Wreck Report for 'Anapira', 1883

(No. 1662.)

"ANAPIRA."

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal investigation held at Hartlepool, on the 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th days of January 1883, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captains KNOX, R.N., PARFITT, and DAVIES, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the stranding and abandonment of the sailing ship "ANAPIRA," of Kirkaldy, in Old Hartlepool Channel, on the 5th of December 1882.

Report of Court.

The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons annexed, that the said ship was properly navigated, but that she was prematurely abandoned after the stranding by the master and crew, the coxswain and crew of the lifeboat "John Clay Barlow" having by their conduct somewhat contributed thereto.

The Court was not asked to deal with the certificate of the master, or to make any order as to costs.

Dated the 20th day of January 1883.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

HENRY KNOX, Captain, R.N.,

Assessors.

 

 

WM. PARFITT,

 

 

 

T. DAVIES,

 

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Hartlepool on the 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th days of January 1883, when Mr. Mansel Jones appeared for the Board of Trade, Mr. T. Belk for the North-Eastern Railway Company and for the Port and Harbour Commissioners of Hartlepool, Mr. Tilly for the Pilotage Commissioners of that port, and Mr. S. H. Belk for the Local Branch of the National Lifeboat Institution. The owner and the master of the "Anapira" were present, but were not represented by either counsel or solicitor. Twenty witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. Mansel Jones handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. Mr. S. H. Belk then produced three witnesses, and all parties having been heard, 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 "Anapira," which is a small wooden schooner belonging to the Port of Kirkcaldy, of about 100 tons burden, was built at Anstruther, in the county of Fife, in the year 1867, and at the time of the casualty, which forms the subject of the present inquiry, she was the property of Mr. Hugh Speed, of Newburgh, in the county of Fife, who was also the managing owner. She left Leith on the 30th November last, bound to St. Malo, in France, with a crew of 5 hands all told, and about 183 tons of coal, and drawing 10 feet 1 inch forward and 11 feet 2 inches aft. They had moderate weather, with the wind from the S.W., till about 10 p.m., when the wind suddenly chopped round to the east; and on the following days it blew a hard gale from east to E.N.E. On the 4th the gale increased, sweeping everything moveable from the deck, splitting the jib, and carrying away some of the bulwarks. On the 5th the Durham coast was in sight, and as it was still blowing a hard gale from the E.N.E. the master, at about a quarter to 2, determined to run for Hartlepool, the Heugh at the time bearing about W.S.W., distant from about 5 to 6 miles. He accordingly put the vessel before the wind, which was then blowing so strong that they had only the reefed fore topsail set, and at about 4 p.m. neared the Stone Buoy. It seems that the master had, some years before, been into Hartlepool, but that he was not very well acquainted with it; and on rounding the Stone Buoy he ported his helm so as to enter the harbour, steering, as he has told us, as near as he could do, a N.W. by W. 1/2 W. course. Soon afterwards they observed a boat with a flag up a little on their port bow, and taking her to be a pilot boat the master ordered the helm to be starboarded a little, with the view of approaching her. On getting near, however, they saw that she was a lifeboat and not a pilot boat, but they continued their course, intending to approach her on the windward side, but when within from 20 to 30 yards of her the vessel suddenly struck the ground and began to beat heavily over the sand. Very shortly afterwards the lifeboat pulled up under her port quarter, and immediately the mate and three hands jumped into her; the master, however, went into his cabin, and having got his watch, some money, and his bag, returned on deck, when finding that the lifeboat was all ready to push off, he threw his bag in and got into her, and the lifeboat thereupon pushed off and pulled towards the Old Pier and landed them on the end of it, and then immediately pulled out again. On getting on to the pier head the master looked towards his vessel, and then observed that some men from another lifeboat, which he had observed lying near her, had got on board, and that a small steam tug, which he had also seen close by, had gone to her, and that they were proceeding to take her in tow, and shortly afterwards they passed him going up the harbour, one steam tug towing ahead, another astern steering her, and the two lifeboats hanging on. The master followed them into the upper harbour, and in half to three quarters of an hour from the time of leaving her he resumed possession of his vessel. On hearing what had occurred the owner came to Hartlepool and entered into negotiations with the parties for the settlement of the salvage claims against the vessel. It is not a new thing to the Court to find owners and salvors taking different views of the value of the services rendered, nor was this case any exception to the general rule. The lifeboat men at first preferred a claim for 60l., to include the services of both lifeboats and of a pilot coble which had gone out to her. The owner at first refused to entertain the claim at all, denying that any salvage was due; upon which the lifeboat men consulted, as it was their duty to do, the honorary secretary of the local branch of the Lifeboat Institution, and by his advice they determined to separate their interests from those of the coble men, and then claimed 47l. 8s. Mr. Speed, however, refused to pay this, and on the boatmen again consulting the honorary secretary he advised them not to make an excessive demand, and ultimately they consented to take 25l., and that amount was accordingly paid to them by Mr. Speed's order. In addition to which a sum of 30l. was paid for the services of the two steam tugs, in lieu of 50l. originally claimed by them. The salvage claims were thus settled for 55l., an arrangement which Mr. Speed stated, and with very good reason, was entirely satisfactory to him.

