was closed, and stated that Mr. McIntyre had made a mistake, and that instead of the coefficient of fineness being .68, it was only .58; and I have myself checked the calculation, and found that that is so. What then, ought to have been the amount of her freeboard? According to Mr. Martell's tables, a vessel, drawing 9 feet 9 inches, and with a coefficient of fineness of .58, ought not to have a less freeboard than 1 foot 11 inches. But Mr. Reid called attention to a note at the foot of page 9 of Mr. Martell's phamphlet, where it is said that "A deduction of one fifth may be allowed from " the freeboard given in the table for small vessels " engaged in coasting voyages." But that note is only found at the foot of the first table, where the greatest depth of hold is 9 feet 3 inches, and it may therefore be doubted, whether it would apply to vessels, whose depth of hold was 9.8 feet, and which is included in the second table. But assuming that the note does apply, we should have 1 foot 6 1/2 as the minimum freeboard which this vessel ought to have had, and as a matter of fact she had only from 1 foot 3 1/2 to 1 foot 4 inches of freeboard. We have therefore no hesitation in saying that such an amount of freeboard was wholly insufficient, and that the vessel was consequently overladen.
The sixth question upon which our opinion is asked is, "Whether she was over masted?" Originally it seems, both masts were 72 feet long, from the deck to the cap, but on her return from her first voyage, the master having reported her to be over-masted, 4 feet were taken off each mast, and her fore and aft sails were reduced in proportion. And we have no reason to think, and there is nothing to shew that she was over-masted.
The next question upon which we are asked to give an opinion is, "Whether, having regard to the height " of her masts, and the depth to which she was loaded, " the vessel had sufficient stability?" Mr. McIntyre stated that he had never calculated her metacentric height, but that he believed she had sufficient stability; for that after she had been built, she was sent from their yard to Glasgow, a distance of about 9 miles, during a strong breeze, and with a perfectly clean hold. We may add that she was a vessel of good proportions, having a beam of 21.2 feet as against 9.8 feet depth of hold. And there can be no doubt that the reduction of her masts 4 feet, and the removal of the iron bulwarks, which was done in December 1879, must have greatly increased her stability.
The last question upon which our opinion is asked is, "What, in the opinion of the Court, is the cause of " this vessel not having been heard of, since she left the Clyde, on the 20th of April 1880?" In our opinion there can be no doubt that the cause of the loss of this vessel was that she was overladen. We are told that she had a sheer forward of 2 feet and a sheer aft of 1 foot 1 inch; but then her freeboard was only from 1 foot 3 1/2 to 1 foot 4 inches. In our opinion this vessel was overwhelmed, owing to her being overladen, as there can be no doubt that her two sister ships were.
The Court was not asked to make any order as to costs.
(Signed)
H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner.
We concur.
(Signed)
HENRY. D. GRANT,
Assessors.
Captain, R.N.,
H. C. KENNEDY,
L 367. 566. 200.-12/80. Wt. 47. E. & S.
