Wreck Report for 'Arzilla', 1883

(No. 1780.)

"ARZILLA."

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at Liverpool, on the 20th and 21st days of April 1883, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Commander BURNEY, R.N., and Captain WILSON, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the abandonment of the sailing ship "ARZILLA," of Liverpool, and the loss of the lives of eight of her crew, on the 15th of January last, whilst on a voyage from Cardiff to Monte Video.

Report of Court.

The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons annexed, that when the said vessel left Cardiff on her last voyage she was. not in a good and seaworthy condition, and was too deeply laden; and that her loss was probably due to her having sprung a leak, whilst labouring and straining in the heavy weather which she encountered. The Court is also of opinion that Richard Tarleton Smith, the managing owner, is to blame for having sent her to sea in such a state, but for the reasons annexed does not condemn him in the costs.

Dated this 21st day of April 1883.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

HENRY D. BURNEY, R.N., J.P.,

Assessors.

 

 

R. WILSON,

 

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Liverpool on the 20th and 21st days of April 1883. Mr. Mansel Jones appeared for the Board of Trade, and Mr. Dickinson for the managing owner of the "Arzilla." Eleven witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade, and one by Mr. Dickinson, and the depositions of 4 other witnesses having been given in and read, Mr. Mansel Jones handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board Of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. Mr. Dickinson then produced two further witnesses, and having addressed the Court on behalf of his party, and Mr. Mansel Jones having replied for the Board of Trade, 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 "Arzilla" was a wooden sailing ship, belonging to the Port. of Liverpool, of 1,120 tons gross, and 1,082 tons nett register. She was built at Richibucto in the Province of New Brunswick, in the year 1863, and at the time of her loss was the property of Mr. Richard Tarleton Smith and Mr. Peter J. Feeney, of No. 4, Doran's-lane, Lord-street, Liverpool, Mr. Smith being the managing owner. She left the Penarth Docks on the 22nd of December last for Monte Video, with a cargo of 1,520 tons of coal, and brought up in Penarth Roads for the purpose of receiving her crew. Whilst lying there, however, she had to slip her chain to prevent being fouled by another ship; which obliged her to return to Penarth Docks, where she remained till the 10th of January following, when, having recovered her anchor and chain and set up her main rigging, which had become loose, she drew out of dock, and came to anchor in the river to receive her crew. On the morning of the 11th she started in tow of a steam tug, and having cast off before reaching Lundy Island, she set sail and proceeded on her voyage. For the first two days they had favourable weather, but on the 13th when about 200 miles to the south-westward of Cape Clear, the wind came away from the westward and began to freshen, upon which she was laid with her head to the southward on the starboard tack. During the 14th the wind continued to blow hard from the same quarter with a heavy sea, and the vessel was kept hove to on the starboard tack. That night the windmill pump, which had been going from the time they left the Penarth Roads, broke down, upon which they took to the main pumps, but found that only the port one would work. On the following morning the 15th, at about 9 o'clock the mate endeavoured to ascertain what water there was in the vessel, but not being able to find the sounding rod he tried it with a piece of wire, when it appeared that there were 9 feet of water in the hold. Upon this the carpenter, who had been ill in his berth since starting came up, bringing with him the sounding rod, and on trying it reported that there were 10 feet 6. In the meantime, on finding so much water in the ship, she had by the captain's orders been put about to run down to a vessel which was seen to leeward of them; and on its being referred to the crew to say whether they should abandon her, or endeavour to take her to some port, it was unanimously decided that they should leave her Accordingly, on nearing the other vessel, which proved to be the "Hindostan," the life boat and jolly boat were got out, and eleven of the crew having got into the life boat, they pulled towards the "Hindostan," and with considerably difficulty got on board her. In a quarter of an hour afterwards the jolly boat with the master and the remainder of the officers and crew came alongside, but in doing so the boat got under the vessel's counter, and a wave striking her she was upset, and all were thrown into the sea, and the boat when last seen was drifting bottom upwards with three of the hands clinging to her. It was now getting dark, and as the sea was very heavy, the master of the "Hindostan" refused to lower a boat, saying that he had not one that would live in it; and after remaining on the spot for about an hour the "Hindostan" proceeded on her voyage to the Cape of Good Hope. After being on board the "Hindostan" for 37 days they fell in with a steam vessel called the "Angers," to which the crew of the "Arzilla" was thereupon transferred, and by which they were subsequently landed at Rio, whence they have come to this country.