These being the facts of the case, the first question, upon which our opinion has been asked, is, "Whether, when the 'Anapira' left Leith, she was in good and seaworthy condition, and whether she was properly supplied with charts and sailing directions, and whether they contained the latest corrections?" There seems to be no doubt that the vessel was in a good and seaworthy condition when she left Leith, nor is there any suggestion to the contrary; the fact too that she beat over this sand, without having sustained any very great amount of damage, seems to show that she must have been an exceedingly strong vessel. As regards the charts and sailing directions, which she had on board, they seem to have been quite sufficient for a vessel of her class and character. She had not the latest Admiralty chart of the entrance to Hartlepool harbour, but if she had had it, it would for reasons which we shall presently state not have assisted her very much.

The second question which we are asked is, "Did the flag exhibited from the life boat 'John Clay Barlow' induce the master of the 'Anapira' to believe that the lifeboat was a pilot boat, and accordingly to steer for her?" The master has told us that, when he saw the boat with the flag hoisted, he at once thought that it was a pilot boat, and accordingly steered towards her; and I am told by the assessors that this is what a stranger approaching this port would naturally have done. We have, therefore, no reason to doubt that the master did take the lifeboat for a pilot boat, and that he did accordingly steer for her.

The third question which we are asked is, "Was the position taken up by the lifeboat 'John Clay Barlow,' such as to lead the 'Anapira,' when steered for her, into danger?' Mr. William Belk. the engineer to the port and harbour authorities, who has the management of these buoys, and controls all the engineering operations now going on for the improvement of the port of Hartlepool, told us that the Admiralty chart, numbered 1628, and which has no corrections later than November 1873, would be very misleading to a stranger entering this port. He said that since 1873 operations have been continually going on for the purpose of widening, deepening, and straightening the entrance to the harbour, and that the Cage Buoy is now about 80 yards nearer to the beacon than as it is represented on the chart, the sand between it and the Old Pier and between it and the beacon having been removed, and the depths of the water at that part greatly increased. He told us that 'the operations are still going on, but that they have not yet reached the spit or tongue of sand which runs out very nearly as far as the place where the Cage Buoy is now placed, and upon which there appears from the Admiralty chart to be only 4 3/4 feet to 6 feet of water at low water spring tides. We are told that the difference at this place between spring and neap tides is from 3 to 4 feet, and as the water, when the vessel took the ground, would not have fallen much more on that day, and it was near the neaps, the height of the water on that spit or tongue of sand would not at that time have been more than from 9 to 10 feet, which would be too little to allow the vessel to pass over without touching, she drawing at the time 10 feet 1 forward and 11 feet 2 aft. Now we were told by the lifeboat men that, as the vessel was approaching them, they were about 50 yards from the Cage Buoy, and between it and the beacon; and a glance at the corrected chart, which was handed in by Mr. William Belk, will shew that it was impossible for the schooner, after having rounded the Stone Buoy at the distance of a ship's length, to have made a straight course for the lifeboat, where, according to the admission of her own crew, she was then, without passing over the spit or tongue of sand, on which, as we have seen, there was only 9 to 10 feet of water at the time, and this too after making due allowance for the position of the Stone Buoy, which, we are told, was on that day some 250 yards to the S.W. of where it should have been, and where it now is. There was, indeed, no room for the vessel to have passed between the Cage Buoy, in the position which it now occupies, and the end of the spit of sand, without touching it; the proper and only course was for the vessel to go outside of it, and that she could not have done if she had steered for the lifeboat. It appears to us therefore that the position of the lifeboat "John Clay Barlow" having its flag displayed, and being not unnaturally taken for a pilot boat, was such as to lead the "Anapira," when steered for her, into danger.

