Wreck Report for 'Liffey', 1881

(No. 1159.)

"LIFFEY."

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at the Chancery Court, St. Georges' Hall, Liverpool, on the 22nd and 23rd of November 1881, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captain COMYN and Captain CLARKE, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the stranding of the sailing ship "LIFFEY," of St. John's, New Brunswick, near Kilmore Pier, County Wexford, on the 2nd of November 1881.

Report of Court.

The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons annexed, that the stranding of the said ship was due to the negligent navigation thereof by Neil McKellar, the master, in having mistaken the Coningbeg Light for the Tusker Light, and in having laid her on an up Channel course without taking the trouble to verify his position by a cast of the lead or otherwise.

For these wrongful acts and defaults the Court suspends the certificate of the said Neil McKellar for three months.

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

Dated the 23rd day of November 1881.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

D. N. COMYN,

Assessors.

 

 

??

 

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Liverpool on the 22nd and 23rd of November 1881, when Mr. Paxton appeared for the Board of Trade, and Mr. Stewart for the owners and master of the "Liffey." Six witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. Paxton handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. Mr. Stewart having then addressed the Court on behalf of the master, and Mr. Paxton having replied, the Court proceeded to give judgment on the questions on which its opinion had been asked. The circumstances of the case are as follow:—

The "Liffey" was a wooden barque, belonging to the port of St. John's, New Brunswick, of 857 tons gross, and 845 tons net register. She was built at St. Martin's, New Brunswick, in the year 1877, and at the time of her loss was the property of Mr. George Carvill and Mr. John McSweeney, both of St. John's. She left St. John's on the 1st of October last for Liverpool, with a crew of 15 hands and a cargo consisting of 375 standards of deals, of which a portion was stowed on deck. She seems to have encountered rough weather on the voyage, but without meeting with any casualty, and at about 10.30 p.m. of the 30th ultimo she sighted the Calf Light at the entrance to Bantry Bay, on which the vessel was tacked to the S.W., the wind blowing a strong breeze from about S.S.E. On the following day the wind increased, and the deck load of timber having got adrift, it was found necessary to throw a portion of it overboard; but at about 4 p.m. the wind chopped suddenly round to the N.W., upon which the vessel was put on the starboard tack with her head to the S.W. That evening the gale abated, and the next day the vessel's course was, as appears from the log - book, altered first to S.S.E., then to S.E., then to E.S.E., and lastly to E. by S. At 8 p.m. of the 1st of November the Fastnets were sighted, bearing N.E. by N., distant about 12 miles, the wind at the time being from the S.W. the same course was continued, and at midnight the Fastnets bore N.W. by N. On the following morning at 4 a.m. Galley Head Light bore N.N.W., but there was a slight haze, and the wind had then gone round to the south, blowing a fresh breeze. Still the same course was continued E. by S. or E. by S. southerly. The Old Head of Kinsale was next sighted, but at what hour we are not told, and there is no entry of the fact in the log-book; and at 7 p.m. that evening a light, which subsequently proved to be Coningbeg Light, was observed about 3 points on the port bow, and distant some 12 to 13 miles. The master, for reasons which he stated, and which we shall presently have to consider, thought that it was the Tuskar Light; and accordingly, when it bore north, he altered his course to N.E. by E., with the view of running, as he thought, up Channel. He then went into his chart-room to examine his chart, and in about 20 minutes or half an hour afterwards was called by the mate, who thought that he had seen something, which he took to be land, on the port quarter. The vessel's head was thereupon laid to the eastward, whilst they proceeded to examine this appearance with the glasses, and having come to the conclusion that it was either a cloud or smoke, the vessel was again put on her course N.E. by E. At about 11 p.m. a red revolving light, which afterwards proved to be the Barrels Rock Light, was observed about 3 points on the starboard bow; and as neither the master nor the mate knew what it was, it was determined to put the vessel about, so as to come out on the course on which she had gone in; and with that view the helm was put hard up, and she was brought with her head to about S.W. by S., the wind at that time having gone round to the S.E. After a time breakers were reported on the port bow, and seeing that they could not clear a point of land to leeward of them, and that there was apparently an opening to the northward, the helm was put up to run through it, but in coming round the vessel struck upon what was afterwards found to be Patrick's Bridge, a ridge running between the North Saltees and the main land. It was now nearly midnight and orders were at once given to get out the boats, and the crew having got into them lay off until about 2 a.m., when the captain and chief officer also got into them, the captain taking command of one and the mate of the other boat, During the night the vessel drove further inshore, and we are told that she now lies about one mile S. by E. from Kilmore Pier. Since then the stores and a portion of the cargo have been recovered, but the vessel herself lies, as we are informed, in a hopeless condition.

