Wreck Report for 'Acheen', 1883

(No. 1670.)

"ACHEEN."

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at Fraserburgh, on the 27th and 29th of January 1883, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captain GRANT, R.N., and Captain C. Y. WARD, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the stranding of the sailing ship "ACHEEN," on the rocks at Sandhaven, Aberdeenshire, on the 28th of November 1882, whereby the said ship and four lives were lost.

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 and of the lives of those on board of her was due to her rotten and unseaworthy condition, and that Henry Taylor Cairns, the owner, is greatly to blame for having sent her to sea in that state.

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

Dated this 29th day of January 1883.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

C. Y WARD,

Assessors.

 

 

JOHN M. G. GRANT,

 

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Fraserburgh, on the 27th and 29th days of January 1883, when Mr. Duncan appeared for the Board of Trade, and Mr. Torrance for the owner of the "Acheen." Sixteen witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. Duncan handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. Mr. Torrance then produced four witnesses, and having addressed the Court on behalf of his party, and Mr. Duncan 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 "Acheen" was an old wooden schooner of 57 tons, belonging to the Port of Sunderland. She was built at Bridlington Quay in the year 1838, and at the time of her loss was the property of Mr. Henry Taylor Cairns, who is described as being formerly of No. 4, Linden Terrace, Monkwearmouth, in the county of Durham, but now of Roca Avenue, Monkwearmouth, butcher; Mr. Cairns was also the managing owner. The vessel left Sunderland on the 20th November last, bound to Bonar Bridge, in Sutherlandshire, with a crew of 3 hands all told, and a cargo of 84 tons of coal. There was also on board an unfortunate young woman, apparently a friend of the mate, but the Court has no knowledge of the circumstances under which she came to go on board. The next that is seen of the vessel is by a coastguardsman on duty at Rosehearty Point, which is between three or four miles to the westward of Fraserburgh; he told us that at daybreak of the 28th he descried a dismasted vessel, which afterwards proved to be the "Acheen," some two to three miles away to the north-west, with a flag of distress flying from a short staff, and drifting at the mercy of the wind and waves, the wind at the time blowing a gale from the N.W. As soon, however, as the flood tide began to make, which it did soon afterwards, the vessel commenced drifting to the eastward, getting nearer and nearer to the shore, until at length, at about 10 o'clock, she struck on the rocks at the west end of the village of Sandhaven. After the second or third wave had struck her she seems to have settled down on the rocks, and the crew, who had congregated at the bows, the stern being very low in the water, were washed overboard one after another, the sea making a clean breach over her, and in about half an hour she had gone to pieces.

These being the facts of the case, I propose to take the two first questions on which our opinion has been asked together; they are as follow:—"(1.) Whether, when the vessel came into the possession of Mr. Cairns, in March last, he took proper measures, having regard to her age, to ascertain her condition?" and (2.) "Whether he subjected her to a proper and sufficient overhaul; and whether the vessel was then properly and thoroughly repaired?" It seems that Mr. Cairns purchased her, in March last, from a Mr. Wilkinson Brown, a ship's carpenter residing at Stockton, for the sum of 75l. He said that before buying her he was informed by the agent or broker who had the selling of her, that she had been built in the year 1853, and was consequently 29 years old, and that she was originally copper fastened. Mr. Cairns, however, admits that, immediately after he had purchased her, and before he had sent her to sea, he knew that she had been built in the year 1838, and was consequently 45 years old, and that she was not copper fastened; facts which he could have had no difficulty in ascertaining, if he had chosen, before he bought her. Finding that a portion of the keel had been knocked off, and that it was absolutely necessary to repair it before she again went to sea, he put her into the hands of Mr. Edwin Hutchinson, a ship repairer of Sunderland, who renewed the fore keel and the garboard strakes on each side of it; and that was about all that was done to her then. And the question for us is, whether, having regard to her age, and to the small price which had been given for her, it was not Mr. Cairns' duty to have had the vessel thoroughly overhauled before sending her to sea; and in our opinion it was. When it was that the vessel had been previously overhauled, neither Mr. Cairns nor anyone else seemed to know; and as she is not in Lloyd's List, it is impossible for us to say. It is sufficient for us that, having regard to her age and the small price which was paid for her, proper measures were not, in our opinion, taken to ascertain what was her condition, and to see that she was in a proper state of repair before she went to sea.

