Wreck Report for 'Bertioga', 1883

(No. 1626.)

"BERTIOGA."

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

IN the matter of a rehearing by order of the Board of Trade, under the provisions of "The Shipping Casualties Investigations Act, 1879," of a formal Investigation, which had been held hefore a Naval Court at Céara, in Brazil, into the circumstances attending the stranding and loss of the sailing ship "BERTIOGA," of London, heard at Westminster, on the 3rd day of January 1883, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captains PARISH and CASTLE, as Assessors.

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 "Bertioga" was due to her having been allowed to get too near to the shore before any attempt was made to put her about, and upon her then missing stays, to the helm having been put up to wear her instead of the anchor having been let go.

The Court further finds that James Murray Young, the master of the said vessel, is to blame for having been down in his cabin and in a state of intoxication for some hours before the vessel went ashore, and when the safety of the vessel required his personal supervision; and that Frederick Moore, the chief mate, is also to blame for having kept the vessel on her course, heading direct for the shore, until she was too close to the shore to enable her, after missing stays, to wear, and for not thereupon dropping her anchors.

The Court accordingly cancels the certificate of the said James Murray Young, and suspends the master's certificate of the said Frederick Moore for six months; and, whilst recommending that the said Frederick Moore be granted a first mate's certificate during the suspension of his master's certificate, leaves it to the Board of Trade to say whether, having regard to his antecedents, the said James Murray Young should be allowed to hold a first mate's certificate.

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

Dated this 3rd day of January 1883.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

ALFRED PARISH,

Assessors.

 

 

JOHN S. CASTLE,

 

Annex to the Report.

This case came before the Court at Westminster on the 3rd of January instant, when Mr. Israel Davis appeared for the Board of Trade; the master and the chief mate of the "Bertiogo" were present, but were not represented by either counsel or solicitor. Two witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, and the depositions of six witnesses having been put in and read, Mr. Israel Davis handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. The master and the chief mate of the "Bertioga," and the managing owner of the vessel, who had not been able to attend sooner, then addressed the Court each on his own behalf, and Mr. Israel Davis having replied for the Board of Trade, the Court proceeded to give judgment on the questions upon which its opinion had been asked.

The case came before the Court for a re-hearing under the provisions of "The Shipping Casualties Investigations Act, 1879." it was originally heard on the 16th of October last, before the British Vice-Consul and three assessors, at Céara, when, although the Court found that the vessel had been lost by the misconduct of the master, and that he had been "the worse for liquor during the whole of the day of the casualty," it omitted to deal with his certificate, conceiving, no doubt, that they had no power to do so, and that it was for the Board of Trade, if it thought fit, to deal with it. The Board of Trade, however, have, as is well known, no such power, and it has accordingly referred the case to this Court for a rehearing, under the provisions of the Act of 1879. The facts of the case are as follow:—

The "Bertioga" was a small iron vessel, rigged as a ketch, belonging to the port of London, of 135 tons gross and register, and was built and owned by Messrs. Halsey and Co., of Deptford, Mr. Claude Halsey, of 82, Mark Lane, in the City of London, being the managing owner. She was built to be sent out to Santos, to bring down goods from the interior to the coast, and a false keel having been fitted, and masts put into her, the owners, Messrs. Halsey, engaged Messieurs Townsend and Spearing, of 101, Leadenhall Street, forwarding agents, to undertake her delivery at Santos. She accordingly left London on the 12th of April last, with a crew of 7 hands all told, and 135 tons of coal on board as ballast, but meeting with some casualty she had to put into Ramsgate, and after having been detained there for about 20 days again continued her voyage. On the 10th of August following she was in about latitude 1° south, and longitude 35° west, and the master, fearing lest as they had been four months out they might run short of provisions, determined to make the first port, so as to obtain a fresh supply. He accordingly continued his course to the S.W., the wind blowing a steady breeze from the S.E., until on the 17th he sighted the land near a little place called Céara in Brazil, into which he put, and at once telegraphed to his owners requesting instructions. Not receiving any instructions, he proceeded to make arrangements to sell a portion of the cargo to pay for the provisions which he had had to get, but just before the sale came off he received a telegram from the vice-consul at Santos, to whom he had also telegraphed for instructions, directing him to stop the sale. This was accordingly done, and about the 8th or 9th of October he got a telegram from his owners directing him to proceed forthwith to Santos. Arrangements having accordingly been made through the vice-consul for the payment of the ship's expenses, she left Céara at about 7 a.m. of the 12th of that month, in charge of a pilot, and with a crew of seven hands as before, one of the seamen who had left at Céara having been replaced by a Brazilian. At 10 a.m. the pilot left her, and she continued her course to the N.E., the wind blowing a steady breeze from about S.E., the stream all the time setting them to the westward. At noon the captain ordered her to be tacked in towards the land with her head to the S.W., with the view, as he told us, of catching the land breeze when the sun went down; and he then went below and laid down, leaving the deck in charge of the mate, and did not again come on deck until the vessel had struck. The mate, who had been left in charge, kept her on her course heading for the land until between 6 and 7 o'clock, and when they were within half a mile of the beach, and about a quarter of a mile from the breakers, he ordered the helm to be put down to stay her. She, however, missed stays, upon which he attempted to wear her, but before she could come round she struck, and, being amongst the breakers, the sea made a clean breach over her. On the following morning it was found that they had grounded on the coast from 15 to 17 miles to the west of Céara, and the captain and the Brazilian seaman who had joined them at Céara, having got ashore, walked thence to Céara to communicate with the vice-consul. Shortly afterwards the rest of the crew landed, and it having been found impossible to save the vessel, the vice-consul took possession of the property and sold it for what it would fetch.