These are the facts of the case, and the first question upon which our opinion has been asked is, "Whether the master provided himself as far as possible with proper charts and sailing directions, and directions as to the lights, for the voyage?" The master has told us that the only chart of these parts which he had on board was one of Imray's charts of the coast of Ireland, dated in 1878; and that the only books of sailing directions which he had were a New Brunswick Almanac, and a book called the "Lights of the World," four years old, but without the annual supplements required to keep it up; and as the Coningbeg Light, as we shall presently see, was altered in 1878, and the Barrels Rock Light was first established in 1880, it can hardly be said that the master had provided himself with the proper charts and sailing directions, or with directions as to the lights, for the voyage on which he was bound.

The next question which we are asked is, "Whether the light seen at 7 p.m. on the 2nd of November was the Coningbeg Light, and whether the master was justified in assuming that it was the Tuskar?" It is admitted that the light seen by the master at 7 p.m. on the 2nd November was the Coningbeg Light, and the question is whether the master was justified in mistaking it for the Tuskar Light. According to a little book which I hold in my hand, called "The Admiralty List of Lights in the British Islands for 1881," the price of which is only 1s. 6d., I find that the Coningbeg Light is defined to be a white light, shewing "three flashes in quick succession every minute," whereas the Tuskar Light is described as being a revolving light with "two white faces, and one red alternately," "each face showing for one minute." There is thus no similarity whatever between the two lights, and it seems inconceivable how any person could possibly have mistaken the one for the other. The master indeed told us that he fancied that, as the light disappeared, it had a red appearance, but that would not answer for the Tuskar Light, which shews a red face for one minute, not a mere red flash. But there is another and a stronger reason why he ought not to have mistaken the Coningbeg Light for the Tuskar. It has been stated that at 8 p.m. of the 1st the Fastnets bore N.E. by N., distant about 12 miles. and that at 7 p.m. of the following day the light, which was mistaken for the Tuskar, was seen bearing three points on the port bow, and consequently E.N.E., the vessel's course being E. by S., and distant from 12 to 13 miles. Now the distance from the Fastnets to Coningbeg Light is just about 116 miles; and if the master had taken the trouble to look at his log he would have seen that the distance ran between 8 p.m. of the 1st and 7 p.m. of the following day was just 115 miles. This ought, then, to have shown him that the light which he saw must have been the Coningbeg Light, and that it could not possibly have been the Tuskar Light, which is 20 miles further on. Mr. Stewart, however, has told us that the master had laid his course so as not to pass within sight of the Coningbeg Light. but so as to pick up the Tuskar Light. The bearing of the Old Head of Kinsale from the Fastnets is E. 3/4 S., and of the Saltees from the Old Head of Kinsale E. 1/2 S. In steering, therefore, an E. by S. southerly course, and allowing 1/2 to 1/4 of a point for leeway, the master might reasonably expect that he would come within the range of the Coningbeg Light. How, too, the master could possibly have expected to pass, as he says he did, 13 miles to the south of Coningbeg, and there by continuing an E. by S. southerly course make the Tuskar, seeing that Tuskar bears E. 1/2 N. from the Coningbeg, and that the range of the Tuskar is only 15 miles, is incomprehensible to us. Again, if the master really did intend to pass outside the range of Coningbeg Light he was guilty of most unseamanlike conduct. In the "Sailing Directions for the Coast of Ireland," page 3, I find the following passage: — "After having once made the land ships should endeavour to keep it in view. Generally speaking they keep at too great a distance from it, by which they frequently miss a sight of lights and landmarks, which it is important that they should see, and which in the event of having to seek a port of refuge would be found of very great service. The rule in coasting is to see every guide in passing it, unless thick weather should prevent it, and in that case to give strict attention to the lead and to the set of the tides until the next object is sighted." The master then either intended to come within the range of Coningbeg Light, or he did not; if he did, he ought, as soon as he saw the light, to have at once concluded from the distance ruu hat it was the Coningbeg; if he did not intend to pass within the range of Coningbeg Light he did that which no seaman ought to have done. In our opinion there is no possible justification for the master having mistaken the Coningbeg Light for the Tuskar.

The third question which we are asked is, "Whether a safe and proper course was set and steered there-from?" The course steered, when the Light bore north. was N.E. by E., which would have been a very proper course if it had been the Tuskar, but being the Coningbeg, it was a most improper course, for it took him directly into the bay between the Saltees and the Barrel Rocks, out of which it was impossible for him to beat with the wind, as it then was, from the S.E.

