Wreck Report for 'Annie Arbib', 1882

(No. 1217.)

"ANNIE ARBIB" (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at Westminster on the 5th and 6th of January 1882, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captain CASTLE, Captain FORSTER, and C. W. MERRIFIELD, Esquire, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the abandonment and loss of the steamship "ANNIE ARBIB," of London, on the 28th of November 1881, whilst on a voyage from Cronstadt to London with a cargo of grain.

Report of Court.

The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons annexed, that the loss of the said ship was due to the shifting of the cargo, arising from the insufficiency of the shifting boards, from their not having been properly secured, and from the absence of beam fillings in the 'tween decks, and that David Dudding, the master of the vessel, is to blame for the casualty. For these wrongful acts and defaults the Court suspends the certificate of the said David Dudding for six months.

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

Dated the 6th day of January 1882.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

GEORGE H. FORSTER,

 

 

 

JOHN S. CASTLE,

Assessors.

 

 

CHARLES W. MERRIFIELD,

 

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Westminster on the 5th and 6th of January instant, when Mr. Muir Mackenzie appeared for the Board of Trade, Mr. Wood Hill for the owners, and Mr. Nelson for the master of the "Annie Arbib." Nine 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. Four of the witnesses having been then recalled and further examined on behalf of the master, Mr. Wood Hill and Mr. Nelson addressed the Court for their respective parties, and Mr. Muir Mackenzie having been heard in reply, 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 "Annie Arbib" was an iron screw steamship belonging to the Port of London, of 1160 tons gross, and 753 tons net register, and was fitted with engines of 150 horse power. She was built at Kinghorn, in Fifeshire, in the year 1874, and at the time of her loss was the property of Messrs. Arbib, of 46, St. Mary Axe, in the City of London, merchants, Mr. Eugenio Arbib being the managing owner. She left Cronstadt on the 16th of November last for London, with a crew of 24 hands all told, and having on board about 1,200 to 1,210 tons of grain, half of which was wheat and half oats, in addition to 115 tons of bunker coal, and drawing 16 feet 2 forward, and 17 feet 9 aft. Having called in at Copenhagen, she there took in 25 tons of bunker coal, and then continued her voyage without anything particular occurring until the 26th, when she encountered a heavy gale from the S.W., and in the course of that day the rods or chains which connect the 'midship wheel with the rudder aft broke, and the vessel took a list to starboard. Having repaired the rudder chains, she continued her course, but from that time the cargo seemed to be always on the move, shifting from side to side, so that it was necessary to change the tack every three or four hours, to keep the cargo as nearly as possible amidships. The gale continued to blow throughout the 27th with increased violence, the vessel shipping large quantities of water fore and aft, and at about 4 a.m. of the 28th, whilst the vessel was heading about west or W.S.W., the wind blowing a hurricane from the S.W., she was struck on the port bow by a tremendous sea, which carried away the starboard lifeboat, and all the spare gear about the deck, gutted the cabin, lifted the port life-boat out of the chocks, and hove the vessel down on her starboard broadside. Having tried, but without success, to bring her round on to the other tack under a starboard helm against the wind, the helm was put hard-a-port, and they wore her round and brought her up with her head to the southward in hopes of righting her. The vessel however continued to lie over on her starboard side with the decks exposed to the full force of the waves, and in danger of having the hatches beaten in; accordingly, on a smack-bearing down to them, preparations were made to get the boats out. The pinnace with 8 hands was first lowered into the water, and remained under the lee of the ship, until they were picked up by the smack. With great difficulty the port life boat was then got out, and all the remaining hands having got into her, they succeeded in reaching the smack, from which they were subsequently landed at Yarmouth. We are told that it was between 12 and 1 p.m., when the last of the crew left her, and that at that time Yarmouth bore S.W., distant about 50 miles.

