Wreck Report for 'County of Flint', 1882

(No. 1564.)

"COUNTY OF FLINT."

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at Westminster on the 10th and 11th of November 1882, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captains RONALDSON and ANDERSON, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the material damage sustained by the sailing ship "COUNTY OF FLINT," of Liverpool, on the 24th October last, whilst on a voyage from North Shields to Coconada with a cargo of coals.

Report of Court.

The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons annexed, that the damage sustained by the said vessel was due to her having been thrown on her beam ends by the violence of the gale which she encountered, and to her cargo, which was not secured with shifting boards, having thereupon gone bodily over from the starboard to the port side; but that no blame attaches to the master or any of the officers, who, in the trying circumstances in which they were placed, appear to have handled her with proper and seamanlike skill.

The Court is not asked to deal with their certificates, or to make any order as to costs.

Dated the 11th day of November 1882.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

 

 

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

A. RONALDSON,

Assessors.

 

 

ABSM. ANDERSON,

 

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Westminster on the 10th and llth of November instant, when Mr. Macdonnell appeared for the Board of Trade. The managing owner and the master of the "County of Flint" were present, but were not represented by either counsel or solicitor. Seven witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. Macdonnell handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. The master of the "County of Flint" having then been heard on his own behalf, 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 "County of Flint," which is an iron barque belonging to the Port of Liverpool, of 1,111 tons gross and 1,082 tons net register, was built at Sunderland in the year 1877, and at the time of the casualty which forms the subject of the present inquiry she was the property of Mr. William Thomas, of No. 23, Brunswick Street, Liverpool, and others, Mr. William Thomas being the managing owner. She left the Tyne on the 9th of October last with a crew of 19 hands all told and a cargo of 1,650 tons of coal, bound to Coconada, on the Madras coast. From the time of leaving she seems to have encountered strong head winds and heavy weather, and at 2 a.m. of the 24th was off St. Catharine's Point, in the Isle of Wight, distant about 25 miles, and was heading down channel, the wind blowing a strong breeze from the S.S.W. Finding that the weather was getting worse, the master then ordered the topsails to be double reefed, and she was kept on her course down channel, heading about west magnetic until about 8 a.m., when, finding that the gale was still increasing and that the wind had gone round to S.S.E., the captain gave directions that the two upper topsails should be furled, and she was kept under lower topsails and fore topmast staysail until 10, when observing that the barometer, which was at 28.50, had ceased to fall, and fearing that it might, as is not unusual with storms of a cyclonic character suddenly shift round to the N.W. and take him aback, he determined to put her on the other tack. Accordingly all hands were called up to wear ship, and the helm having been put up she began to pay off, but whilst coming up on the starboard tack the wind, which had in the meantime gone round to W.N.W., struck her, carrying away the lower fore topsail and fore topmast staysail and bringing the truss of the main topsail down, and at the same time the vessel lurching heavily to leeward, shipped a large quantity of water on her deck. Shortly afterwards, finding that she did not clear herself, and thinking that she had more list than was due to the weight of water on her deck, the master ordered the lee clew of the foresail to be hauled aft and the inner jib to be set, so as to get her before the wind. Before, however, they could set the jib it blew away, and although the foresail held on the vessel refused to pay off. Seeing that she was still going over, the captain then ordered the mizen mast to be cut away, but she still refused to pay off; and he accordingly ordered the mainmast to be cut away. On this being done the vessel's head paid off before the wind, and the foresail having been set she proceeded up the Channel with her head to the eastward, but still with a very heavy list to port, according to the master as much as 8 feet. She continued to run to the eastward with the men lashed on deck until about three o'clock, when the gale began to abate; and at 7 the following morning, when off Dungeness, a steam tug came up and offered her services, but as they could not come to terms they continued their course up Channel. At 11 a.m. they were abreast Dover, when terms having been arranged, the steam tug took hold of her and towed her up to London. On her arrival the hatches were opened, and it was then found that the cargo had shifted bodily from starboard to port, both in the 'tween decks and in the lower hold, and that it was to this that the heavy list which the vessel had was due.

