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

(No. 1072.)

"ACORN" AND "WILLIAM HARTMANN" (S.S.)

(Re-hearing.)

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

IN the matter of a re-heating, by order of the Board of Trade, under Section 2 of the "Shipping Casualties Investigations Act, 1879," of a formal Investigation held before ROBERT OLIVER JONES, Esquire, the Stipendiary Magistrate for Cardiff, into the circumstances attending the 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 Staithes, on the 28th of March last, and which was heard at Westminster on the 11th August instant, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captain CASTLE and Captain HYDE as Assessors.

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 collision was due to Frederick Greengrass, the mate of the "Acorn," not shewing either a white light or a flare-up light from the stern of his vessel when he saw the "William Hartmann" approaching him from astern, as required by Article 11 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea.

2. That George Wharton, the first mate of the "William Hartmann," is also to blame for not keeping a good look-out.

3. That the "Acorn" was not seriously damaged within the meaning of the Merchant Shipping Acts, and that the Court has consequently no jurisdiction to deal with the certificate of the said George Wharton.

The Court accordingly orders the certificate of the said George Wharton to be returded to him.

The Court is not asked to make any order as to costs.

Dated the 11th day of August 1881.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

 

 

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report,

 

(Signed)

JOHN S. CASTLE,

Assessors.

 

 

GEORGE HYDE,

 

Annex to the Report.

This case originally came before the Stipenciary Magistrate for Cardiff, with Captain A. Anderson and Captain T. B. Rees as assessors, on the 24th and 25th days of June last, when the Court was of opinion that "the collision was due to a negligent look-out on board the said steamship" (the "William Hartmann"), "for which the chief mate, Mr. George Wharton, is responsible and in default," and for which default the Court suspended his certificate for three calendar months. On the application, however, of the said George Wharton the Board of Trade ordered the case to be re-heard, under the provisions of the "Shipping Casualties Investigations Act, 1879," and it is under these circumstances that this inquiry has come before this Court.

The re-hearing took place at Westminster on the 11th of August instant, when Mr. Muir Mackenzie appeared for the Board of Trade, and Mr. Dickens for the owners and first officer of the "William Hartmann;" the master and mate of the "Acorn" were present, but were not represented by either counsel or solicitor. The evidence taken before the Court of Inquiry at Cardiff having been brought in and read, and five witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. Muir Mackenzie handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. Mr. Dickens was then heard on behalf of the first officer of the "William Hartmann," and the master and mate of the "Acorn" having been heard on their own behalf, and Mr. Muir Mackenzie having replied for the Board of Trade, the Court proceeded to give judgment on the questions on which its opinion had been asked.

The circumstances of the case are so fully detailed in the report of the learned stipendiary magistrate, that it will not be necessary to repeat them here, and I shall at once proceed to consider the questions on which our opinion has been asked by the Board of Trade.

Now the first question which we are asked is, "Was the 'Acorn' so materially damaged through the collision with the 'William Hartmann' as to give the Court by whom the inquiry was heard jurisdiction to deal with the certificate of the chief officer of the 'William Hartmann' under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 and 1862?" By the 242nd section of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, it is enacted that the Board of Trade should have the power to suspend or cancel the certificate of any officer, "if " upon any investigation conducted under the provisions " contained in the eighth part of this Act, ......... it is " reported that the loss or abandonment of, or serious " damage to any ship, or loss of life, has been caused " by his wrongful act or default." And as these powers have since been transferred to the Court by which the investigation is held, we have to ascertain whether the damage sustained by the "Acorn" in the collision between her and the "William Hartmann" was of so serious a character as to give either this Court or the Court before which the case originally came jurisdiction to deal with the certificate of the chief officer of the "William Hartmann," even though it should appear that the collision was due to his wrongful act or default. It seems that immediately after the arrival of the "Acorn" at her port of destination, East Hartlepool, she was, at the request of the master, surveyed by a Mr. Dring, a shipwright surveyor residing at that place, who estimated the total cost of the repairs at a trifle under 20l. For some reason or other which does not appear, the master determined not to repair the damage thoroughly at that time, but employed a man to caulk the to psides in the way of the damage at a total cost of from 8s. to 9s., and in that condition she took in a cargo of coals, with which she proceeded to Lowestoft, and having there discharged it, she continued running between Hartlepool and Lowestoft with coals from the time of the collision in March last until the following July, when, some other repairs having to be done to her, the opportunity was taken of repairing the damages arising out of the collision, and this was done at a total expense, we are told, of from 10l. to 11l. for materials and labour. The question, therefore, which we have to decide is whether a damage which was temporarily repaired at an expense of 8s. or 9s., which did not prevent the vessel from following her ordinary trade for between three and four months, and which was then repaired at an expense of 10l. or 11l., can be considered such a "serious damage" as would give a Court of Inquiry jurisdiction to deal with the certificate of an officer through whose wilful act or default it might have been done. And in our opinion it cannot; so that neither this Court nor the Court which originally heard the case would in our opinion have any power to deal with the certificate of the chief officer of the "William Hartmann," even though the collision may have been due entirely to his wrongful act and default.