In the meantime the "Arzilla" had been fallen in with on the 18th of January, three days after she had been abandoned by her crew, in about latitude 49º north and longitude 9º west, by a vessel called the "Belle Vue," and on the mate and one of the seamen going on board and sounding the well, they found about 9 and 10 feet of water in her. It is said that the main mast was swaying about, both sides of the main rigging being very slack, and that on going into the hold they found the water closet pipe on the starboard side between the ceiling and the main deck cut about three parts through; there was an old axe, a saw, and a caulking mallet lying just underneath the pipe; and they estimated that she was making from half an inch to an inch of water in the hour through the pipe. As the night was coming on, and the weather was threatening, and they considered that nothing could be done to save her they left her taking away with them two chronometers and sundry small articles of little value which had been left on board. On the next day she was fallen in with again by a vessel called the "Windsor Castle," in latitude 49º 2' north and longitude 1º 14' west; but at that time the main and mizen masts were gone, the foremast alone standing. As she was evidently in a sinking state, they did not board her, and in a few minutes after passing her she was seen to go down by the head.

These being the facts, the first question upon which our opinion has been is, "Whether, when the vessel " left Cardiff, she was properly officered and manned?" She seems to have had 19 hands all told, including a master, two mates, a boatswain, and a carpenter. There seems to be some doubt as to the rating of the officers; Williams, who we were told acted as 2nd mate, not being upon the articles, and Murphy, the boatswain, who was entered on the articles as A.B., being we were told not a seaman at all, but a kind of super cargo. Judging, however, from the men produced before us, the assessors are of opinion that it was a fair enough crew for a Cardiff crew, and that there is nothing to shew that she was not properly officered and manned.

