Wreck Report for 'Mary E. Ray', 1881

(No. 1095.)

"MARY E. RAY."

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of a formal Investigation held at Cardiff on the 2nd day of September 1881, before ROBERT OLIVER JONES, Esquire, assisted by Captain FRENCH and Captain ANDERSON, into the circumstances attending the stranding of the British sailing ship "MARY E. RAY," of Littlehampton, near Breaksea Point, on the 16th August 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—

1. That the stranding of the said ship was due to negligent navigation.

2. That with respect to such negligence both the master and mate are in default.

3. The Court adjudges the certificate of each to be suspended for six calendar months.

Dated this 3rd day of September 1881.

 

(Signed)

R. O. JONES, Judge.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

A. P. FRENCH,

Assessors.

 

 

A. ANDERSON,

 

Annex to the Report.

This was an inquiry into the circumstances attending the stranding of the "Mary E. Ray," of Littlehampton, near Breaksea Point, in the Bristol Channel, on the 16th August 1881.

Mr. Waldron appeared for the Board of Trade, and Mr. Vachell for the owners and master.

The "Mary E. Ray" was a barque-rigged vessel built of wood at Littlehampton, in the county of Sussex, in 1860, of 458 registered tonnage. She was registered at the Port of London, owned by the Phœnix Shipping Company, Limited, of Blyth, Northumberland, and classed A 1 Red, her official No. being 29,014.

She left Cardiff docks on the 15th August last, drawing 16 ft. 9 in. forward and 17 ft. aft, bound for Bahia, with a cargo of 734 tons of coal, manned by a crew of 12 hands all told, under command of Mr. David Blyth, who held a certificate of competency as master dated 24th October 1863, No. 20,079. She anchored for the night in Penarth Roads. At 11 a.m. on the 16th August she sailed from the Roads under all plain sail, and in charge of a pilot, being then in good condition and well equipped for her voyage. The pilot left her when near the Breaksea Lightship, about 1 p.m. At 7 p.m., according to his own version, or somewhat earlier according to the statement of other witnesses, the master, who stated that he was exhausted from having been up all the previous night watching the crew whom he had shipped at Cardiff, and to whom he had made cash advances on account of wages, went below, although it was his watch at 8, leaving the mate on deck, but without handing over charge of the deck in a formal manner to him. The mate holds a certificate as only mate 6th November 1867. He was shipped at Bristol, and the only knowledge which the master had of his abilities was the mate's own assurance that he had been up and down the Bristol Channel, and had once on an emergency taken a ship up himself to Cardiff. The master does not appear to have returned to the deck until after the ship had stranded. He himself alleges that he went up about 9 for five minutes, but the weight of evidence is against him on this point, and he admitted that he does not think he was seen by any one, that he did not take charge, but went below again. He, however, alleges that he sent up orders from below by the steward. This, however, the ma?? fla??y denied, while admit??ing that, when off Breaksea Point, about 6 or 7, the boatswain told bim than the captain had ordered the ship to tack. About 9, being then on the English side, the ship was tacked towards the Welsh shore, heading north, Nash lights, according to the mate, then bearing N.W. That course. was kept until 11 o'clock, when she went ashore near Breaksea Point. The weather during this time, according to the mate, whose evidence, it may be as well to state, was given in a very confused and unintelligent manner, was hazy; but he was contradicted by the other witnesses, who agree in saying that the weather was fine and clear, the land on both sides and the one fathom light being visible through the night.

The mate confessed that he made no attempt to use the lead, that he did not consult a chart, and that he was ignorant of the currents in the channel. At 9.30 the look-out man reported Nash lights, then showing bright, and again soon after 10, when they showed red, and the land appeared to him to be three or four miles off. The mate then ordered the ship to be kept away to N.E., and in two minutes afterwards to luff up again, and keep her as close to the wind as possible. About 10 o'clock the attention of the mate was called by the look-out man to the dangerous position of the ship. He then went below, he says, and consulted the master, who ordered him to take in the mainsail, but did not himself go on deck. The mate accordingly took in the mainsail as ordered, and on his own responsibility the flying jib and foretopgallant sail as well, calling all hands and removing the look-out man from his post to assist in the work. The mate stated that he then ordered the helm to be put down, and that the vessel's head came up one point. Just at that moment the ship struck. The mate hove all-aback, went below, and called the master. The master came up about 10 minutes after the vessel had stranded, and ordered a cast of the lead to be taken and a kedge to be run out astern, but the attempt to get the vessel off failed. She was very much damaged and strained, and had to be abandoned.

The questions put to the Court upon the conclusion of the evidence were these,—

1. What was the cause of the stranding of this vessel?

2. Whether safe and proper courses were set and steered after 6 p.m. on the 16th August, and whether due and proper allowance was made for tide and currents?

3. Whether the master was on deck at a time when the safety of the vessel required his personal supervision?

4. Whether at 7 p.m. and the??eafter the master gave orders as to the course to be steered, and as to the navigation of the vessel from below; and whether he was in any circumstances justified in giving an order as to the navigation of the vessel without taking proper measures to ascertain her position?

5. Whether a safe and proper course was set and steered at and after 8.45 p.m., and whether the mate was justified in keeping the vessel so long heading for the Welsh shore?

6. Whether the mate was justified in neglecting to use the lead?

7. Whether the bearings and distance of the Nash light were correctly taken, and whether the mate was justified in continuing the course so long after having sighred that light?

8. Whether at 10 p.m., and before and after that hour, the master was intoxicated?

9. Whether when land was sighted prompt and prope?? measures were taken to prevent the vessel stranding?

10. Whether the vessel was navigated with proper and seamanlike care?

11. Whether the master and mate, or either of them, is in default?

Upon these questions we are of opinion.—

1. That the stranding of the vessel was caused by negligent navigation.

2. That proper courses were steered to a certain extent. but those courses became dangerous when the land was approached, at which time she ought to have been put round.

3. That the master was not on deck when the safety of the vessel required his personal supervision.

4. That neither at 7 or afterwards did the master give any orders until, on the mate going down to him just before the ship stranded, he directed the mainsail to be taken in; and, further, we are of opinion that he ought at that time to have gone on deck to have ascertained the position of his ship.

5. That as to the latter part of this question (the former part having already been answered), the mate was not justified in keeping the vessel so long heading for the Welsh shore.

6. That the mate was not justified in neglecting to use the lead.

7. That there is no reason to doubt that the light did not bear (as stated) N.N.W. at 10 o'clock, but the mate was not justified in continuing his course after the red sector of the light came in sight.

8. That the master was not proved to have been intoxicated.

9. That the ship ought to have been brought round long before the attempt to do so was made, at all even?? so soon as the red light was sighted.

10. That the vessel was not navigated with proper and seamanlike care.

11. That both master and mate were in default.

 

(Signed)

R. O. JONES.

 

 

A. P. FRENCH.

 

 

A. ANDERSON.

L 367. 865. 150.—9/81. Wt. 203. E. & S.