The second question upon which our opinion is asked is, "Was the 'Acorn' justified in neglecting to show from her stern a white light, or a flare-up light, as required by Article 11 of the Regulations for preventing Collisions at Sea?" Now it was distinctly proved by the evidence of the mate of the "Acorn," given both in this Court and on the previous inquiry, that the "William Hartmann" had been seen for a very considerable time approaching them from astern, and showing her three lights, so that it must have been perfectly clear to the mate of the "Acorn" that neither of his side lights could possibly have been visible to those on board the "William Hartmann," and that. unless the latter altered her course, she must, as she was the faster vessel, and they were nearly on the same course, almost inevitably run into them. This, then, was a case, if any, to which Article 11 of the New Regulations would apply; namely, that "a ship which " is being overtaken by another ship shall show from " her stern, to the said last-mentioned ship, a white " light, or a flare-up light." It was also admitted by the mate of the "Acorn" that he had the binnacle light close at hand, and that he could have taken it out and exhibited it astern without the least difficulty, and yet he never took any step to indicate his position to the vessel which was approaching him from behind, and the reason seems to be that he was, at the time, not aware of the existence of the 11th Article in the New Regulations. In our opinion there was no justification whatever for the mate of the "Acorn" not showing a light to the approaching vessel, as he was bound by the Regulations to do.

The third question upon which our opinion is asked is. "Was a proper and efficient look-out kept on board the 'William Hartmann?'" We are told that the speed of the "William Hartmann" was about 3 knots, that of the "Acorn" from 2 to 2 1/2 knots, so that they would be approaching one another, or rather the "William Hartmann" would be overtaking the "Acorn," at the rate of from a half to one knot an hour. Under these circumstances, and seeing that the night is not stated to have been so very dark, and that the weather was fine, it certainly seems extraordinary that, if there had been a good and efficient look-out being kept on board the "William Hartman," the "Acorn" should not have been seen sooner than she was. It is true that the "Acorn," having the land as a background, would probably not have been so readily seen as against the horizon; but still she ought to have been seen before the "William Hartmann" had got so near as to make it impossible to avoid a collision. In our opinion, therefore, there could not have been a good look-out at the time on board the "William Hartmann," otherwise the "Acorn" would most certainly have been seen sooner than she was.

The fourth question which we are asked is, "When the 'Acorn' was seen, were prompt and proper measures taken by the chief officer of the 'William Hartmann' to avoid a collision?" It seems that, as soon as the "Acorn" was reported by the look-out man, the chief officer of the "William Hartmann" looked at her with his glasses, and then telegraphed to the engine room to stand by, and almost immediately afterwards ordered the engines to be put full speed astern, and, at the same time, the helm to be ported, and the fact that so little damage was done seems to shew that the measures were promptly taken and properly carried out. At the same time it is to be observed that, if these orders were given and obeyed when the vessels were as yet 200 yards from one another, it seems extraordinary, seeing the slow rate at which they were approaching one another, namely half a knot to a knot an hour, that the "William Hartmann" had not time to sheer clear of the "Acorn," and it would seem to shew that the vessels must have been much nearer to one another than 200 yards when the "William Hartmann" first sighted the "Acorn," and that she could, therefore, not have been keeping a good look-out at the time.