The second question which we are asked is, "Whether, " when the vessel left Cardiff, she was in good and sea- " worthy condition; her rigging sound and in good " order and properly set up, and whether her pumps " were sufficient and in good order?" it seems that the vessel was a New Brunswick vessel built in the year 1863; she was, therefore, about 20 years old. She had been bought, whilst lying at Liverpool, by Messrs, Smith and Feeney, in October or November last, from Mr. Gourley, the Member for Sunderland, for the sum of 2,050l., and as she was 1,095 tons register, that would be less than 2l. a ton. She was then placed by the owners in the hands of a Mr. Howatt, a shipwright at Liverpool, on whose report and recommendation Mr. Smith had purchased her, to do the necessary repairs, and having been re-coppered, and caulked up to two strakes above the copper, she left Liverpool for Cardiff, where she proceeded to take in a cargo of 1,547 tons of coal for conveyance to Monte Video. As she lay there with her cargo on board ready to start, she was seen by Mr. Sloggett, Shipwright Surveyor to the Board of Trade at Cardiff, who not liking her appearance went on board her, and on examining her found the mainmast rotten from heel to cap, and without an inch of sound wood in it; the windlass, the bowsprit bitts, and the mizen topgallant mast were also rotten. Mr. Sloggett told the master that he should not allow her to leave in that state, and endeavoured to get an undertaking from him that he would not attempt to take her away, but that the master seemed unwilling to give. The managing owner, however, on being communicated with, came to Cardiff, and at once ordered everything that the surveyor had recommended to be done to her. Accordingly, about 148 tons of coal having been taken out of her in the way of the main hatch, the old mainmast was removed, and a secondhand iron one was put into its place; a new windlass was put into her, the bowsprit bitts were renewed, and the mizen topgallant mast was taken away; after which only 120 tons of the coal, being 28 short of what had been taken out of her, were re-shipped, and in this state she left for Monte Video. According to Mr. Howatt, and Mr. Shepherd, his foreman, the vessel was at that time in a perfectly good and seaworthy condition, and the rigging was exceptionally good. Primâ facie we could hardly have had better evidence, for it was Mr. Howatt who, previous to the vessel being purchased by Mr. Smith, had examined her for him, and who had reported very favourably of her condition; it was also Mr. Howatt, and his foreman, Mr. Shepherd, who had done the repairs to her at Liverpool, and they were afterwards sent by the owner to Cardiff to do the repairs required by Mr. Sloggett. They had had, therefore, the very best opportunities of examining her, both before as well as after she had been purchased by Mr. Smith, and up to the time of her leaving Cardiff. But then it must not be forgotten that Mr. Howatt and Mr. Shepherd had thought her to be in a perfectly sound and seaworthy condition, and fit to carry a cargo of coal to Monte Video, when, as a matter of fact, her mainmast was rotten from heel to cap, and without an inch of sound wood in it, and when the windlass, the bowsprit bitts, and the mizen topgallant mast were all rotten, so that, if she had gone to sea in that state, she must have become a complete wreck in the first gale she encountered. I do not think, therefore, that much reliance can be placed on the evidence of such men as Mr. Howatt and Mr. Shepherd, who, having been instructed to put her into a state of repair, had allowed her to leave Liverpool with a rotten mainmast, rotten windlass, rotten bowsprit bitts, and rotten mizen topgallant mast in her. We were told, indeed, that large sums had been spent upon her by Mr. Gourley some two years since. At all events, Mr. Smith seems to have been so informed, but there is no evidence of the fact, it was all hearsay, and utterly unreliable. On the other hand we have the evidence of the crew, who gave their evidence very fairly, that she had a very seedy appearance, that the rigging was all to pieces, and would not run. through the blocks, and that the ratlins were out of place. We have also the fact that within a very few days after leaving port she was found to be making so much water that the crew had to abandon her. On the whole, looking at the age and character of this vessel and her condition on her arrival at Cardiff, and before the repairs required by Mr. Sloggett had been done to her, we are not satisfied that, even after those repairs had been done to her, she was in a good and seaworthy condition. It is true that Mr. Sloggett stated that in his opinion she was, but it must be remembered that Mr. Sloggett saw her only after she had her cargo in her, and when it would be impossible to say whether she may not have had some very serious defects either inside or outside, which it would be impossible then to see. Mr. Howatt and Mr. Shepherd were the only two witnesses who could have given us information on this point, but, for the reasons which I have already stated, their evidence is in our opinion utterly untrustworthy. We are disposed to place more reliance on the crew, who tell us that she was not in a sound and seaworthy condition when she sailed, and that the rigging was not sound and in good order. As regards the pumps there seems to be no question. The windmill pump was set going from the time they left the Penarth Roads, the vessel having already begun to make water, and it broke down on the night of the 14th. Besides this she had two hand pumps, one on the starboard the other on the port side. The starboard pump could never be got to work from the first; Mr. Howatt indeed says that it was clean and in good working order when see left Penarth Roads, but on this point we prefer to believe the crew, who tell us that it never worked from the first. They had then only the port pump, which was however not sufficient to keep her clean.