Now the first question upon which our opinion has been asked is, "Whether, when the vessel left Cronstadt, she was in a good and seaworthy condition." We were told by Mr. McColl, who designed her, and superintended her construction, that she was built for Messrs. Blyth Brothers, of Liverpool, and was intended chiefly for the Brazil and River Plate trades. He also told us, that as she was to have a large double ended boiler put into her, they suggested to the owners, whilst she was building, that she should have more metal put into the main deck, but that suggestion was not adopted by the owners; and on her being classed in the Liverpool Underwriters' Association, she obtained only an 18 years class, a good class, but not the highest. She remained in the possession of Messrs. Blyth Brothers until about November 1880, when they sold her to Messrs. Arbib, and we were told by Mr. Baker, Messrs. Blyth's superintendent, that during all the time that she was in their possession, she proved herself to be an execellent vessel, and always carried her cargoes well. On being purchased by Messrs. Arbib she was put into dry dock, and underwent a thorough overhaul; and was again overhauled and put into dry dock as late as August last. We have therefore no reason to doubt that, when she left Cronstadt, she was, so far as the hull was concerned, in a thoroughly good and seaworthy condition.

The second question which we are asked is, "Whether she was overladen, and whether she had sufficient freeboard?" We were told by Mr. McColl that she was designed to carry a dead weight of 1,530 tons on a freeboard of 4 feet 5; and as on this voyage she had only 1,210 tons, besides 115 tons of bunker coal, making altogether 1,325 tons, she would seem not to have been overladen. Mr. Baker also told us that during the time she was in Messrs. Blyth's possession she frequently carried heavier cargoes, and carried them well. It seems also that the load line was placed at 4 feet 6 below the line of the deck, and as on leaving Cronstadt it was about an inch above the water on the port side, whilst it was a little below it on the starboard side, the vessel having a slight list to starboard, she would seem to have had a freeboard of about 4 feet 6, or 54 inches, which, on a depth of hold of 19.5 feet, gives a little more than 2 3/4 inches of freeboard to every foot depth of hold, which the assessors consider to be ample. As, too, the water is fresh at Cronstadt, she would rise on getting into salt water; besides which, she would lighten by the consumption of coals, which we are told was about 10 tons a day. We have, therefore, no hesitation in saving that the vessel was not overladen, and that she had a sufficient freeboard.

The third question which we are asked is, "Whether, as laden, the vessel had sufficient stability?" Mr. McColl told us that she was originally built with accommodation for 8 passengers; but that he considered her, from her construction, to be quite capable of carrying a full homogeneous cargo. He added that he should have had no objection to put a poop upon her, His evidence was confirmed by Mr. Baker, who told us that she had often carried cargoes of grain, cotton, and other goods from New Orleans and other ports (heavier cargoes than she had in her on this occasion), and that as a general rule she had carried those cargoes well. On the voyage out to Cronstadt also she had a full cargo of coal, and shewed herself to be a stiff vessel. I may add that, judging from her proportions, the assessors are disposed to think that she had sufficient stability.

The fourth question upon which our opinion is asked is, "Whether the shifting boards were grain tight, and whether they extended from deck to deck, and from deck to keelson; if not, whether the shifting boards were sufficient, and whether they were properly and securely fastened and shored?" it seems that the master had had great experience in the Baltic grain trade, having been almost continuously engaged in it for the last eleven years. The same, however, can not be said of his officers; thus, the chief officer had only once before been in a grain vessel, and that was from New York, and then the grain was carried in bins; whilst the second officer and the carpenter had never before sailed in a grain ship. Now, although the master was the only person on board this vessel who was thoroughly acquainted with the mode of fitting a grain ship, beyond giving some general directions as to how it was to be done, he appears not to have exercised any careful supervision over the work; for he told us that he did not know how far the shifting boards went down, or whether there were or were not any beam fillings in the 'tween decks. What he seems to have done was to entrust the putting up of the shifting boards to the carpenter, who had from time to time the assistance of the second mate and one or two of the hands, with occasional supervision by the chief mate. The work, however, of fixing the shifting boards would principally fall upon the carpenter, and it is to him, therefore, that we might reasonably look for the best evidence on the subject. An attempt was, however, made to discredit his evidence. It was said that he had, soon after he had been put ashore, written to the owner, saying that he had lost all his tools, which he valued at the sum of 23l., with the vessel, and that he was in a state of destitution, and asking the owner to make him some compensation for his losses. According to Mr. Wood Hill, this was an attempt to levy black mail upon the owner; but we are not disposed to regard it in that light. On the contrary, we think that if the vessel was lost through the conduct of an agent of the owner, the carpenter might claim to be entitled, morally, if not legally, to some compensation from the owner for his losses; and we do not think that the carpenter is fairly open to the charge which has been brought against him. In the next place, it was said that he had suggested to the master that the vessel should be sunk by taking off the bunker lids; but it turned out that this suggestion had been made just as they were on the point of leaving her, and when, according to the master, all hopes of saving her were at an end; and no doubt the suggestion to sink her then was to prevent her becoming a floating danger to other vessels. We offer no opinion as to whether it should have been done, but we see nothing criminal in his making the suggestion, nothing to lead us to think that he was a person undeserving of credit.