The third question which we are asked is, "What was the cause of the vessel being again overhauled in May last, and whether she was then properly and thoroughly examined, and whether she was properly and sufficiently repaired?" After purchasing her, Mr. Cairns put a Captain Clark in charge of her, and despatched her with a cargo of coal to Peterhead, whence she returned in ballast; and another cargo of coal having been put into her, she was sent with it to Fraserburg, but before she arrived at that place she was found to be making a great deal of water, so much so that a charter party, which had been entered into to carry a cargo of potatoes from Fraserburg, was cancelled, the shipper having refused, when he saw the water that was in her, to put the cargo on board. She accordingly returned in ballast to Sunderland, and having been put on Mr. Gibson's gridiron the sink port was opened, and she was half filled with water; so that, when the tide left her, they discovered the place where she was leaking. This having been caulked, she was again filled with water and, we are told, that on the next tide she was found to be quite tight. The total amount of the repairs done to her at that time cost between five and six pounds, and, in our opinion, it was not sufficient. The cause of her having sprung a leak on this voyage will more clearly appear when we come to deal with question five; but the fact that she had done so was, in our opinion, a sufficient reason, looking at her very great age, for having her thoroughly overhauled and repaired before she was sent to sea again: but that was not done.

The fourth question which we asked is, "Whether the disc was so placed as to give the vessel sufficient freeboard?" meaning, I presume, if she was loaded down to it. In his declaration before the Receiver of Wreck, Mr. Cairns stated that the load-line was placed at 20 inches below the deck; but in his evidence before this Court, he stated that it had been at 22 to 24 inches. As, however, a portion of the side of the vessel with the disc upon it was still in existence, we requested Mr. Wilkins, the Shipwright Surveyor to the Board of Trade at Aberdeen, to go with Mr. Cairns to measure it, and on their return they stated that they had found it to be exactly 18 1/2 inches. Now it appears from the register, that the depth of this vessel's hold was 8.5 feet, a freeboard of 18 1/2 inches would therefore be something more than two inches to every foot depth of hold; which we are not prepared to say would not be sufficient.

The fifth question which we are asked is, "Whether, when the vessel left Sunderland, she was in good and seaworthy condition, and whether, having regard to the age and condition of the vessel, she was overladen?" We are told that when she left Sunderland she had 84 tons of coal on board, which is only about 50 per cent. above her register tonnage, and would therefore not appear to have been an excessive amount of cargo for her. Mr. Cairns also told us that the load-line was just awash, and if that was so, she would have had a freeboard of 1 foot 6 1/2, which, as we have just stated, can not be said to have been insufficient. As regards, however, her condition, it appears to us that the evidence is conclusive, that she could not have been seaworthy when she left Sunderland on her last voyage. It seems that Mr. Wilkins, Shipwright Surveyor to the Board of Trade at Aberdeen, received instructions to go and report upon the wreck, which had come on shore. Accordingly on the 16th of December last he went to Sandhaven, where he found a quantity of it on the quay, and then to Pittalie, where there was a much larger quantity on the premises of a Mr. Frazer, a blacksmith, who had purchased it. Mr. Wilkins seems to have been engaged for nearly a whole day making a very careful and minute inspection of the wreck, and the conclusion to which he came was that the vessel could not have been seaworthy when she left Sunderland; Mr. Wilkins founded his opinion on the rotten and defective condition of the timbers and planking, and on the wasted state of the bolts, except where the keel had been renewed; but in all the old portion of the woodwork the bolts were eaten away, especially about the heads. Mr. Wilkins seemed to us to give his evidence in a very fair and straightforward manner, not in any way exaggerating the vessel's defects; and his statements were supported by several other competent and trustworthy witnesses, who saw the wreck shortly after it had been thrown up. I may add that several pieces of the wreck, both the woodwork and the bolts, were brought into Court by witnesses produced both by the Board of Trade and by the owner, and that we have moreover visited the spot where the wreck took place, and seen portions of it which are still remaining there, and they fully bear out the statements of Mr. Wilkins and others as to the condition of the wreckage. Against this we are told that there is the evidence of Mr. Gibson, who had been employed in May last to discover and stop up the leak, and who did it at a cost of some 5l. or 6l.; but Mr. Gibson was very careful that it should be understood that he had made no inspection of the vessel; he said that he had been employed to do certain work and had done it, namely, caulked up this one particular place, and that he had never seen her from that time, and his general statement that he believed her to have been seaworthy when she left Sunderland in November following, can therefore have no weight whatever with the Court. Then there is Captain Clark, who had commanded her from March last, when Mr. Cairns purchased her, to September, when he left her and got a berth on shore as a ship's carpenter. Captain Clark told us that he made 6 or 7 voyages in her, and that she was as fine a craft as he ever had his foot on; in his opinion she was quite seaworthy, that is to say, when he left her in September last, and on being asked what he though of the bolts which had been produced, said that he thought them very good considering her age; at the same time, he observed, seeing that she was 45 years of age, he should have been very much surprised if they had not been eaten away. I may add that Mr. Cairns admitted, but with very considerable hesitation and reluctance, that when he had gone down with Mr. Wilkins to Sandhaven to measure the position of the load-line, Mr. Wilkins had called his attention to some portions of the wreck, and that he had then said that had he known that there was wood like that in her he should not have sent her to sea. With this evidence before us, and with the fact, to which I shall presently advert, that on the day after she left she began to leak, and that the water continued to increase until ultimately it was more than the crew could keep under, I think that we can have no hesitation in saying that the vessel, when she left Sunderland, was not in a seaworthy condition.

