Wreck Report for 'Acorn' and 'William Hartmann', 1881

(No. 1045.)

"ACORN" AND "WILLIAM

HARTMANN" (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of a formal Investigation held at Cardiff, on the 24th and 25th days of June 1881, before ROBERT OLIVER JONES, Esquire, Stipendiary Magistrate for Cardiff, assisted by Captain A. ANDERSON and Captain T. B. REES, into the circumstances attending the material damage sustained by the British sailing ship "ACORN," of Lowestoft, through collision with the British steamship "WILLIAM HARTMANN," of Newcastle, about six miles E.N.E. of Staiths, on the 28th day of March 1881.

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, that the collision was due to a negligent lookout on board the said steamship, for which the chief mate, Mr. George Wharton, is responsible and in default. For such default the Court suspends his certificate for three calendar months.

Dated this 25th day of June 1881.

 

(Signed)

R. O. JONES, Judge.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

A. ANDERSON,

Assessors.

 

 

T. B. REES,

 

Annex to the Report.

The facts of the case are as follows:—The "Acorn" is a wooden vessel, built at Dundee in 1837, of 86 tons register, rigged as a schooner, and owned by Mr. Thomas Stewart, of Lowestoft, and another. Her official number is 4170.

She left Lowestoft on the 23rd of March last, in ballast, bound for East Hartlepool, with a crew of four hands, all told, under the command of Mr. William Pitchers. At 12 at midnight on the 27th March last the master went below, leaving his mate and an ordinary seaman in charge of the deck, giving them the usual orders. The night was fine and clear. At 3.30 a.m. on the 28th the "Acorn" was on the port tack, making a north-westerly course, being abreast of Staithes, on the Yorkshire coast, and about five or six miles off. About this time a steamer, which proved to be the "William Hartmann," was seen astern of them, her three lights being visible. When about a mile distant from the schooner the steamer shut her green light in. She then appears to have gone away on the starboard quarter of the "Acorn," but her course suddenly changed, and her green light again became visible. In a few minutes a collision happened, the steamer striking the "Acorn," according to the "Acorn's" witnessess, stem on, a little abaft the main rigging.

The vessels remained in contact a few minutes, until it was ascertained that no serious damage had been done, the steamship meanwhile going easy ahead. She then backed out, but remained by the schooner for about an hour, when she resumed her voyage. The schooner's people admitted that they did not show a stern light, and their explanation of the omission is, that when the steamer's green light was shut in, they concluded that there was no danger. It was not until she was actually abeam of them that the steamer's course was altered and her green light again became visible. It was then too late, they thought, to show any light.

By the collision the "Acorn's" covering board, and one stanchion on her starboard side, was broken, and the upper plank damaged. The cost of repairing her is estimated at 20l.

The "William Hartmann" is an iron screw steamship, built at Wallsend in 1880. Her registered tonnage is 802 tons; her official number 80,562. She is owned by Mr. Albert Charles Augustus Holzappel, of Newcastle, and others. At the time of this collision she was on a voyage from Rio Marina to Middlesborough, with a cargo of 1700 tons of ore. She had a crew of 20 hands, all told, and was under the command of Mr. Alfred William Simpson, who holds a certificate of competency as master.

On the evening of the 27th March the master, who was suffering severely from rheumatism, felt unable to continue on deck, and went below, between 10 and 11, leaving his second officer in charge, who, at midnight, was relieved by the chief mate, George Wharton, who also holds a certificate of competency as master. On taking charge of the deck he received orders, given by the master to the second officer, that, as they could not possibly save the tide into Middlesborough, the engines, when they were abreast of Whitby, were to be put dead slow, besides the usual night orders. At 12.15 a.m. on the 28th the first-named order was carried into effect by the chief officer, and the speed of the vessel was reduced to three knots.

At 3.20 the chief mate informed us that a sail ahead was reported by the look-out man stationed on the topgallant forecastle. He stated that she appeared to him to be only 200 yards distant, and that he, in rapid succession— "almost in one" were his words — ordered the engines to "stand by," "stop," and "full speed astern." He said that, at first, seeing no lights, he thought the vessel was coming towards them. He then ordered the helm hard-a-port, but the vessel's course was not thereby altered in the least. In about two minutes after they first saw the vessel the collision happened. The chief officer denied that he had starboarded at all before the collision.

When satisfied that he "had hold" of the schooner, the chief officer ordered the engines to go very easy ahead. He then enquired whether she was making water, and on finding that she was not, he backed astern. The master of the steamship came on deck just after the collision. He remained by the schooner, he told us, about an hour, and gave the name of his vessel, the port where bound, and all other particulars required by law.

Such being the state of the facts, the Court proceeded to consider the questions upon which its opinion was asked.

The first question put to the Court was, "Whether both vessels complied with the regulations for preventing collisions at sea?"