According to the carpenter also he had not sufficient time allowed him to fit the shifting boards properly. It seems that the vessel arrived at Cronstadt at noon of Monday the 7th, and that she left again about noon of the 16th, which would allow eight clear working days for discharging the cargo of coals, fitting her up for the reception of the grain, and shipping on board some 1210 tons of wheat and oats. We are not prepared to say that it could not have been done in the time, provided that they had had a sufficient number of hands, but it would require a good deal of expedition to be used; and that there was need of expedition is only too probable, seeing that, when they left Cronstadt, they had to have the assistance of a steam tug to break their way through the ice, and that there was some apprehension lest the vessel should be frozen up. We were told too by the carpenter that, whilst he was fitting the shifting boards, the grain was pouring in in such quantities that the man who was assisting him could stand it no longer and left; and that he himself was also obliged to leave off before he could finish it.

Be this however as it may, the question for our consideration is, what was the condition of the shifting boards when the vessel left Cronstadt; and I think it will be found on examination that as to this there is really no difference between the witnesses on most of the essential points. It seems that the vessel, which had two decks laid, was fitted with two holds, one before and the other abaft the engine-room. The fore hold extended from the collision bulkhead to the bulkhead of the thwartship bunker, and had two hatchways; the after hold extended from the after engine-room bulkhead to the bulkhead aft, and had only one hatchway. We are told that on the previous voyage she had brought a cargo of grain from Ibrail on the Danube, and that on that occasion she was fitted with shifting boards, which were not, so far as the master knew, disturbed, except of course in the way of the hatchways, to enable them to discharge the cargo, and that she was in this condition, when she discharged her cargo of coal at Cronstadt. Both the master and the chief officer in their first examination led us to think that these permanent shifting boards extended from end to end and from top to bottom, both of the lower holds and of the 'tween decks, except in the way of the hatchways; and it was only when the second mate came to give his evidence that we learnt for the first time that there was a space in the fore part of the after 'tween decks, some 10 to 12 feet long, where there were no shifting boards at all. This evidence was followed by that of the carpenter, who told us that, not only was there this space in the fore part of the after 'tween decks, to which the second mate had referred, but that there was a similar space of about 9 or 10 feet in the fore part of the fore 'tween decks, where there were equally no shifting boards; and that between the after end of No. 2 hatchway and the bulkhead of the thwartship bunker there was a space, both in the lower hold and in the 'tween decks, of about 4 feet, where there were no shifting boards. That there were these spaces is not now denied, for, when the master and the chief officer were recalled by Mr. Nelson, they admitted that they had seen them, and all that they could say was that the spaces in the fore parts of the 'tween decks were not quite so long as had been stated, and that the space between the after end of No. 2 hatchway and the bulkhead of the thwartship bunker was about 3 feet and not 4 feet; but as to their existence, and as to their not having been filled up with shifting boards, when the vessel left, there was no dispute. It was said, however, that the fore part of the fore 'tween decks was not more than about one half the vessel's greatest breadth, or about 15 feet, and that consequently it would not matter; but even if we were to admit that, which however we do not do, the same remark would not apply to the fore part of the after 'tween decks, where the vessel would be at its broadest.

