Wreck Report for 'Ellen', 1882

(No. 1219.)

"ELLEN" (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at Westminster on the 7th of January 1882, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captain BEASLEY and Captain RONALDSON, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the stranding of the British steamship "ELLEN," of Grimsby, near the Scaw Lighthouse, on the 14th of November last, whilst on a voyage from South Shields to Copenhagen.

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 and loss of the said vessel "Ellen" was due to the negligent navigation thereof by Matthew Smith Ford, the master, in having, when off Hirtshal Point, during a thick fog, estimated the bearing and distance of that point merely by the sound of fog horn, and in having then laid her upon a course to round the Skaw without from time to time taking a cast of the lead to ascertain his true position, and thus caused her to run on the shore.

For these wrongful acts and defaults the Court suspends the certificate of the said Matthew Smith Ford for three months from this date, but recommends that during the period of such suspension he be allowed a first mate's certificate.

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

Dated this 7th day of January 1882.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

THOS. BEASLEY,

Assessors.

 

 

A. RONALDSON,

 

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Westminster on the 7th of January instant, when Mr. Snagge appeared for the Board of Trade, and Mr. King for the owners and master of the "Ellen." Five witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. Snagge handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. Mr. King was then heard on behalf of the master, and Mr. Snagge having replied, the Court proceeded to give judgment on the questions on which its opinion had been asked. The facts of the case are as follow:—

The "Ellen" was an iron screw steamship belonging to the port of Grimsby, of 789 tons gross and 596 tons net register, and was fitted with engines of 70-horse power. She was built at Hebburn-on-Tyne, in the year 1872, and at the time of her loss was the property of Mr. Edward Jordan Hough, of 12, St. Helen's Place, Bishopgate Street, London, and of Mr. P. W. Surtees, Mr. Hough being the managing owner. She left the Tyne at about 8 a.m. of the 12th of November last, bound to Copenhagen, with a crew of 15 hands all told, and having on board 905 tons of cargo coal, besides 100 tons in her bunkers, and drawing 13 feet 3 forward and 15 feet 9 aft. She seems to have been in a perfectly good condition, and to have been properly fitted with boats and other necessaries for the voyage. At noon of the 14th, it being too hazy to take an observation, the master computed his position by dead reckoning to be in latitude 57° 54' north and longitude 9° 31' east. On taking, however, a cast of the lead he found himself in 9 fathoms, and as his chart shewed him that he ought to have had about 45 fathoms soundings if he had been where he thought he was, he knew that he must have got considerably to the southward of his course, and he accordingly altered the course from E. 1/2 S., which she had been steering, to east, or half a point to the north. At 12.30 the fog had set in very thick, and the vessel was accordingly stopped and soundings were again taken, which this time gave them 8 fathoms. Upon which the captain, finding that he was shoaling his water, altered the course to north by his steering compass, or N. by E. magnetic, there being, he told us, about one point deviation on all these courses. At 1 p.m. another cast of the lead was taken, which gave 9 fathoms; the same course was continued until 1.40, when they got 12 1/2 fathoms, upon which the vessel's course was altered to E.N.E. magnetic. At 2.45 another cast of the lead was taken, which gave them 10 fathoms, and at about the same time they heard the Hirtshal's fog horn, which the master told us he estimated to bear S. E., distant from 4 to 5 miles. He accordingly altered the course to E. by N. half N., and that course was continued till 4.30, when it was again altered to E. 1/2 N., and at 6.30 the vessel struck upon the Scaw, near the village of Old Skagen. Orders were at once given to put the engines full speed astern, and the vessel paid off to about W.S.W., upon which the engines were put full speed ahead, but they could not move her. They then commenced to jettison the cargo, but at about 11 o'clock, the wind and sea having increased considerably, and the vessel beginning to bump and to make water, it was deemed expedient to leave her, and accordingly the crew got into two lifeboats and one shore boat, which had come out to render assistance in obedience to signals made from the vessel, and they were safely landed at Old Skagen. On the following morning the captain went off to the vessel, when he found that her back was broken, and she has since become a total wreck, but happily without the loss of any lives.