Now with respect to the "Acorn," considering the clearness of the night, and believing that the steamer followed very nearly the course described by the "Acorn's" witnesses, and being thereby in a position, until she starboarded her helm, to have passed the schooner on her port hand, the Court is of opinion that the latter was not required to show a stern light. That being so, the Court considers that there was on the part of both vessels a compliance with the regulations as to lights. As to the other regulations, they were observed by the "Acorn," but with regard to the steamship. it appears to the Court that there was a very inefficient look-out, and that in consequence the schooner was not perceived until it was too late to escape a collision. When that was seen to be inevitable, all practicable measures were taken to do as little damage as possible.

The next question was, "Whether, having regard to the fact that the mate of the 'Acorn' saw the 'William Hartmann' coming up astern at a distance of from 2 to 3 miles, he was justified in neglecting to show a white light or flare up, as required by art. 11 of the said regulations, and whether, when he observed that the steamer's three lights were visible, and that she continued to approach, he was justified in neglecting to call the master?"

The first part of this question has been dealt with above. Then as to calling the master, the Court is of opinion that under all the circumstances the mate was not called upon to do so when he first saw the steamer's three lights, and when her green light was shut in he might reasonably have thought that the danger was past, and that it was therefore unnecessary to call the master then.

The third question was, "Whether the 'Acorn' kept her course, as required by art. 22 of the said regulations?"

It was contended with much ingenuity by Mr. Vaughan, on behalf of the officers of the steamship, that she had kept on her course without swerving in the least, and that the accident was due to the schooner falling off, and so coming across the steamer's course. But this view was irreconcileable with the evidence of the steamer's own witnesses. The chief officer himself stated that when his ship was at no greater distance than 200 yards from the schooner, the latter was "fore and aft" in a line with him. Whether he is correct or not in this statement is very doubtful, but it is not at all probable that the "Acorn," which was steering a northwesterly course, and was on the port tack at the time with a wind so light that she could not have been making much way through the water, made any alteration in her course. On the other hand, it does seem probable to the Court that the "William Hartmann," having ample time at her disposal, and whose course would have taken her to the eastward of her port, was at the time of the collision steering more in shore for the Tees. She would thus have been in the very position described by the "Acorn's" witnesses, and corroborated by those of the steamer's. We had therefore no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the "Acorn" had kept her course as required by the regulation.

The next question was, "Whether, at the time of the collision and previously thereto, the weather was thick or hazy, and if so, whether the 'William Hartmann' was going at a moderate speed?"

The evidence distinctly showed that the weather was not thick, but there was probably a slight haze to the north. But whether that was so or not, the Court is quite satisfied that the "William Hartmann" was, for other reasons, at the time of the collision, and had been for some time before it, going at a moderate speed.

The next two questions asked were, "Whether when the 'Acorn' was seen ahead prompt and proper measures were taken by the chief officer of the 'William Hartmann' to avoid collision?" and "Whether a good and proper look-out was kept on board the 'William Hartmann'?"

These questions have been already dealt with.

The Court was next asked, "Whether the masters of both ships were on deck at a time when the safety of their respective vessels required their personal supervision?"

As a matter of fact both masters were below at the time of the collision, but we see no reason to blame the master of the "Acorn" in this respect; and with regard to the master of the steamer, we were not prepared to doubt his explanation, that he had retired from the deck in ill health, and it is to be borne in mind that he left the deck in charge of a certificated officer.

The next question was, "Whether the master of the 'William Hartmann' complied with all the requirements of section 16 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1873 (36 & 37 Vict., cap. 85), and particularly whether he gave to the master of the 'Acorn' the name of his vessel, and of her port of registry, and also the name of the ports and place from and to which she was bound?"

There was some little conflict of evidence upon this point, the "Acorn's" people stating that they asked for, but did not get, the name of the steamship; but the Court is of opinion that the master of the "William Hartmann" had fully complied with these regulations.

The Court was then asked. "Whether both vessels were navigated with proper and seamanlike care?"

Inasmuch as the Court is of opinion, as has already been said, that a sufficient look out was not kept on board the "William Hartmann," the Court is bound to say that to that extent she was not navigated with proper and seamanlike care. There is no ground to find fault with the navigation of the "Acorn."

Finally, the Court was asked, "Whether the master and officers of both vessels were, or either of them was, in default?"

The Court does not find either of the masters in default; they were, as has been seen, justifiably below at the time of the collision. But with regard to the first mate the Court finds him in default, in not seeing that a proper look-out was kept, and for that default suspends his certificate for three calendar months.

 

(Signed)

R. O. JONES, Judge.

 

 

 

A. ANDERSON,

Assessor.

 

 

T. B. REES,

 

L 367. 815. 150.—7/81. Wt. 203. E. & S.