And now as to the hatchways. According to the carpenter there were 5 deals placed in each hatchway, the chief mate said that there were 7, the second mate said that there were 6 or 7 in the after hatchway, which was the only one that he saw, whilst the captain said that he told them to put in 5 or 6 planks in each hatchway. It is admitted that the deals were all 9 inches wide, so that according to the carpenter there would be in the hatchways shifting boards a little under 4 feet deep, and according to the chief mate a little over 5 feet. It was also stated by the carpenter that the planks in the after 'tween decks were not close, and that there were intervals of from 2 to 3 inches between them, through which of course the grain would flow freely from side to side; but on this point he is directly contradicted by the master and the two officers. Taking, however, the facts as they are now admitted, we have a space of about 9 or 10 feet long in the fore part of the fore 'tween decks, and a like space in the fore part of the after 'tween decks, where there were no shifting boards at all; and in the after part of the fore hold, as well in the lower hold as in the 'tween decks, there was also for a length of some 3 or 4 feet no shifting boards, and although about 4 or 5 feet of this space immediately below the hatchways would be covered to the extent of about a foot by the projecting ends of the shifting boards in No. 2 hatchway, the lower parts would be quite open. Now I am told by the assessors that shifting boards thus arranged with these open spaces at the fore and after ends would render the rest of the shifting boards comparatively useless, for the grain would travel freely round the ends of the boards from one side to the other of the vessel. The captain told us that these ends had been left open purposely to enable the men to get round from one side to the other, but the assessors tell me that this is not at all necessary, and ought not to be done, for that the cargo is always trimmed from the hatches and not from the ends, and that if there was space for a man to get round the grain would also readily get round. Our answer then to the first part of this question must be that the shifting boards were not sufficient for the purpose for which they were required, that is to say, to prevent the cargo from shifting. As regards the thwartship bunker, all that we need say is that according to the carpenter there were originally six planks fitted in the upper part of it, but that one of them was removed to trim the cargo, and was not replaced. It was, however, a comparatively small compartment, and nothing turns upon this.

Secondly, Were the shifting boards properly and securely fastened and shored? On this point not a question was asked of the master or of either of the mates, although they were produced after the carpenter had given his evidence, and might have contradicted him had they been able to do so. Now, according to the carpenter, some of the shifting boards were secured to the stanchions by hook bolts and nuts at each end, whilst others had only one end secured, the other end resting against the stanchions, which formed a species of ladder for the men going in and out of the hatchways, and it was to these loose ends for the most part that the shifting boards in the hatchways were secured by spikes or nails 5 inches long. Such a mode of fixing the boards was, in the opinion of the assessors, neither safe nor proper; the planks, being 17 feet long and single, ought in their opinion to have been attached at every stanchion. As regards the shoring we have nothing to say against that, as the planks appear to have been properly shored off to the stanchions at the sides of the hatchways.

The fifth question which we are asked is, "Whether the feeders in the 'tween decks were properly constructed?" It seems that in the fore-hold there were two large hatchways, and as the lower hatches were off, they would serve the purpose of feeders. In the after-hold there was only one hatchway, but there we are told that there were two feeders, about 6 feet 2 long by 4 feet 2 wide in the fore part, and a third in the after part, which we think would be sufficient to act as feeders to the lower hold.

The sixth question is, "Whether there were proper beam fillings; and if not, whether any one, and if so, who, is to blame for the omission?" The captain told us that he did not know whether there were or were not beam fillings in the 'tween decks, but both the mates as well as the carpenter said that there were not any there. Indeed the second mate, a witness by no means unfavourable to the master or to the owner, told us that in the after 'tween decks where he was a man could put his head over the top of the shifting boards between the beams, so that it is clear that the grain could pass readily over the tops of the boards from side to side of the ship; and what, therefore, we have now to consider is, who is to blame for this omission. Primâ facie, of course, the captain is responsible for the vessel being properly fitted with shifting boards, and if he chooses to delegate that duty to the carpenter or to the mates, he ought to see that they know how to do it. Here the captain seems to have been the only man on board who had any practical knowledge on the subject; he admitted that he knew that beam fillings were necessary, and that if he had seen that they were not there he should have ordered them to be put in. He neglected to do so, and consequently the blame for their omission rests with him.