The fifth question which we are asked is, "Did the 'Acorn' keep her course as required by Article 22 of the Regulations?" Both vessels seem to have been nearly on the same course, that of the "Acorn" being about N.W. 1/2 N., that of the "William Hartmann" N.W. by W. northerly, making about a point of difference between them. it is said, however, by Mr. Dickens that the boy who was at the helm of the "Acorn," when he saw the "William Hartmann" coming down upon them, had left the helm, and that in that case it is very likely that the vessel would fall off before the wind, and so throw herself across the bows of the "William Hartmann." Seeing, however, that the "Acorn" was at the time under mainsail, fore and aft foresail, stay foresail, inner and outer jibs, topsail, and main topmast staysail, the Assessors are disposed to think that the vessel, if the helm had been left, would have had a tendency rather to come to than to fall off. Apart, however, from this, there is no evidence to show that the "Acorn" altered her course at all before the collision, and it seems much more probable that the starboarding of the helm of the "William Hartmann," which it is admitted was done shortly before the collision occurred, may have thrown the head of that vessel to port, and thus towards the "Acorn," and not that the "Acorn" fell off across the "William Hartmann's" bows.

The sixth question which we are asked is, "Is the chief officer of the 'William Hartmann,' or are the master and mate of the 'Acorn,' or either and which of them, to blame for the casualty?" The master of the "Acorn" was below at the time, and we agree with the learned stipendiary magistrate that he was in no way to blame for this collision. As regards the mate of the "Acorn," we have already stated that he was not justified in not exhibiting a stern light, as required by the 11th article of the Regulations, and that so far he is to blame. As regards the chief officer of the "William Hartmann," we have no doubt that had the mate of the "Acorn," as it was his duty to have done, shown a light over his stern, so as to indicate his position to the approaching vessel, it would have been seen by the chief officer of the "William Hartmann," who would then have taken measures to avoid a collision. At the same time, for the reasons already stated, we think that there could not have been a proper and efficient look-out on board the "William Hartmann," for had there been she must, at the slow rate at which she was overtaking the "Acorn," have had time to avoid her. It was said by Mr. Dickens that the officer of the watch has fully discharged his duty if he places a man on the look-out in whom he has confidence, or rather whom he has reason to believe is generally efficient, and that it rests with that man, and with that man alone, to keep the look-out; and he has referred us to two cases, the "Rowland" and the "Arizona," in which he contends that that doctrine has been laid down. I hardly think, however, that it could have been their lordships' intention to lay down the doctrine which is now contended for, that it is no part of the duty of the officer of the watch to keep a good look-out, for I am advised by the Assessors that to keep a good look-out is the first duty of the officer of the watch; that it is on that account that he takes up his position on the upper or monkey bridge, whence he has a better opportunity of looking ahead than even the look-out man himself, and that it very frequently happens that the officer of the watch sees an approaching vessel before the look-out man himself does. The object, I am told, of placing a man on the look-out is to ensure that there shall always be some one looking ahead to report an approaching vessel in case the officer's attention should have been unavoidably taken off by some other necessary duty; but it does not relieve the officer, when not otherwise engaged, from keeping a good look-out, and to hold that he is not bound to do so would, in the opinion of the Assessors, be attended with the greatest danger. In the present case it is not pretended that the chief officer of the "William Hartmann" had any other duty to perform than keeping a good look-out, and as we think that the "Acorn" would have been seen sooner than she was had there been a proper and efficient look-out on board, the chief officer is in our opinion to blame. Whether his default was such as to have justified the suspension of his certificate is a question which we need not consider, seeing that, however great his default, neither this Court nor the Court at Cardiff would have any power to deal with his certificate. We shall therefore order that his certificate be restored to him.

The Court was not asked to make any order as to costs.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

 

 

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

JOHN S. CASTLE,

Assessors.

 

 

GEORGE HYDE,

 

L 367. 842. 150.—8/81. Wt. 203. E. & S.