The fourth question which we are asked is, "Was the captain of the 'Anapira' induced to abandon her through the conduct of the crew of the 'John Clay Barlow'?" I observe that this question is limited to the captain of the "Anapira," and that is does not extend to the mate and the crew, who seem to have been only too anxious to get into the lifeboat, as soon as it was alongside. As regards, however, the master, he does not appear to have exhibited the same violent haste, for he first went down into his cabin to get his watch, some money, and his bag, and on returning on deck and finding the whole of his crew in the boat, and the lifeboat ready to push off, he followed them. And now what are the verbal inducements said to have been held out to the master and crew, and which caused them to get into the lifeboat. According to the master the lifeboat men said, as soon as they had come alongside, " Jump in men, and save your lives;" and when he himself came up they said, "Jump in man, and save " your life." Mr. Gray, the mate. however, told us that what the boat's crew said was, "Come on lads, jump in," and that it was only when the master came up that they said, "Jump in, for your life." On the other hand, Anderson, the only one of the seamen who has been produced, told us that all that the men said was, " Come in the boat," and that they said to the skipper, " Come in, never mind your clothes." The evidence of even these three witnesses is not quite consistent. On the other hand, Reed, the coxswain, and three of the boatmen, swore that they never uttered the words imputed to them, and that they did not hear them uttered by any of the other boatmen. One of them, however, did say that, seeing the evident haste with which the crew were going to get into the boat, he heard someone say, and he thinks it was the coxswain "Mind, my lads, be careful how you jump into the boat." It was stated by Mr. Mansel Jones that there may have been some misapprehension, on the part of the master and crew of the "Anapira," as to what was said by the boatmen. but whether this was so or not, there is clearly not sufficient evidence here for us to say that the boat. men told the crew to get in "To save their lives." But although there is no evidence that any verbal inducements were held out to them to abandon their vessel, it is impossible to deny that the conduct of the lifeboat men in at once pushing off, as soon as the men were in the boat, was calculated to encourage them to abandon their vessel; at all events, no attempt was made to induce the men to remain by their vessel.

The fifth question which we are asked is, "Was the "Anapira" prematurely abandoned, and if so, what was-the cause of such premature abondonment?" In the opinion of the assessors the "Anapira" was prematurely abandoned; they think that the crew ought to, and might without any danger to themselves, have remained by her, until they had ascertained what her condition was. The master told us that what induced him to leave her was that they were frightened out of her by the shouting of the lifeboat men, and that that was the only thing that induced him to leave her. On the other hand, the mate says, "I did not sound the " well, because I thought she was going to break up. " I thought she was on the rock. I thought she was " going to strike from the position of the rocks, " I could tell from the thumping that she was " not in a good position; she might have fallen " over. That made me leave the vessel." Anderson again said, "the two men jumped into the boat first. I " was very tired. I thought she was going to break " up, and I was very glad to get into the boat." It is clear, therefore, that, whatever may have been the master's reasons for abandoning her, the mate and the seamen thought that she was going to break up, and were only too glad to get into the lifeboat when it came alongside.