The seventh question upon which our opinion is asked is, "Whether the pump wells were properly constructed and grain tight?" There has been no evidence to shew that the pump wells were not properly secured and grain tight; on the contrary, the carpenter told us that he had assisted the mate to fit and mat them securely.

The eighth question which we are asked is, "Whether the cargo was properly stowed, and whether all reasonable and proper precautions were taken to prevent it from shitting, in accordance with section 3 of the Carriage of Grain Act, 1880?" And, first, it was contended by Mr. Wood Hill that the Act did not apply, for that the "Annie Arbib" was not a "ship laden with " a grain cargo" within the meaning of the Act of Parliament. The point, he told us, had been suggested to him by Mr. Nelson, but he adopted it and argued it at some length. He said that by the 10th section of the Act "grain" is defined to be "any corn, rice, paddy, pulse, seeds, nuts, or nut kernels," and that although the word "corn" might include wheat, and perhaps barley, it would not mean oats; that consequently the vessel, having on board half wheat and half oats, con d be said to have had only 605 tons of "grain" on board. He then went on to say that the last part of the 10th section provided that a "ship laden with a grain cargo" meant a ship one-third the tonnage of which exceeded one-half the number of tons of grain which the vessel had on board; and as the tonnage of the vessel was, Mr. Wood Hill told us, 1,160 tons, one-third thereof, or 386 tons, would be more than one-half of the weight of the grain which she had on board, and that consequently she would not come under the provisions of the Act. And, first, as to whether "corn" includes "oats." It is certainly not very easy to understand why "corn" should mean wheat, and perhaps barley, rather than oats. Mr. Wood Hill admitted that in ordinary parlance corn did include oats, as, for instance, where a groom is told to give a feed of corn to a horse; but he said that if you went to Mark Lane and ordered a cargo of corn, they would give you a cargo of wheat, and that if they delivered a cargo of oats you would not be bound to accept it. I confess that I do not know what the practice in Mark Lane is in this respect, but I have hitherto always thought that corn was a generic term, including wheat, oats, barley, rye, &c.; and on referring to Stevens on Stowage, p. 216, under the title of "Grain and Corn," I find the following passage:" Grain is described as being the small seed of any kind of grass, chiefly however cereals, which are the grasses producing bread corn, and are the object of continuous culture for food, as wheat, rye, barley, maize, oats, rice, and millet. Corn is the general commercial name for the grain or seed of plants used for human food. In England the bread corn is chiefly wheat; in the United States the name corn applies especially to maize; in Scotland it is given to oats before they are ground; and in Sweden, Ireland, &c., it denotes barley." I should add that the 4th section of the Act, sub-section b. (1), refers to "oats" as being a kind of "grain." It appears to us, therefore, that whether we regard the word in its scientific, commercial, or ordinary sense, or in the sense intended by the Act, corn includes oats. But assuming that we are wrong in this view, and that only the wheat that the vessel had on board is to be regarded as grain, would it be true to say that, reckoning two tons of grain for each ton of the vessel's tonnage, the weight of the grain did not exceed a third of the tonnage? In estimating the tonnage Mr. Wood Hill had taken the gross tonnage, which, he said, was intended by the Act; but as the Act says the "registered tonnage" I am at a loss to conceive on what ground we are to take the gross tonnage. Now the registered tonnage of the "Annie Arbib" was 753 tons, and one-third of this would be 251; doubling this we only get 502 tons, and as it is admitted that the vessel had 605 tons of wheat on board, the wheat alone would exceed the tonnage. I should not have dwelt so long on these objections had not Mr. Wood Hill asked for a judicial finding upon the points with a view, I presume, to an appeal from our decision, for he said that a decision on our part might expose his clients to very heavy claims on the part of the owners or underwriters of the cargo. We have therefore no hesitation in saying that, in our opinion, oats are covered by the word "corn," and that they are therefore grain within the meaning of the Act; that the words "registered tonnage" mean the registered tonnage and not the gross tonnage of the vessel; and that consequently the "Annie Arbib" must be considered to be a "ship laden with a grain cargo" within the meaning of the Act, and as such subject to its provisions.