The next question which we are asked is, "Whether the pumps were sufficient and in good order?" The only evidence that we have on this point is that of Captain Clark and Mr. Cairns, who tell us that they were good, and there is nothing to show that they were not.

The seventh question which we are asked is, "Whether the boat carried was in good condition, and whether it was fitted with the necessary equipments?" On this point also we have only the evidence of Mr. Cairns and Captain Clark, that the boat was in good condition, and there is nothing to show that it was not.

The eighth question which we are asked is, "What was the cause of the vessel making water from time to time during the voyage after leaving Sunderland on her last voyage, and whether, so far as appears from the evidence, the pumps were sufficient to keep the water under?" The only evidence that we have as to what occurred after she left Sunderland, is from some pencil entries in the handwriting of the mate, detailing the events of the voyage from the time of her leaving until the day before the wreck, when she was dismasted. They were found inside the log book, which was washed ashore very soon after the vessel struck, and appear to have been rough notes for entry into the log book on his arrival in port; and we see no reason why they are not to be taken as a faithful record of what occurred from the time the vessel left. According to these entries, on the 20th, when the vessel left Sunderland, the weather was fine with the wind from the W.S.W., but at 4 p.m. it veered to the N.E. and became squally. On the following morning we are told that the weather moderated, and that when off Seaham, plying to windward, she "started to make a deal of water." From that day she is reported as continually making water until the 26th, when it is said that she was "making as much water as we could keep her," by which I suppose is meant that they could hardly keep it under. The entry for the following day, the 27th. the day before the vessel went ashore, is in these words: "The first part " blowing a gale; towards daylight moderated. At " 8.30 a.m. made sail and bore away for Kinnaird Head. " At 9 a.m. ship rolling heavy. Starboard chain plates " carried away, and before they could be secured the " masts carried away. Cut everything away to save " the hull. Ship rolling at the mercy of the waves. " Put colour up for assistance. Ship making consider- " able deal of water. Noon moderated." With these entries before us, and knowing what we now do as to the condition of the vessel, there can be no doubt that the cause of her leaking as she did was due to the rotten and defective state of her timber and bolts. It was said by Mr. Torrance that there was nothing to show that the water came in through the leaking of the vessel, and that it might have got in through the hatchways; but if so the entry would have been not that she was "making water," but that she was "shipping " water."

Mr. Torrance also stated that the description given of the weather, that it was squally on the 20th, could hardly be accurate, seeing that there were a good many vessels which left Sunderland on that day, and which returned to Sunderland on the next day, owing as he contended to the stormy character of the weather. But it must be remembered that in the afternoon of the 20th the wind suddenly veered round from W.S.W. to N.E., which would be a head wind for vessels bound to the north; and it may well be that those vessels returned, not owing to the violence of the gale, but because the wind was adverse. Mr. Torrance also stated that, if the vessel was really in so bad a condition as the entries in the draft log book would seem to shew, she would have run into one or other of the ports upon the coast. It must be remembered, however, that the vessel was being worked by shares; according to the owner all the current expenses, such as port dues and other charges were first deducted, and the balance was then divided into three parts, of which one went to the owner, and the other two to the master and crew; they would therefore have a direct interest in keeping her as long as they could out of port, so as not to increase the port charges, and thus diminish the amount to be divided amongst them. As a fact, however, we find that at the last they had to run for a port, for we are told that at 6.30 p.m. of the 26th, the wind having freshened to a gale, the ship was hove to under balance reefed mainsail and double reefed foresail, Covesea Light bearing S.W., and that at midnight, when it was blowing a gale, she was "making as much water as we " could keep her." The weather having, however, moderated at daylight of the following morning they made sail at 8.30 a.m., "and bore away for Kinnaird " Head," which is the promontory to the west of the entrance to Fraserburgh. So that, when they found that she was making more water than they could keep under, although they were then off Covesea Light some 42 miles to the westward of Fraserburgh, they put about, as soon as the weather moderated, and ran back for shelter, and whilst doing so became dismasted. It appears to us, therefore, that the cause of her leaking was the rotten condition of the vessel, and that the water gained upon them until at last they were not able to keep it under.