The sixth question which we are asked is, "Did the master of the tug 'Thomas and Mary' fly a pilot flag outside the harbour on the 5th December 1882 without having a licensed pilot on board?" It is not denied at all that he did fly a pilot flag, and that he had no licensed pilot on board. It should here be observed that by the bye-laws of the Hartlepool Pilotage Commissioners, which were confirmed by Her Majesty's Order in Council of the 27th of June 1876, it is provided in section 3 that "in stormy weather during the day " time, when the pilots cannot ply at sea in their " regular pilot cobles, they shall go out in a steamboat " licensed for that purpose by the pilot master of the " said Commissioners," and section 4 goes on to say that he shall then "hoist the pilot flag at the masthead of the steamer." What, therefore, seems to have happened was this, the master would be entitled to display a pilot flag at the masthead when going out with a pilot on board; and on this occasion having the pilot flag handy, he thought fit to hoist it, although there was no pilot on board. So far, therefore, be violated the law, and as Mr. Mansell Jones adds, has rendered himself and his owners liable to a penalty. At the same time it is proper to observe that, so far as the present case is concerned, it really had nothing whatever to do with the casualty. We are told that on this day the flag, which was exhibited at the masthead of this vessel, was of a uniform black colour from smoke and dirt, and that it had not then the distinctive red and white character of a pilot flag, which it had when exhibited in this Court, having been washed since. It might, therefore, be a question, whether if the flag was all black, and had lost its distinctive character of a pilot flag, the master could be said to have been violating the law. But be this as it may, it is perhaps to be regretted that the flag had not been washed before, for, if it had shewn clearly as a pilot flag, the master might have steered for it, and in that case the schooner would have taken the proper course, clear to the south of the spit of sand, the tug a the time being a little outside the Cage Buoy.

The seventh question which we are asked is. "Has such a practice existed at this port, and have the pilotage authorities been aware of it?" No doubt a practice has existed of displaying this flag by the tugs, owing to their being sometimes engaged to take out the pilots, when they are entitled to carry it, but there is nothing to shew that the pilotage authorities were aware of it.

The eighth question which we are asked is, "Under whose control is the flag-staff at the end of the Old Pier, and is it used or capable of being used, as is laid down in part 3 of the North Sea Pilot 1882, published by order of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, and if not, are the directions as to its use misleading to strangers approaching the port of Hartlepool in stormy weather?" The clause, to which reference is here made, is at page 67 of that book, and is in these words; "a moveable flag-staff has been attached to " this lighthouse," that is, to the lighthouse at the end of the Old Pier, "for the purpose of guiding vessels " not having a pilot, that may run for the harbour in " stormy weather, it being inclined to the right or to " the left, according as the vessel bears too far in the " opposite direction, but it is kept perpendicular " when she is steering a correct course." Now, we have had the advantage of hearing Mr. Horsley, the chairman of the Pilotage Commissioners, at whose instance this flag-staff was originally erected, and he has told us that it was never intended as a guide to vessels approaching the harbour, as this vessel was, from the direction of the Stone Buoy, but only for vessels approaching the harbour from the southward, and when they were too distant to see the buoys and channel, and it was to prevent their getting on the one hand too near to the Long Sear, or on the other too far out' to the north-east, and to keep them in a direct course for the channel. I may add that the Court has personally inspected this flag-staff, and has ascertained that Mr. Horsley's explanation is quite correct, and that it is capable of being inclined only to the right and left, that is, to the east and west, and that it cannot be made to move north and south, which it should do, in order to warn vessels between the Stone and the Cage Buoys to come a little nearer or keep a little further from the land. It appears to us, however, that the flag-staff, when used for the purpose for which it was erected, is not unlikely to mislead, for supposing two vessels to be approaching the harbour at the same time from the south, one of them being too near and the other too far from the Long Sear, and the flag-staff were inclined, it would be extremely difficult for those vessels to know to which of them the signal was being made, and it might lead one of them into a mistake. We are told that it is under the control of the Port and Harbour Commissioners, and is for the use of the pilots, but that it is very seldom used; and under these circumstances the assessors are of opinion that the use of the flag-staff for the purpose of indicating the proper course to vessels in distress should be discontinued, and in that case the clause would have to be struck out of the Admiralty Instructions altogether. Should it, however, be thought desirable to continue the use of the flag-staff, the clause in the instructions should be altered so as to make it quite clear that it applies only to vessels approaching the harbour from the south, and not to vessels approaching it from the direction of the Stone Buoy.

