Wreck Report for 'Cyanus', 1883

(No. 2009.)

"CYANUS" (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at the Moot Hall, Newcastle-on-Tyne, on the 7th of December 1883, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captains METHVEN and KENNEDY, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the stranding of the steamship "CYANUS" near the Petchany Lightship, in the Gulf of Azov, on the 30th of October last.

Report of Court.

The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons annexed, that the stranding of the said vessel was due to her having been put on a course so as to pass to the south of Petchany Lightship, where the chart, which the master had, as well as the latest Admiralty chart, shew that there is the deepest water, whereas it appears from the evidence that the deepest water is to the north of the Petchany Lightship, the ship being placed on the south and not on the north side of the Channel.

The Court is not asked to deal with the master's certificate, or to make any order as to costs.

Dated the 7th day of December 1883.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

R. METHVEN,

Assessors.

 

 

H. C. KENNEDY,

 

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Newcastle-on-Tyne, on the 7th of December 1883, when Mr. Howard Smith appeared for the Board of Trade, and Mr. Tilly for the master of the "Cyanus." Three witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. Howard Smith handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. Mr. Tilly having then been heard on behalf of the master, and Mr. Howard Smith 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 "Cyanus," is a steel screw steamship belonging to the Port of London, of 1,635 tons gross and 1,060 tons net register, and is fitted with engines of 150 horse power. She was built at Hartlepool in the year 1880, and at the time of the casualty which forms the subject of the present inquiry she was the property of Mr. Wm. Young, of Leadenhall House, Leadenhall Street, London, and others, Mr. William Young being the managing owner. She left Taganrog at about 9 a.m. on the 30th of October last with a crew of 22 hands all told, one passenger, a Mr. Petersen, and a cargo of about 2,000 tons of rape seed and barley, and drawing 16 feet 4 inches forward and about 19 feet aft, bound to Gibraltar for orders. Seeing by the chart which he had on board that the deepest water lay to the south of Petchany Lightship, and his vessel drawing 19 feet aft, the master steered so as to pass at the distance of about 3/4 of a mile to a mile to the south of the lightship where it shewed 25 feet of water but when abreast of it the vessel took the ground and became fast. Efforts were at once made to get the vessel off, and whilst they were so engaged two steam tugs came alongside and offered to get him off for 600l. This however the master refused, upon which they offered to try to tow him off, and if they succeeded they were to have 300l., but if they failed, then they were to have an additional 300l. to bring down lighters and labourers to lighten her until she came off; they at the same time gave the master to understand that, if he accepted their offer, they would give him 150l. of the salvage money. This offer also the captain refused, and upon this Mr. Petersen the passenger told him that he had tugs and lighters and would undertake to do the work for 300l., but on the master objecting to give that sum, Mr. Petersen agreed to do it for 250l. Accordingly Petersen took the ship's boat for the purpose of going to Taganrog, and on his way fell in with one of the steam tugs, with whose master he entered into an agreement to bring down a schooner to take the cargo on board. Accordingly on the following morning the schooner was brought alongside and they began to discharge the cargo from No. 4 hatch, and after they had discharged about 130 to 140 tons the ship was found to be lifting, upon which the tug took hold of her and towed her off into deep water. The cargo was then re-shipped, and the vessel proceeded on her voyage, arriving safely at Gibraltar, where she received orders to go to Hull, and on discharging her cargo and being afterwards docked, it was found that no damage had been done either to the ship or to the cargo.

These being the facts of this case, the Board of Trade have put to us a number of questions, the first seven of which may be more conveniently taken together. They are as follow:—

1. Whether the vessel was supplied with proper and sufficient charts?

2. Whether the position of the Petchany Light Vessel is properly marked upon the chart with which the vessel was supplied, and also upon the Admiralty chart as latest corrected?

3. Whether upon approaching the said light vessel a safe and proper course was set and steered

4. Was the master justified in neglecting to use the lead?

5. Was the vessel navigated with proper and seamanlike care?

6. What was the cause of the stranding of the vessel?

7. Was the said stranding caused by any wrongful act or default on the part of the master, George Heslop?

It seems that the master not having been to the Gulf of Azov before, purchased, when he was at Constantinople, one of Imray's charts, which was, he told us, the best that he could get there. That chart he has produced in Court, and on it the Petchany Light Vessel is represented as being well over on the north side of the Channel, with deep water to the south and shoal water to the north of it. It was on this account that in approaching the Petchany Light Vessel the master steered so as to pass about a mile to the south of it, where there appeared from his chart to be about 25 feet of water, but when abreast of the light vessel he grounded. We were told that the master, thinking that there might be some mistake in his chart, sent the mate, in company with Mr. Petersen to act as interpreter, to the light vessel to ask the captain of that vessel whether the position of the light vessel was correctly laid down on his chart; and that on comparing it with the chart which the captain of the light vessel had on board, it was found that the light vessel, instead of being on the north side, was close over to the banks on the south side of the Channel, and was in only 18 feet water, so that a vessel drawing, as this vessel did, 19 feet of water must, if she attempted to go to the south of the lightship, inevitably go ashore. This is the explanation given to us by the master and mate of the "Cyanus," and if it is correct it fully accounts for the stranding of the vessel where she did, to the south of the Petchany Light Vessel. It is no question here of the want of a good look-out, or of the neglect of the lead; it is simply a case of the master having been induced to lay his vessel on a course to the south of the Petchany Light Vessel, the chart which he had on board shewing him that the deep water was all on that side.

And now let us see whether, if the master had had with him the Admiralty chart of the Sea of Azov with the latest corrections, he would have been any better off. We have now before us the Admiralty chart corrected down to the last month (November 1883), and on it we find the deepest water to the south of the light vessel, there being 22 and 25 feet for nearly 2 miles to the south of it, whilst there are only from 18 to 22 feet to the north of it. Under these circumstances it is not possible for us to hold that the master was to blame. for the stranding of this vessel, for had he had the Admiralty. chart with the latest corrections he would equally have taken a course to the south of the light vessel. The matter is one which ought to be called to the attention of the Hydrographical Department of the Admiralty, for if the light vessel is incorrectly placed upon the chart it ought to be at once corrected, looking to the very large trade which is now carried on with Taganrog.

The eighth and ninth questions which we are asked are, "Whether every possible effort was made to get the vessel off before the agreement was come to with Petersen?" and "Whether, in the opinion of the Court, there are grounds for supposing that the stranding of the vessel was a pre-arrangement between the master and Mr. Petersen, and whether there was any collusion between them with regard to the salvage?" it appears to us that every effort was made by the master to get the vessel off before any agreement was come to with Petersen, and that there is not the slightest ground for supposing there was any collusion between Mr. Petersen and the master on the subject. The vessel we are told was worth about 24,000l., and the cargo from 10,000l. to 20,000l. more; and we have, therefore no reason to think that the amount paid for the services was excessive.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

R. METHVEN,

Assessors.

 

 

H. C. KENNEDY,

 

L 367. 1781. 150.—12/83. Wt. 73. E.& S.