The ninth question which we are asked is, "What was the cause of the chain plates carrying away on or about the 26th November?" We have no positive evidence as to what caused the chain plates to carry away, but there can be little doubt that it arose from the defective condition of the bolts, the heads of which probably broke off.

The tenth question which we are asked is, "Whether in the opinion of the Court, from the evidence before them, the vessel made so much water from the 23rd November until she arrived at Fraserburgh on the 28th of that month, that the crew became exhausted in keeping it under?" In the first place the vessel never did get to Fraserburgh, but there can be little doubt that the crew must have become exhausted by the constant pumping, although there is no evidence of the fact.

The eleventh question which we are asked is, "What were the circumstances in which, in the opinion of the Court, the crew neglected to let go one or both anchors upon approaching the shore on the last-mentioned date?" It is quite impossible for us to answer this question. It seems that the starboard anchor and chain were good, and that the anchor was hanging over the bow, and could easily have been let go. Why it was not it is impossible for us to say; whether they miscalculated their distance from the shore, or whether they expected to pass the projecting headland to the west of Sandhaven Bay, on which the vessel struck, and that they would then drift into smoother water, there is nothing to shew.

I propose to take the three next questions together, namely, (12) "Whether the coastguard at Rosehearty took prompt and proper measures to obtain assistance when he saw the hull of the vessel on the 28th November?" (13) "Whether there was any unnecessary delay or want of care in the despatch of the telegram by him, in its receipt by Lieutenant Parker, and by the coxswain of the lifeboat?" and (14) "Whether prompt and proper measures were taken by Lieutenant Parker to render assistance with the rocket apparatus, and whether upon approaching the scene of the wreck he made every possible effort to rescue the crew?" It seems that the vessel was first sighted some two or three miles to the N.W. of Rosehearty Point by a coastguardsman, who was on duty, and who at once went and telegraphed to the coastguard officer at Fraserburg, in these words: "Schooner dismasted about two miles off Rose- " hearty; require either the apparatus or lifeboat in case " she comes ashore." This telegram seems to have been handed in at 8.25 a.m., and to have been received at Fraserburgh at 8.27. We do not, therefore, think that there could have been any delay on the part of the coastguardsman who first sighted the vessel in taking measures to obtain assistance, and the telegram seems to have been very well and carefully worded. On the receipt of the telegram at Fraserburgh it was at once communicated to Lieutenant Parker, the divisional officer of the district, who, after ordering the rocket apparatus to be got ready, sent the telegram by one of his men to the coxswain of the lifeboat. The rocket apparatus is got ready, and starts at a quarter to nine, and Lieutenant Parker starts shortly afterwards and overtakes it on the road. They proceed along the coast past Sandhaven until they are abreast of the vessel, when, finding her drifting to the eastward, they follow her until she took the ground, which she did at about ten o'clock. Before she struck, however, they had everything ready for throwing the line. The first line missed her, but the second passed over the bowsprit, and the third fell amidships; but by that time the vessel had settled down on the rocks, and the sea was breaking over her, and none of them seem to have been able to make any effort to get hold of the lines. It appears to us that nothing could have been better than the way in which the rocket apparatus was brought to the spot and managed.

I will take the fifteenth and sixteenth questions together; they are, (15) "Whether there was any unnecesary delay by the coxswain in launching the lifeboat, and whether he was justified in proceeding to Sandhaven with it for that purpose?" and, (16) "Whether, in the opinion of the Court, any time would have been saved had the lifeboat been launched at Fraserburgh?" It seems that the coastguardsman to whom the telegram was given to deliver to the coxswain of the lifeboat was not acquainted with him, although the coastguardsman had, it seems, been at Fraserburgh for about two years, a fact which certainly struck as with some astonishment. He however made the best of his way towards the lifeboat house, and on his way meeting a boy asked him if he knew the coxswain of the lifeboat. The boy said he did, and the coastguardsman understood him to say that he was his father, upon which he gave the telegram to the boy, telling him to deliver it at once. The boy ran with it to the coxswain's house, and seeing his wife standing at the door handed it to her, and she handed it to the coxswain. It was then, according to the coxswain, close upon 9, but we are disposed to think that it could not have been so late as that. On receiving the telegram the coxswain told his wife to go and get the lifeboat ready, whilst he went up to the Castle, which is at a distance of some 300 or 400 yards off, for the purpose of getting a sight of the wreck. He does not discover it at once, but at length he makes it out, and then returns to the lifeboat. Some delay occurs in getting horses, but at length they are obtained, and they start at about half past nine, and he arrives at Sandhaven st ten, just as the vessel has come ashore. She was then however amongst the rocks, and at a place where it would have been impossible to get to her, and he thought, and we agree with him, that there would then be no use to launch the lifeboat. Now in taking the lifeboat to Sandhaven instead of launching her from Fraserburgh, we think that the coxswain adopted a very proper course, for from Fraserburgh they would have had to pull up against the wind and tide, and would never have arrived at the wreck before she went ashore, whereas from Sandhaven she would have had a far better chance of reaching the wreck. It seems to us however that there was some delay on the part of the coxswain in starting with the lifeboat, and that, had he gone at once and got the lifeboat out and started with it, instead of going to the Castle to see where the wreck was, he would have been there probably half an hour before she came ashore, and in time to have launched the boat in Sandhaven Harbour, and perhaps to have got alongside the vessel, and taken the people out before she went ashore. The reason which he gives for going up to the Castle was to make out where she was, for that, if she had gone clear of the headlands, he might by launching the boat at Fraserburgh have gone out from there and picked her up. But with the wind and tide as it then was it would have been easier to reach the wreck from Sandhaven, even if she had cleared the headlands, and there was always the risk of her not doing so. The telegram had indicated very clearly to him the position of the wreck at about half past 8, and he might have known that she would not be likely to reach Sandhaven until after half past 9. Without then wishing to charge him with misconduct, or to impute to him more blame than really attaches to him, we think that it would have been better if he had shewn a little more promptitude in starting with the lifeboat.