This being so, we have now to consider what are the requirements which the Act imposes upon ships "laden " with a grain cargo." Section 4, sub-section c., is in these words:—"Where grain is carried in the hold or between the decks, whether in bags or bulk, the hold or the space between the decks shall be divided by a longitudinal bulkhead or by sufficient shifting boards, which extend from deck to deck or from the deck to the keelson, and are properly secured, and if the grain is in bulk are fitted grain-tight with proper fillings between the beams." it was said by Mr. Nelson that this section of the Act applies only to vessels engaged in the North American or Black Sea trade, and that it does not apply to ships engaged in the Baltic trade, for which, seeing the comparative shortness of the voyage, the Act seems to contemplate less stringent regulations; and in that view we are disposed to concur. But then there is section 3, which applies to all grain-laden ships, and which is in these words:—"Where a grain cargo is laden on any British ship all necessary and reasonable precautions (whether prescribed by this Act or not) shall be taken in order to prevent the grain cargo from shifting;" and it then goes on to say that, "if such " precautions have not been taken" the master of the ship, &c., shall be liable to certain penalties "unless he " shews that he took all reasonable means to enforce " the observance" of the section. What then we have to consider in this case is, whether the master took "all reasonable and proper precautions in order to " prevent the grain cargo from shifting." Now we are told that half of this cargo was wheat and half oats, and that the wheat being the heavier was of course put at the bottom, whilst the oats were kept at the top; and we were referred to a passage at page 437 of Stevens on Stowage, where it is said that "oats " do not require shifting boards," and it was said that, admitting the existence of these spaces in the fore and after 'tween decks, where there were no shifting boards, their absence could be of no consequence, as no shifting boards were necessary. It will be well, however, to read the whole of the passage in Stevens. After observing that "oats do not require shifting boards," he goes on to say, "they should be closely packed or con- " siderable freightage will be lost; they are usually " trodden down by foot; sometimes a stone roller or a " cask full of water is used, an operation which wheat " will not bear." Now, I am told by the assessors that this passage in Stevens refers to a time when grain was carried in smaller vessels than it is at present, and when much more care was taken in stowing it, weeks sometimes being occupied in the process, and not as at present, and as was done in the case of this ship, where the cargo is shot on board with the utmost expedition; in the former case the cargo of grain used to be pressed tightly down, which would prevent it from shifting, whereas it is now generally allowed to settle down in course of the voyage, and is therefore much more liable to shift. As I read, then, the passage in Stevens, it is this: if oats be closely packed, either by being trodden down by foot, as they usually are, or by being pressed down by a stone roller or a cask full of water, shifting boards are not required. If, however, this is not done, shifting boards are, I am told by the assessors, as necessary for oats as for any other kind of grain; shifting boards, therefore, were necessary in the case of the "Annie Arbib." This being so, we have now to consider whether the vessel fitted, as we have seen, with no shifting boards at all for a space of from 9 to 10 feet in the fore part of the fore 'tween decks, and for a like space in the fore part of the after 'tween decks, as well as for a space of from 3 to 4 feet in the after part of the fore hold, both in the lower hold and in the 'tween decks, with no beam fillings in the 'tween decks, and with a space above the shifting boards large enough, according to the second mate, for a man to put his head over, we have to consider whether a vessel thus fitted was "properly stowed," and whether it can be said that "all reasonable and proper precautions" were taken to prevent the cargo from shifting; and we have no hesitation in saying that she was not. According to the assessors, in a vessel fitted as this vessel is proved to have been, the grain, whether it was oats or wheat, would pass from side to side of the ship, either over the top or round the ends of the shifting boards, almost as readily as if there had been no shifting boards at all. In answer, therefore, to the eighth question, we have only to say that, in our opinion, the cargo was not properly stowed, and that reasonable and proper precautions were not taken to prevent it from shifting in accordance with Section 3 of the Carriage of Grain Act, 1880.