The third question which we are asked is, "Whether " she had sufficient freeboard?" Originally, as I have said, it was intended that she should carry 1,548 tons, but of this 148 tons were taken out when the mast had to be renewed, and only 120 tons were put back, leaving 1,520 tons on board when she started. But we are disposed to think that even 1,520 tons, which is more than 50 per cent. above her under deck tonnage, must have been too great a weight for this 20 years old New Brunswick vessel. As to the freeboard which she would have with this weight on board the evidence is most couflicting. According to the pilot who took her down to Nash Point, the water, when he left her, was just a little over her load line, about a couple of inches; and as the ship's articles state that the load line was placed at 3 feet 8 inches below the deck, that would give her a freeboard of only 3 feet 6 inches. On the other hand Mr. Sloggett told us that when she left the Penarth Docks the disc was just clear of the water, and if the position of the load line is correctly stated in the ship's articles, that would give her a freeboard of about 4 feet 2 inches. The matter is however still further complicated by Mr. Sloggett's statement that he measured the freeboard when she was in the Penarth Docks, and with the whole of her cargo on board, and found it to be exactly 5 feet 6 at the disc, and that at the same time she drew 21 feet forward and 21 feet 3 inches aft, giving her a mean of 21 feet 1 1/2, so that her total depth at side in the line of the disc would be 26 feet 7 1/2, which seems hardly consistent with the depth of her hold. Let us see however what ought to have been the amount of her freeboard. According to Mr. Sloggett, looking at her age and character, she ought to have had 3.1 inches for every foot depth of hold, and as the hold was 23.1 feet, that, he told us, would give us a freeboard of 5 feet 11 1/2, but from this he proposed to deduct 2 inches for the raised quarter deck and forecastle, and 3 inches for the differenee between salt water and the water in Penarth Docks, leaving 5 feet 6 1/2 as the freeboard, which she ought to have had when in Penarth Docks. But I am somewhat at a loss to see on what ground Mr. Sloggett has allowed 3 inches for the difference between the water in Penarth Docks and salt water, seeing that we are told that the water in Penarth Docks is very nearly salt, and the pilot who took her out to sea said that she would not rise at all on getting to sea; so that we are disposed to think that Mr. Sloggett's estimate of the freeboard, which this vessel should have had, is hardly sufficient. And if this be so, her freeboard would not have been sufficient, even if she had had the 5 feet 6, which Mr. Sloggett gives her; but if she had only 4 feet 2, or according to the pilot only 3 feet 6, it would clearly have been grossly insufficient. On the whole we are disposed to think that the vessel had not sufficient freeboard, and that she was consequently overladen.

The fourth question which we are asked is, "Whether " the cargo was properly stowed, that is, so as to make " the vessel as easy as possible in a seaway?" It seems that at first the whole of the cargo was shot down the two centre hatches, sloping down from them fore and aft, so that the cargo was rather heaped up in the centre of the ship, whilst at the same time she was a little by the head. When, however, some of the cargo had to be taken out to remove the main mast, they took care in re-shipping it to distribute it more equally, putting a good deal of it aft, and some forward, so that, when she left, the vessel was well trimmed. No doubt, if the weight had been left in the centre of the vessel, it would have had a tendency to strain her, but in the way in t which the cargo was subsequently stowed, we think there was no reason to complain of the stowage.

The fifth question which we are asked is, "Whether, " after leaving Cardiff, proper measures were taken to " ascertain the quantity of water in the vessel from " time to time; and whether the pumps were used with " sufficient frequency?" According to the evidence of the crew no measures whatever seem to have been taken to ascertain the quantity of water in the vessel, at least until the evening of the 14th, or, according to some of the witnesses, before the morning of the 15th, when the mate, not being able to find the sounding rod, took the depth with a wire, and found about 9 feet in her; and shortly afterwards the carpenter sounded-with a proper sounding rod, and found 10 feet 6 inches in her. It appears to us that steps ought to have been taken, before the water had got to this height, to ascertain the quantity of water in her. There is some discrepancy between the witnesses, as to when the pumps were first used. The windmill pump, no doubt, was set going from the time of leaving, and was kept going until it finally broke down on the night of the 14th; and all agree that the starboard pump could never be got to work at all; but when it was that the port pump was set going is not quite so clear; according to some it was set going on the 14th, according to others not until the morning of the 15th. Probably it was set going when the windmill pump first broke down, and was stopped when the windmill pump had been temporarily repaired, as we are told it was; but from the morning of the 15th, when so large a quantity of water was found in the vessel, it was, no doubt, kept constantly going. It appears to us, however, that it would have been better had earlier measures been taken to see what water there was in the vessel, and had the port pump been set going at an earlier period.

The sixth question which we are asked is, "What was "the cause of the ship making water as rapidly as she " did?" The age and condition of the vessel, added to the heavy weight of cargo which she had in her, and which would make her labour and strain heavily, in our opinion caused her to spring a leak, and thus led to her making water as rapidly as she seems to have done.