These, then, being the facts of the case, the first question upon which our opinion has been asked is, "When the vessel left North Shields, was she in good and seaworthy condition?" I find that the vessel, which, as I have stated, was built in the year 1877, was classed 100 A 1 at Lloyd's, that being the highest class which they could give her; and as we are told also that she was in first class condition as regards her equipments, we have no reason to think that she was not in. a thoroughly good and seaworthy condition so far as the hull was concerned. A vessel, however, to be seaworthy must not be too deeply laden; let us see, therefore, what amount of cargo she had. We are told that she had on board a cargo of 1,650 tons, or nearly one and a-half times her gross tonnage, which would certainly be a very full cargo for such a vessel. And now what was her freeboard? All the witnesses agree in saying that she drew 19 feet 5 1/2 forward and 19 feet 6 1/2 aft, giving her a mean draught of 19 feet 6. We are also told that, when she left the Northumberland Dock, the water was 1 inch below the load-line, which, it appears, was placed at 4 feet below the deck, giving her a freeboard of 4 feet 1. The water, however, in the Northumberland Dock being, as we are told, brackish, she would probably rise about 2 inches on getting to sea, so that we may estimate her freeboard on leaving at about 4 feet 3. Now would this be a proper amount of freeboard for a vessel of her size and description. According to the rules published by the Board of Trade, an iron ship with an under deck tonnage of 1,052 tons should have a freeboard of about 2.7 inches to every foot depth of hold; and as it appears from the copy register that the hold was 21.3 feet deep, that would give us a freeboard of 4 feet 9 1/2 inches; but from this an allowance would have to be made on account of the poop, bridge-house, and forecastle. Taking, again, Lloyd's Rules, I find that her co-efficient of fineness would be about 64, and with a moulded depth of, say 22 feet to 22 feet 6, her freeboard should have been 4 feet 2 1/2 to 4 feet 4 1/2 inches, from which again there would have to be a deduction on account of the deck erections. Whilst, then, it can hardly be said that with a freeboard of 4 feet 3, which it seems she had, she was dangerously overladen, it is clear that she was very deeply laden. Our answer, therefore, to the first question must be that, although when she left North Shields she seems to have been, so far as regards her hull and equipments, in good and seaworthy condition, she was very fully, if not very deeply, laden.

The second question upon which our opinion has been asked is, "Whether her cargo was properly stowed and secured?" We were told that the lower hold was quite full aft, but that forward the coals sloped off, leaving an empty space in the fore part of the hold sufficient to contain from 80 to 100 tons. In the 'tween decks the vessel was full amidships from about 24 feet forward of the fore part of the main hatch to the fore part of the after hatch, and that the coals sloped off fore and aft, leaving an empty space forward sufficient to contain from 25 to 30 tons, and from 50 to 60 tons aft. We were told also that the coals were well trimmed up into the wings and under the beams, but that they were not secured either by shifting boards or in any other way. Now we are told that, although some coal laden vessels have shifting boards, it certainly is not usual, and the master stated that, although he had frequently taken coal round the Cape, he had never had shifting boards. All then that we can say is that the cargo was stowed in the way in which coal cargoes are usually stowed, although no doubt it would have been more secure if she had had shifting boards.

The third question which we are asked is, "What was the cause of the cargo shifting?" No doubt during the heavy weather which she encountered from the time of her leaving on the 9th of October to the day of the casualty the cargo settled down in the hold, and perhaps also shifted into the empty spaces forward and aft. When, then, she was thrown by the violence of the wind and sea upon her port side, and was kept there by the weight of water on her deck, it is only too probable, there being then a space between the top of the coal and the deck beams, that the cargo would shift over from the starboard to the port side, as we know it did. No doubt, if there had been shifting boards, the cargo would not have shifted to the extent it did, but it would not have prevented the shifting altogether.

I will take the 4th, 5th, and 6th questions together: they are as follow:—" Whether proper measures were taken to get the vessel upright?" "Whether the vessel was navigated with proper and seamanlike care?" and "Whether the master and officers are, or either of them is, in default?" It appears to us that when the master found that the barometer had ceased to fall, it was a very proper precaution on his part to put the vessel on the other tack, lest the wind should shift suddenly round to the N.W., as it in fact soon after. wards did, in which case the vessel would have been taken aback. It was also a very wise precaution on his part, when he found that the vessel was listing over to port, to try to get her before the wind. It was a very wise step on his part, when he found that she would not pay off, to cut away first the mizenmast and then the mainmast; and, when he had got her before the wind, he was right to set the whole of the foresail and keep her before the wind until the gale abated. He seems to have sent the second mate and eight hands down into the hold with a view of righting her by shifting the cargo over from the port to the starboard side, but the list was so great that nothing that they could have done could possibly have got her upright. It appears to us that no blame whatever attaches to the master or to any of the officers, who all seem to have done their duty in the trying position in which they were placed; and it is due to the skill with which the master handled her that the vessel was brought in safety into port, and that no lives were lost.

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

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

 

 

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

A. RONALDSON,

Assessors.

 

 

ABSM. ANDERSON,

 

L 367. 1335. l50.—11/82. Wt. 171. E. & S.