The seventeenth question which we are asked is, "What was the cause of the loss of the vessel?" The loss of this vessel was in our opinion due to the unseaworthy state in which she was sent to sea, and to that alone, for the weather was never so bad that a seaworthy ship would not easily have rode it out.

The eighteenth question which we are asked is, "Whether she was navigated with proper and seamanlike care?" It is not possible for us, with the evidence before us, to answer this question. At the same time we may observe that there is nothing to shew that she was not navigated with proper and seamanlike care, except perhaps that they might have dropped one of their anchors when they neared the shore, but they may then have been too exhausted to do even that.

The nineteenth question which we are asked is, "Whether every possible effort was made by those on shore to save life?" In our opinion it was. The rocket apparatus seems to have been brought into operation as soon as the vessel struck, and although the first line missed, the second and third passed over the ship, the former over the bowsprit, the latter amidships. but the men appear to have been so exhausted or so dazed by the seas breaking over them as to have been unable to make any use of them. The only cause for regret is Trade at Aberdeen, to go with Mr. Cairns to measure it, and on their return they stated that they had found it to be exactly 18 1/2 inches. Now it appears from the register, that the depth of this vessel's hold was 8.5 feet, a freeboard of 18 1/2 inches would therefore be something more than two inches to every foot depth of hold; which we are not prepared to say would not be sufficient.

The fifth question which we are asked is, "Whether, when the vessel left Sunderland, she was in good and seaworthy condition, and whether, having regard to the age and condition of the vessel, she was overladen?" We are told that when she left Sunderland she had 84 tons of coal on board, which is only about 50 per cent. above her register tonnage, and would therefore not appear to have been an excessive amount of cargo for her. Mr. Cairns also told us that the load-line was just awash, and if that was so, she would have had a freeboard of 1 foot 6 1/2, which, as we have just stated, can not be said to have been insufficient. As regards, however, her condition, it appears to us that the evidence is conclusive, that she could not have been seaworthy when she left Sunderland on her last voyage. It seems that Mr. Wilkins, Shipwright Surveyor to the Board of Trade at Aberdeen, received instructions to go and report upon the wreck, which had come on shore. Accordingly on the 16th of December last he went to Sandhaven, where he found a quantity of it on the quay, and then to Pittalie, where there was a much larger quantity on the premises of a Mr. Frazer, a blacksmith, who had purchased it. Mr. Wilkins seems to have been engaged for nearly a whole day making a very careful and minute inspection of the wreck, and the conclusion to which he came was that the vessel could not have been seaworthy when she left Sunderland; Mr. Wilkins founded his opinion on the rotten and defective condition of the timbers and planking, and on the wasted state of the bolts, except where the keel had been renewed; but in all the old portion of the woodwork the bolts were eaten away, especially about the heads. Mr. Wilkins seemed to us to give his evidence in a very fair and straightforward manner, not in any way exaggerating the vessel's defects; and his statements were supported by several other competent and trustworthy witnesses, who saw the wreck shortly after it had been thrown up. I may add that several pieces of the wreck, both the woodwork and the bolts, were brought into Court by witnesses produced both by the Board of Trade and by the owner, and that we have moreover visited the spot where the wreck took place, and seen portions of it which are still remaining there, and they fully bear out the statements of Mr. Wilkins and others as to the condition of the wreckage. Against this we are told that there is the evidence of Mr. Gibson, who had been employed in May last to discover and stop up the leak, and who did it at a cost of some 5l. or 6l.; but Mr. Gibson was very careful that it should be under. stood that he had made no inspection of the vessel; he said that he had been employed to do certain work and had done it, namely, caulked up this one particular place, and that he had never seen her from that time, and his general statement that he believed her to have been seaworthy when she left Sunderland in November following, can therefore have no weight whatever with the Court. Then there is Captain Clark, who had commanded her from March last, when Mr. Cairns purchased her, to September, when he left her and got a berth on shore as a ship's carpenter. Captain Clark told us that he made 6 or 7 voyages in her, and that she was as fine a craft as he ever had his foot on; in his opinion she was quite seaworthy, that is to say, when he left her in September last, and on being asked what he though of the bolts which had been produced, said that he thought them very good considering her age; at the same time, he observed, seeing that she was 45 years of age, he should have been very much surprised if they had not been eaten away. I may add that Mr. Cairns admitted, but with very considerable hesitation and reluctance, that when he had gone down with Mr. Wilkins to Sandhaven to measure the position of the load-line, Mr. Wilkins had called his attention to some portions of the wreck, and that he had then said that had he known that there was wood like that in her he should not have sent her to sea. With this evidence before us, and with the fact, to which I shall presently advert, that on the day after she left she began to leak and that the water continued to increase until ultimately it was more than the crew could keep under, I think that we can have no hesitation in saying that the vessel, when she left Sunderland, was not in a seaworthy condition.