The ninth question which we are asked is as follows: "Is the Admiralty chart, No. 1,628, correct as regards the position, depth and breadth of the channel leading into Hartlepool harbour, and as to the depth of water on the banks adjacent to such channel, and as to the position of the buoys marking the said channel?" I have already stated that the chart in question shews only the state of the soundings and the position of the buoys in November 1873, and that there are no corrections after that date; but that ever since then the Harbour Commissioners have by dredging been extending, deepening, and straightening the channel; that the Cage Buoy is now about 80 yards nearer to the beacon than it was in November 1873, and that the soundings between it and the Old Pier, and between it and the beacon, are now much greater than they were then. Mr. Belk has brought in two charts, from one of which will be seen the alteration which has taken place in the position of the buoys, from the other the present soundings. These two charts will accompany this report, and it certainly would be very desirable that steps should be taken to induce the Admiralty to issue a new chart corrected to the present time, for there can be no doubt that the chart with its corrections to November 1873 is very misleading.

The last question which we are asked is, "Whether the master or mate of the 'Anapira,' or the coxswain of the 'John Clay Barlow,' are, or either of them is, in default, and whether blame attaches, in respect of the casualty to the vessel, to any other person, and if so, to whom?" So far as the navigation of the vessel is concerned, we do not see that any blame attaches to the master or to any one on board the vessel; she seems to have been kept on a very fair course until after rounding the Stone Buoy, and after that she was not unnaturally misled by seeing a boat with a flag up, which she mistook for a pilot boat, and steered for it. But as regards the abandonment of the vessel the assessors are of opinion that the master, as well as the mate, were somewhat too hasty in leaving her; they knew that she was a good strong vessel and would bear a little bumping, and seeing that there were two lifeboats and a steam tug close at hand, they ought to have remained by her, which they could have done without any great danger to themselves until they had ascertained her condition. Had they done so they would have found that she was making no water, and as soon as she had cleared the sand, which she did in a very few minutes, she might have been taken in tow by the steam tug and towed up the harbour. The excuse for the men is that they had been on deck for 48 hours, and were thoroughly tired out and glad to get on shore; and for the master, that having been deserted by the whole of his crew, it would have been useless for him to remain in her. As regards the coxswain and crew of the lifeboat, no doubt they would not know the age and condition of the vessel, or how long she would be likely to hold together, but they did know the nature of the bottom on which she was, and that unless she was a very old vessel she would soon beat over that sand into deep water, and they would certainly have acted more properly if, instead of taking the crew out, landing them on the end of the Old Pier, and then returning to take part in the salving of the vessel, they had encouraged the men to stand by their vessel, and if necessary have offered to assist them to take her into harbour. They could have done this without any danger to themselves, and it is quite possible that if they had met with any encouragement from the lifeboatmen, the crew would have remained by her and taken her in. It does not appear that blame attaches to any but those whom we have mentioned for this casualty.

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

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

HENRY KNOX, Captain, R.N.,

Assessors.

 

 

WM. PARFITT,

 

 

 

T. DAVIES,

 

L 367. 1434. 150.—2/83. Wt. 171. E. & S.