These being the facts of the case, our opinion has been asked, "(1) Whether the vessel was seaworthy when she left London?" and "(2) Whether the vessel was seaworthy when she left Céara?" The evidence on this point is not very satisfactory. No doubt she was not a very handy vessel to make a sea voyage across the Atlantic, having been built for the purpose of going up and down the river, and being fitted up temporarily with a false keel and masts for the voyage to Santos. Still she had crossed the sea in safety, and as a fact her loss was due, not to any unseaworthiness in the vessel herself, but to her having been run ashore.

The third question which we are asked is, "Whether the master was in a state of intoxication (1) at the time of the stranding. (2) at any time previous thereto, on the 12th of October, or (3) at any other time?" We are told by the mate, a witness who was most favourably disposed to the master, and sought, in giving his evidence, both in this Court and in the Court at Céara, to screen him as far as possible, that whilst they were at Céara, the master resided on shore, and that during that time he had seen him, once, if not more frequently, under the influence of drink. It will probably be said, however, that, whether the master was or was not drunk whilst on shore, is not a question for this Court, that that is a matter between himself and his conscience; but that what we have to do is to see whether he was under the influence of liquor when it would be likely to endanger the safety of the vessel and the lives of those on board, and whether he was intoxicated on the 12th of October last, at and before the occurrence of the casualty. In the Court at Céara all that the master seems to have said, was "that he knew nothing whatever about the stranding of his vessel, that he was not on deck at the time she struck, that he knew nothing about the courses, and referred to his mate." When, however, we turn to the mate's evidence, we are told that on being asked "whether he considered that, on the day they left Céara, the captain was sober, he prevaricated greatly, and would not give a decided answer." Four out of the five remaining hands were also examined, but, except the steward, who said that the master had been drinking every quarter of an hour during the day, and that, when the ship went ashore, he saw a great many empty bottles in the captain's cabin, the others were not prepared to say whether the master was drunk or sober on that day. Suffice it, however, to say that, after a full investigation of the case, the Court at Céara came to the conclusion that the master "was the worse for liquor during the whole of the day of the casualty." Now is there anything in the evidence which has been given before this Court, or in the explanations which the master has offered, which would lead us to think that the Court at Céara has come to a wrong conclusion? In our opinion there is nothing. The master told us that when he left Céara he had but one bottle of Bordeaux wine and one of white rum, which had been sent to him as a present by the ship chandler; but the mate said that there were 4 bottles of Bordeaux wine and 2 of white rum. The master also said that when the pilot left them he had a glass of wine with him, and that whether he afterwards took any more he could not say; but the mate said that during the afternoon, after the master had gone below, he went down into the cabin and found the master lying on his bed, with a bottle of wine and another of white rum on the table, and that the master then took a glass of wine and gave him a glass of rum. The master did not deny that he was below lying on his bed from about noon till the vessel struck; but he said that about three weeks before they left Céara he had had to go into the hospital to undergo a painful surgical operation, and that he came out only about three days before the vessel sailed, and was then in a very weak state of health; but, if so, it is strange that he should have walked on the following morning from the wreck to Céara, a distance of about 17 miles, more particularly as he might easily have sent the mate or one of the crew to convey the information of the disaster to the British Consul, whilst he remained to look after the property. It must also not be forgotten that Dr. William Studhart, the Vice-Consul, was president of the Court at Céara, and, according to the master he was present during the time the operation was being performed in the hospital, and was, therefore, in a position to make every allowance for his condition and to know whether it could be accounted for by his state of health. Dr. Studhart, however, came to the conclusion that the master had been the worse for liquor on that day. Taking all these facts into consideration the only conclusion to which this Court can come is, that during the afternoon of the 12th of October, and whilst he was down in his cabin, and for some time before the casualty occurred, the master was in a state of intoxication and unfit to perform his duties.

The fourth question which we are asked is, "Whether proper courses were set and steered, and proper alterations made on the 12th of October; and, if not, who was or who were in default?" On leaving Céara the vessel was put on the starboard tack, heading to the N.E., with the wind from the S.E., and she was kept on that course till noon, when she was put on the port tack with her head towards the land. The courses themselves were proper enough; the fault was for keeping the vessel for too long a time heading for the shore; and for this the master and mate must share the responsibility,—the master for not having given clear and definite orders to the mate when to put her about, and the mate for having continued his course until he was close on the breakers.