The next question which we are asked is, "Whether the pumps were sufficient and in good order?" The only evidence that we have on this point is that of Captain Clark and Mr. Cairns, who tell us that they were good, and there is nothing to show that they were not.

The seventh question which we are asked is, "Whether the boat carried was in good condition, and whether it was fitted with the necessary equipments?" On this point also we have only the evidence of Mr. Cairns and Captain Clark, that the boat was in good condition, and there is nothing to show that it was not.

The eighth question which we are asked is, "What was the cause of the vessel making water from time to time during the voyage after leaving Sunderland on her last voyage, and whether, so far as appears from the evidence, the pumps were sufficient to keep the water under?" The only evidence that we have as to what occurred after she left Sunderland, is from some pencil entries in the handwriting of the mate, detailing the events of the voyage from the time of her leaving until the day before the wreck, when she was dismasted. They were found inside the log book, which was washed ashore very soon after the vessel struck, and appear to have been rough notes for entry into the log book on his arrival in port; and we see no reason why they are not to be taken as a faithful record of what occurred from the time the vessel left. According to these entries, on the 20th, when the vessel left Sunderland, the weather was fine with the wind from the W.S.W., but at 4 p.m. it veered to the N.E. and became squally. On the following morning we are told that the weather moderated, and that when off Seaham, plying to wind. ward, she "started to make a deal of water." From that day she is reported as continually making water until the 26th, when it is said that she was "making as much water as we could keep her," by which I suppose is meant that they could hardly keep it under. The entry for the following day, the 27th. the day before the vessel went ashore, is in these words: "The first part " blowing a gale; towards daylight moderated. At " 8.30 a.m. made sail and bore away for Kinnaird Head. " At 9 a.m. ship rolling heavy. Starboard chain plates " carried away, and before they could be secured the " masts carried away. Cut everything away to save " the hull. Ship rolling at the mercy of the waves. " Put colour up for assistance. Ship making consider- " able deal of water. Noon moderated." With these entries before us, and knowing what we now do as to the condition of the vessel, there can be no doubt that the cause of her leaking as she did was due to the rotten and defective state of her timber and bolts. It was said by Mr. Torrance that there was nothing to show that the water came in through the leaking of the vessel, and that it might have got in through the hatchways; but if so the entry would have been not that she was "making water," but that she was "shipping " water."