The seventh question which we are asked is, "Whether " she was navigated with proper and seamanlike care; " and whether every possible effort was made to save " the vessel?" and the eighth, which may be conveniently taken with it, is, "Whether she was prema- " turely abandoned?" I don't know that there is any evidence that she was not navigated with proper and seamanlike care; when the gale commenced, she was kept hove to on the starboard tack, head reaching, and it is not easy to see what else they could have done under the circumstances. It no doubt is a very remarkable fact that the whole of the able seamen, with the exception of one, left first in the lifeboat, and were followed soon afterwards in the jolly boat by the master and all the officers and petty officers, together with a boy and one able seaman. It might at first sight raise a presumption that the seamen had refused to stay by the vessel, and had deserted their officers, but we are disposed to think that this could not have been so, for the evidence is that, although the "Azilla" had got within hail of the "Hindostan" between 12 and 1 in the day, it was not until between 4 and 5 that the lifeboat with the men in her put off to go alongside that vessel, and they were followed within a quarter of an hour by the jolly boat with the master and officers. According to the men, the master ordered the chief mate to get into the lifeboat, she had, however, been damaged by getting under the ship's counter, and they thought that he did not care to trust himself in her. Be this, however, as it may, we do not think that the men are to be blamed for having left her, when it was reported that she had 10 feet 6 of water in her. We are told, indeed, that when the "Belle Vue" fell in with her 3 days afterwards, she had only between 8 and 9 feet of water in her, and that there was a pipe cut three parts through, which was letting in water at the rate of 1/2 to 1 inch of Water per hour. How this was, it is impossible for us to say. Whether the mate and carpenter made a mistake in taking the soundings; whether the pipe in the hold was cut before or after the crew had left her, to get rid of a floating danger to navigation; and what the state of the weather was between the 15th, when she as abandoned, and the 19th, when she was seen to go down, there is nothing to shew. At the same time there is no evidence that the vessel was prematurely abandoned.

The ninth and last question which we are asked is, "Whether the managing owner is to blame?" It seems that this is the first vessel that Mr. Smith and his partner Mr. Feeny have owned, they being by profession wine and spirit merchants. Mr. Smith told us that he embarked in the transaction in order to oblige his partner, and to give a berth to the master captain Doherty, who was Mr. Feeny's brother-in-law. Mr. Smith tells us that he knows nothing of shipping, and trusted entirely to the representations that were made to him as to the character and condition of the vessel. He also tells us that he gave only 2,050l. for her, or less than 21. a ton, and that he thought he had made a good bargain in buying her, which he certainly would have done, if she had been fit to go to sea at all. Of the purchase money 1,800l. is advanced to them on mortgage. The freight we are told was to be 22s. a ton to Montevideo; this on 1,520 tons would amount to 1,672l.; but of this 800l. had been advanced, so that, if the vessel had reached her destination in safety, they would have had to receive 872l. as the balance of the freight, out of which they would have had to pay the wages and port charges. Now the ship we are told was insured for 1,000l. in an insurance office, and for 700l. in a club; the freight was insured for 1,000l. in an insurance office, and 400l. in a club; and the stores were insured for 500l. in an insurance office. Mr. Smith has already received 2,500l. from the insurance offices, and he hopes to get some more from the club. Mr. Smith, with the assistance of a Mr. Powle, an insurance agent, who seems to have been his adviser throughout, tried to make out that he would be a loser by the casualty; but we are not satisfied that it would be so, at all events as regards the freight, seeing that he had already received 800l. on account, and that the balance was insured for a much larger sum than he could hope to realise after payment of wages and port charges. Mr. Smith is no doubt to blame for having embarked in this undertaking, without having the necessary qualifications for the performance of the duties of managing owner. Seeing however that he at once ordered the repairs suggested by Mr. Sloggett to be undertaken, and directed that she should be put into a thorough state of repair, and that he has in our opinion been the victim of other persons more designing than himself, we shall not condemn him in the costs.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

HENRY D. BURNEY, R.N., J.P.,

Assessors.

 

 

J. P. WILSON,

 

L 367. 1552. 150.—5/83. Wt. . E. & S.