The ninth question which we are asked is, "Whether, when the vessel left Cronstadt, she had a list to starboard, and if so, what was the extent and cause thereof?" There seems to have been a trifling list of some 2 or 3 inches to starboard when she left Cronstadt, due, as we were told by one of the witnesses, to a quantity of ashes, the refuse from the engine room, having been placed on that side; but before she left her anchorage that list was nearly, if not entirely cured and we attribute no importance whatever to it.

The tenth question which we are asked is, "Whether there was anything in the proportions of the ship herself to lead the captain to believe that if the grain cargo in bulk had been properly stowed and secured the vessel was likely to capsize?" We have already answered that question by saying that, judging from the proportions of the vessel, the inference which we should be disposed to draw is, that she had ample stability for the carriage of a cargo of this description; so that if the cargo had been properly stowed and secured the vessel would, in our opinion, probably not have capsized as she did.

The eleventh question upon which our opinion is asked is, "Whether the vessel was navigated with seamanlike care and skill?" We have nothing to say against the master's seamanship. Seeing that the cargo appears to have been on the move from Saturday, so that it was necessary to change the tack every three or four hours to keep the cargo as nearly as possible amidships, the assessors are of opinion that it required considerable skill in navigating her to prevent her from capsizing before she did.

The twelfth and last question which we are asked is, "Whether the master and officers are, or either of them is, in default?" and it is added that "the Board of Trade " are of opinion that the certificate of the master should " be dealt with." That the loss of this vessel and her cargo was due to the shifting of the cargo, and that that shifting was caused by the improper way in which the shifting boards were put in, admits in our opinion of no doubt whatever. For not seeing then that the shifting boards were properly and securely fixed, the master is in our opinion wholly to blame. He alone of those on board had had experience in the grain carrying trade, and knew how vessels coming with grain from the Baltic ought to be fitted. Moreover, the Act imposes that duty upon him. It was said by Mr. Nelson that the master might fairly have assumed that the carpenter would know how to fit up a ship for the carriage of grain, but in this case the carpenter had never before fitted a grain ship, and could hardly therefore be expected to know very much about it. A master, however, who chooses to delegate to another a duty which properly belongs to him, is bound to see that the person to whom the duty is entrusted knows how to perform it, and that it is properly done. The master told us that he gave proper time and attention to the stowing of the cargo, but this could not have been of a very efficient character, otherwise he would have seen that there were no beam fillings in the 'tween decks; and he has admitted that, if he had observed that they were not there, he would have ordered them to be supplied. The Court moreover has great reason to complain of the way in which the master gave his evidence. At his first examination he led us to think that the shifting of the cargo was due to the violence of the gale on the Monday, not that it had begun to shift as early as on the Saturday; in fact that it was the exceptional violence of Monday's hurricane that had suddenly brought about the casualty. That this, however, was not so, is clear from the evidence of the chief mate, a witness who was very far from being unfavourable to the master, and who told us that the cargo had begun to shift on the Saturday, that he spoke to the captain about it, and that the captain told him to "put her on the other tack," and that he had done so, and that from that time she was changed from tack to tack every 3 or 4 four hours to keep the cargo as nearly as possible amidships. Not did the master act towards us in a very straightforward way, when in his first examination he avoided al mention of these spaces in the fore part of the fore and after 'tween decks, and in the after part of the fore hold, where there were no shifting boards; what he then told us was, that "she was particularly well " stowed." Afterwards, however, when he was recalled by Mr. Nelson, he admitted that he knew of the existence of these spaces where there were no shifting boards, but that he thought it of no consequence; ba?? the fact that he said nothing about it in his first examination seems to raise a suspicion that he must have known that the omission to put shifting boards in these places would be a source of danger to the ship, and that he had therefore tried to conceal the fact from us.

On the whole, the assessors are of opinion that this is one of the worst cases that has ever come before them, and they think that they would not be doing their duty unless they suspended the certificate of this master for six months. We shall accordingly order his certificate to be suspended for that period.

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

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

GEORGE H. FORSTER,

 

 

 

JOHN S. CASTLE,

Assessors.

 

 

CHARLES W. MERRIFIELD,

 

L 367. 987. 150.—1/82. Wt. 203. E. & S.