Mr. Torrance also stated that the description given of the weather, that it was squally on the 20th, could hardly be accurate, seeing that there were a good many vessels which left Sunderland on that day, and which returned to Sunderland on the next day, owing as he contended to the stormy character of the weather. But it must be remembered that in the afternoon of the 20th the wind suddenly veered round from W.S.W. to N.E., which would be a head wind for vessels bound to the north; and it may well be that those vessels returned, not owing to the violence of the gale, but because the wind was adverse. Mr. Torrance also stated that, if the vessel was really in so bad a condition as the entries in the draft log book would seem to shew, she would have run into one or other of the ports upon the coast. It must be remembered, however, that the vessel was being worked by shares; according to the owner all the current expenses, such as port dues and other charges were first deducted, and the balance was then divided into three parts, of which one went to the owner, and the other two to the master and crew; they would therefore have a direct interest in keeping her as long as they could out of port, so as not to increase the port charges, and thus diminish the amount to be divided amongst them. As a fact, however, we find that at the last they had to run for a port, for we are told that at 6.30 p.m. of the 26th, the wind having freshened to a gale, the ship was hove to under balance reefed mainsail and double reefed foresail, Covesea Light bearing S.W., and that at midnight, when it was blowing a gale, she was "making as much water as we " could keep her." The weather having, however, moderated at daylight of the following morning they made sail at 8.30 am., "and bore away for Kinnaird " Head," which is the promontory to the west of the entrance to Fraserburgh. So that, when they found that she was making more water than they could keep under, although they were then off Covesea Light some 42 miles to the westward of Fraserburgh, they put about, as soon as the weather moderated, and ran back for shelter, and whilst doing so became dismasted. It appears to us, therefore, that the cause of her leaking was the rotten condition of the vessel, and that the water gained upon them until at last they were not able to keep it under.

The ninth question which we are asked is, "What was the cause of the chain plates carrying away on or about the 26th November?" We have no positive evidence as to what caused the chain plates to carry away, but there can be little doubt that it arose from the defective condition of the bolts, the heads of which probably broke off.

The tenth question which we are asked is, "Whether in the opinion of the Court, from the evidence before them, the vessel made so much water from the 23rd November until she arrived at Fraserburgh on the 28th of that month, that the crew became exhausted in keeping it under?" In the first place the vessel never did get to Fraserburgh, but there can be little doubt that the crew must have become exhausted by the constant pumping, although there is no evidence of the fact.

The eleventh question which we are asked is, "What were the circumstances in which, in the opinion of the Court, the crew neglected to let go one or both anchors upon approaching the shore on the last-mentioned date?" It is quite impossible for us to answer this question. It seems that the starboard anchor and chain were good, and that the anchor was hanging over the bow, and could easily have been let go. Why it was not it is impossible for us to say; whether they miscalculated their distance from the shore, or whether they expected to pass the projecting headland to the west of Sandhaven Bay, on which the vessel struck, and that they would then drift into smoother water, there is nothing to shew.

I propose to take the three next questions together, namely, (12) "Whether the coastguard at Rosehearty took prompt and proper measures to obtain assistance when he saw the hull of the vessel on the 28th November?" (13) "Whether there was any unnecessary delay or want of care in the despatch of the telegram by him, in its receipt by Lieutenant Parker, and by the coxswain of the lifeboat?" and (14) "Whether prompt and proper measures were taken by Lieutenant Parker to render assistance with the rocket apparatus, and whether upon approaching the scene of the wreck he made every possible effort to rescue the crew?" It seems that the vessel was first sighted some two or three miles to the N.W. of Rosehearty Point by a coastguardsman, who was on duty, and who at once went and telegraphed to the coastguard officer at Fraserburg, in these words: "Schooner dismasted about two miles off Rose- " hearty; require either the apparatus or lifeboat in case " she comes ashore." This telegram seems to have been handed in at 8.25 a.m., and to have been received at Fraserburgh at 8.27. We do not, therefore, think that there could have been any delay on the part of the coastguardsman who first sighted the vessel in taking measures to obtain assistance, and the telegram seems to have been very well and carefully worded. On the receipt of the telegram at Fraserburgh it was at once communicated to Lieutenant Parker, the divisional officer of the district, who, after ordering the rocket apparatus to be got ready, sent the telegram by one of his men to the coxswain of the lifeboat. The rocket apparatus is got ready, and starts at a quarter to nine, and Lieutenant Parker starts shortly afterwards and overtakes it on the road. They proceed along the coast past Sandhaven until they are abreast of the vessel, when, finding her drifting to the eastward, they follow her until she took the ground, which she did at about ten o'clock. Before she struck, however, they had everything ready for throwing the line. The first line missed her, but the second passed over the bowsprit, and the third fell amidships; but by that time the vessel had settled down on the rocks, and the sea was breaking over her, and none of them seem to have been able to make any effort to get hold of the lines. It appears to us that nothing could have been better than the way in which the rocket apparatus was brought to the spot and managed.