Now, the first question upon which our opinion has been asked is, "What was the cause of the stranding of the vessel?" It would seem that the vessel must have got in some way considerably out of her course, according to the master some 30 miles to the south of it, so that at noon of the 14th, when the master thought himself to be in latitude 57° 54' north, and longitude 9° 31' east, and in 45 fathoms water, he found by taking a cast of the lead that he was only in 9 fathoms, and therefore very near to the coast of Jutland. He accordingly alters his course, but alters it only to the extent of 1/2 a point to the northward. Half an hour afterwards, on finding that he was shoaling his water, he lays her with her head to the northward until 1.40 p.m., when he finds himself in 12 1/2 fathoms, on which he resumes his course to the eastward. At 2.45 he hears the Hirtshal fog horn; he estimates its distance to be from 4 to 5 miles, and thereupon lays her on an E. by N. 1/2 N. course, which at 4.30 is altered to E. 1/2 N. Now, if the vessel, when the fog horn was heard, was two miles off, as the master now admits, instead of being, as he supposed, from 4 to 5 miles off, these courses would have taken him directly ashore, and that is no doubt the way in which the casualty occurred. The vessel got too near the shore, and instead of laying her on a course which would have taken her well out to sea, he chooses to hug the coast and runs ashore.

The second question upon which our opinion is asked is, "Whether from time to time on the 14th of November, and especially at and after 2.45 p.m. on that day, proper measures were taken to ascertain and verify the position of the vessel; and whether the Hirtshal's fog signal then bore S.E. at a distance of 4 or 5 miles?" It would seem that the captain took no steps, at all events from 2.45 p.m., to ascertain and verify his position, and it seems quite certain that he could not then have had Hirtshal bearing S.E., distant 4 to 5 miles, otherwise the course he steered would probably have taken him clear.

The third question upon which our opinion is asked is, "Whether safe and proper courses were set and steered, especially from this time (2.45 p.m. on the 14th, of November); and whether due and proper allowance was made for tide and current?" Seeing that at 2.45, when Hirtshal fog horn was heard, the vessel must then have been very close to the shore, the courses steered from that time were not proper courses, due allowance being made for the set of the current to the eastward.

The fourth question upon which our opinion is asked is, "Whether the lead was used with sufficient frequency?" Up to 2.45 the lead appears to have been used with sufficient frequency. But after 2.45 it seems not to have been used at all, and it is for this that the master is in our opinion greatly to blame. A cast of the lead at 4.30 would have shewn him at once his mistake, for if he had been where he says that he thought he was, he would have had some 44 fathoms of water, whereas a cast of the lead at that time would not have given him more than about 14 fathoms. If the master chose to keep the vessel along the coast in this shallow water, he ought to have had the hand lead continually going, so as to have seen whether the water was shoaling or not.

The fifth question which we are asked is, "Whether the vessel was navigated with proper and seamanlike care?" The captain told us that at 2.45 he got only 10 fathoms of water, and that he thought himself to be about 4 or 5 miles from Hirtshal Point, although, as a fact, he must have been much nearer to it. Now at page 284 of the "North Sea Pilot," Part IV., it is said: "Off Hirtshal's Point a flat extends to the distance of about 6 miles, with several shallow spots on it, though none with less than 4 fathoms, and the innermost is only a mile from the point. A prudent distance for a large vessel to pass this point is about 10 miles." According to this, then, the captain ought to have kept at a distance of 10 miles from Hirtshal Point, which would have placed him outside the 20 fathom line of soundings; and although he supposed that he was only 4 or 5 miles from the point, and knew that he was in only 10 fathoms of water, he lays the vessel on a course parallel to the coast, and which if he had made a mistake in his distance from Hirtshal Point, as he had in fact done, would necessarily take him ashore. If he felt it necessary to keep near the coast, he should, as I have already said, have had the lead constantly going, instead of standing on his course from 2.45 to 6.30, or for nearly four hours, close along the coast, without taking any cast of the lead, and without knowing his true position, and in the midst of a dense fog.

The last question upon which our opinion is asked is, "Whether the master and officers are, or whether any of them is, in default?" It is added that "the Board of Trade are of opinion that the certificate of the master should be dealt with." Mr. King has admitted that the master has been guilty of a grave error of judgment; but in our opinion it amounts to more than an error of judgment. To have set a course on an estimate of the distance and direction of Hirtshal Point formed from merely hearing the fog horn in the midst of a dense fog, and without taking a cast of the lead t verify his position, although he knew that he was in close proximity to the coast, is in our opinion not a mere error of judgment, but an act of gross negligence. He has by his conduct exposed the lives of all on board to great danger, and has caused the total loss of a valuable ship and her cargo; and the course which we should ordinarily have taken would have been to have suspended his certificate for six months. Seeing, however, that after the vessel grounded he seems to have used his best endeavours to save the ship and the lives of those on board, and that he has given his evidence in a very straightforward way, the assessors are of opinion that the justice of the case will be sufficiently met by suspending his certificate for only three months.

On the application of the solicitor for the master, the Court recommended that during the suspension of his master's certificate he be allowed a first mate's certificate.

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

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

THOS. BEASLEY,

Assessors.

 

 

A. RONALDSON,

 

L 367. 989. 150.—1/82. Wt. 203. E. & S.