The fifth question which we are asked is, "Whether the master was on deck at all times of the 12th of October, when the safety of the vessel required his personal supervision, and when the same could reasonably be required?" in our opinion he was not. He should have been on deck when the vessel was nearing the shore, and until they had the land breeze, which he told us he expected to get when the sun went down, instead of which he tells us that he left it to the mate to put her about when he thought proper to do so.

The sixth question which we are asked is, "Whether the mate was justified in keeping the vessel standing so long towards the land; and whether he took prompt and proper measures to put the vessel round?" The mate told us that he kept the vessel heading for the shore until she was within half a mile of the beach and about a quarter of a mile of the breakers, when, if she missed stays, she would almost inevitably, if they did not drop the anchors, go ashore. There is no reason to think that he did not take prompt measures to put the vessel round, but he was not justified in allowing her to go so close to the shore before taking any steps to put her about.

The seventh question which we are asked is, "Whether the master and mate were justified in neglecting to let go the anchor when breakers were seen ahead?" We think that when the vessel missed stays it would have been right to drop the anchors, for he told us that the anchors had been got ready to let go. He said, too, that he was too close to the shore to drop the anchors; but if so he must certainly have been too close to the shore to wear her.

To the eighth and ninth questions, namely, "What was the cause of the stranding?" and "Whether the vessel was navigated with proper and seamanlike care and skill?" our answer must be that the stranding was due to the vessel having been allowed to get too near to the shore before putting her about, and to the mate having attempted to wear her after she had missed stays, instead of dropping her anchors; and that in both those respects she was navigated in an improper and unseamanlike manner.

The tenth question which we are asked is, "Whether the master and mate are, or either of them is, in default?" and it is added that "the Board of Trade are of opinion that the certificates of James Murray Young and Frederick Moore should be dealt with." The conclusions to which we have come leave us no room to doubt that both the master and the mate are to blame for this casualty. As regards the master, James Murray Young, we have found, as did the Court at Céara, that at noon of the day on which he left that port he put the vessel about with her head to the shore, and then went below and drank until he became intoxicated; that he was absent from the deck at a time when the safety of the vessel and of those on board required his personal supervision; and that when the vessel went ashore he was the worse for liquor. Accusations are not unfrequently made by those who have constituted themselves the defenders of master mariners' interests, and who seek to retain in their body men who have shewn themselves unfit for that position, that this Court sometimes pronounces harsh and severe judgments. On the other hand, the public appear to think that our judgments are much too lenient, and that merely to cancel or suspend a master's certificate who by gross misconduct has lost a valuable ship and possibly a number of lives, is but a light punishment for such an offence. I am not prepared to say that it is not, but the Legislature has given us no power to inflict any other punishment. I should add, however, that to take away a master's certificate and to prevent him from earning his livelihood except in an inferior capacity is, after all, no trifling punishment. I think, however, that all will agree that where a master has so far forgotten himself as to become intoxicated whilst on board and in command of a vessel entrusted to his care, and who has thereby caused her loss, and at the same time risked the lives of all on board, no punishment which this Court can inflict can be too severe for him. The Court at Céara came to the conclusion, after hearing the evidence, recenti facto, that "the loss of the vessel was caused entirely by mismanagement on his part, and that he was the worse for liquor on the day of the casualty;" and in that view the Court, after hearing the explanations which the master had to offer, entirely concurs. And under these circumstances we have no option but to cancel his certificate. The Court has no hesitation in saying that this man has shewn himself to be unfit to have the command of a vessel. Whether he may be allowed to hold a first mate's certificate is a matter entirely for the discretion of the Board of Trade, who have no doubt a better knowledge of his antecedents than this Court can possibly have. But if the Board of Trade, on a consideration of all the facts, thinks that he may safely be entrusted with a mate's certificate, this Court would offer no objection.

As regards Frederick Moore, the mate, we think that he is also very greatly to blame. He holds a master's certificate, and knowing that the master was in the cabin unfit to attend to his duties, and that the vessel was virtually in his charge, he thinks fit to let her get so close to the shore, that on her missing stays there is no room to wear her, and he omits to let go the anchors, which had been got ready for the purpose; the consequence is that she goes ashore and is lost. In this case the mate has no excuse, for the shore is a gradually shelving shore with 22 fathoms some 25 miles out, so that he could have had no difficulty in ascertaining his exact distance from the land at any time. He stated that the casualty was due to an error of judgment on his part in not thinking that the vessel might miss stays, but it appears to us that it was an act of negligence on his part to go so near the shore as to leave no room to wear in case she missed stays, and that it was not a mere error of judgment. Under these circumstances we shall suspend his certificate for six months, but we shall recommend 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)

ALFRED PARISH,

Assessors.

 

 

JOHN S. CASTLE,

 

L 367. 1398. 150.—1/83. Wt. 171. E. & S.