I will take the fifteenth and sixteenth questions together; they are, (15) "Whether there was any unnecessary delay by the coxswain in launching the lifeboat, and whether he was justified in proceeding to Sandhaven with it for that purpose?" and, (16) "Whether, in the opinion of the Court, any time would have been saved had the lifeboat been launched at Fraserburgh?" It seems that the coastguardsman to whom the telegram was given to deliver to the coxswain of the lifeboat was not acquainted with him, although the coastguardsman had, it seems, been at Fraserburgh for about two years, a fact which certainly struck us with some astonishment. He however made the best of his way towards the lifeboat house, and on his way meeting a boy asked him if he knew the coxswain of the lifeboat. The boy said he did, and the coastguardsman understood him to say that he was his father, upon which he gave the telegram to the boy, telling him to deliver it at once. The boy ran with it to the coxswain's house, and seeing his wife standing at the door handed it to her, and she handed it to the coxswain. It was then, according to the coxswain, close upon 9, but we are disposed to think that it could not have been so late as that. On receiving the telegram the coxswain told his wife to go and get the lifeboat ready, whilst he went up to the Castle, which is at a distance of some 300 or 400 yards off, for the purpose of getting a sight of the wreck. He does not discover it at once, but at length he makes it out, and then returns to the lifeboat. Some delay occurs in getting horses, but at length they are obtained, and they start at about half past nine, and he arrives at Sandhaven at ten, just as the vessel has come ashore. She was then however amongst the rocks, and at a place where it would have been impossible to get to her, and he thought, and we agree with him, that there would then be no use to launch the lifeboat. Now in taking the lifeboat to Sandhaven instead of launching her from Fraserburgh, we think that the coxswain adopted a very proper course, for from Fraserburgh they would have had to pull up against the wind and tide, and would never have arrived at the wreck before she went ashore, whereas from Sandhaven she would have had a far better chance of reaching the wreck. It seems to us however that there was some delay on the part of the coxswain in starting with the lifeboat, and that, had he gone at once and got the lifeboat out and started with it, instead of going to the Castle to see where the wreck was, he would have been there probably half an hour before she came ashore, and in time to have launched the boat in Sandhaven Harbour, and perhaps to have got alongside the vessel, and taken the people out before she went ashore. The reason which he gives for going up to the Castle was to make out where she was, for that, if she had gone clear of the headlands, he might by launching the boat at Fraserburgh have gone out from there and picked her up. But with the wind and tide as it then was it would have been easier to reach the wreck from Sandhaven, even if she had cleared the headlands, and there was always the risk of her not doing so. The telegram had indicated very clearly to him the position of the wreck at about half past 8, and he might have known that she would not be likely to reach Sandhaven until after half past 9. Without then wishing to charge him with misconduct, or to impute to him more blame than really attaches to him, we think that it would have been better if he had shewn a little more promptitude in starting with the lifeboat.

The seventeenth question which we are asked is, "What was the cause of the loss of the vessel?" The loss of this vessel was in our opinion due to the unseaworthy state in which she was sent to sea, and to that alone, for the weather was never so bad that a seaworthy ship would not easily have rode it out.

The eighteenth question which we are asked is, "Whether she was navigated with proper and seamanlike care?" It is not possible for us, with the evidence before us, to answer this question. At the same time we may observe that there is nothing to shew that she was not navigated with proper and seamanlike care, except perhaps that they might have dropped one of their anchors when they neared the shore, but they may then have been too exhausted to do even that.

The nineteenth question which we are asked is, "Whether every possible effort was made by those on shore to save life?" In our opinion it was. The rocket apparatus seems to have been brought into operation as soon as the vessel struck, and although the first line missed, the second and third passed over the ship, the former over the bowsprit, the latter amidships, but the men appear to have been so exhausted or so dazed by the seas breaking over them as to have been unable to make any use of them. The only cause for regret is that the lifeboat was not taken to Sandhaven somewhat sooner than it was, as in that case it is just possible that some of the crew might have been saved.

The twentieth question is, "Whether blame attaches to the managing owner?" In our opinion great blame does attach to Mr. Cairns as sole and managing owner. Mr. Cairns seeks to evade the responsibility which legally attaches to him by saying that he is a butcher, and has no practical knowledge of shipping, and that he left everything to Captain Clark. We much doubt however whether Mr. Cairns was so ignorant of the subject as he pretends to be; he knew that he had given a miserably small price for the vessel, only 75l., which according to Captain Clark was less than she could have been bought for merely to break up. He takes no steps to have her surveyed to see if she was fit to go to sea, either when he purchases her in March last, or afterwards in May, when she is found to be making water, Instead of giving her a thorough overhaul, which would have revealed her defects, he simply patches her up at a very trifling expense, and sends her to sea in the winter months with the chance of encountering very bad weather. In our opinion Mr. Cairns is greatly to blame for having sent this vessel to sea in the state in which she was, and the responsibility for the loss of the lives of these four persons must rest principally with him.

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

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

C. Y. WARD,

Assessors.

 

 

JOHN M. G. GRANT,

 

L 367. 1442. 150.—2/83. Wt. 171. E. & S.