The fourth question which we are asked is, "What was the Light seen at 11 o'clock p.m. on the starboard bow, and whether proper measures were then taken to ascertain and verify the position of the vessel." The Light seen at 11 p.m. on the starboard bow was undoubtedly the Barrel Rocks Light, but no measures were or could be taken to ascertain and verify the position of the vessel then, for neither the master nor the mate knew what it was, and the imperfect chart and Sailing Directions which they had on board would give them no information on the subject.

The fifth question which we are asked is, "Whether proper courses were set and steered therefrom?" On seeing the Barrels Rock Light the master put his helm up, so as to lay her head to the S.W. by W., and to bring her out on the same course by which she had gone in, and in so doing we think be acted rightly. He could do nothing else with the wind from the S.E.

The sixth question which we are asked is, "Whether the lead was used with sufficient frequency?" When the Coningbeg Light was first seen, and, indeed, at any time before he altered his course to N.E. by E., a cast of the lead would have told him at once whether it was the Coningbeg or the Tuskar Light which he saw. But he took no cast at all until after he had sighted the Barrel Rocks Light, and then the first cast which he got was 10 fathoms. At that time, however, it as too late, for he was then hopelessly embayed, with the wind and sea as it then was. In our opinion the lead was not used either with sufficient frequency or sufficiently early.

The seventh question which we are asked is, "Whether, when land was seen on the lee bow, proper measures were taken to keep the vessel off the shore?" On seeing land on the lee bow, and finding that he could not clear the point, the master put the helm up to try and run between the North Saltees and the mainland, where there appeared to be an opening. As a fact, however, there was no opening; but he was then utterly ignorant of where he was, and he no doubt took what seemed to him to be the best course under the circumstances.

The eighth question which we are asked is, "Whether she was navigated with proper and seamanlike care?" In our opinion she was not. Whether we look to the difference between the two lights, or the distance run from the Fastnets, the master had no right to have mistaken the Coningbeg Light for the Tuskar; and he had also no right to put her on an up channel course until he had assured himself by a cast of the lead or otherwise that it was the Tuskar Light. In our opinion she was navigated in a very unseamanlike way.

The ninth question which we are asked is, "What was the cause of the loss of the vessel?" The cause of the loss of the vessel was the master mistaking the Coningbeg Light for the Tuskar, and putting her, when that light bore north, on a N.E. by E. course, which must if continued inevitably take her into the bay between the Saltees and the Barrels Rocks, out of which it would be quite impossible for her to beat with the wind and the sea as they then were.

The last question which we are asked is, "Whether the loss of the vessel was caused by any wrongful act or default on the part of the master;" and it is added that the Board of Trade are of opinion that "the master's " certificate should be dealt with." It was said by Mr. Stewart that the fault of the master arose rather from an error of judgment than from any wilful act or default, and that during the whole time he was attending to his duties, either on the deck, or if in his chart-room examining his chart. But if ever there was a case in which a casualty might be said to have been caused by the neglect of the simplest precautions for the safe and proper navigation of the vessel, it is this. The master undertakes with his owners to provide himself with the requisite charts and instructions for the voyage, and he neglects to do so. He takes no account of the distance run, although his patent log would have shewn him the distance with great accuracy. He sees a light, but he neglects to examine with any care its appearance, its colour, whether it is a revolving or a a flash light, and what are the periods of its revolutions or its flashes. He assumes that it is the Tuskar, but without the smallest ground for that assumption, and he neglects to verify it by taking a cast of the lead, although that would at once have shewn him that it was not the Tuskar, but that it must be the Coningbeg Light. Mr. Stewart has told us that since the alteration of Coningbeg Light in 1878 from two fixed white lights to a white light with three flashes in quick succession every minute there have been no less than seven vessels that have gone ashore in this bay, owing to a somewhat similar mistake to that which the master has committed in this case. The master, however, admits that he knew of the alteration and can therefore hardly say that he had been misled by it; moreover the alteration was made in 1878, and if masters are to go on year after year making these mistakes, and then to be allowed to plead the alteration of the light as an excuse for their negligence, it is difficult to know where it will end. On the whole we think that this master has shewn himself so negligent in the performance of his duties, that we shall suspend his certificate; but looking to the fact that it is his first offence, and that he seems to have conducted himself well after the vessel had gone ashore, we shall suspend it for only three months.

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

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner

We concur.

 

(Signed)

D. M. COMYN,

Assessors.

 

 

??

 

L 367. 929. 150.—12/81. Wt. 203. E. & S.