Wreck Report for 'Cherubini', 1884

(No. 2059.)

"CHERUBINI" (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at Newcastle-on-Tyne, on the 23rd day of January 1884, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captain CURLING and Captain KIDDLE, R.N., as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the supposed loss of the steamship "CHERUBINI," of London, and of her crew of 24 hands, whilst on a voyage from Sunderland to Genoa in August or September last.

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 Sunderland on her last voyage, she was in a good and seaworthy condition so far as her hull and equipments were concerned; that she was, however, very deeply laden, but that there is no evidence to show how she was lost.

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

Dated this 23rd day of Junuary 1884.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

WILLM. CURLING, R.N.R.,

Assessors.

 

 

JAMES KIDDLE,

 

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Newcastle on the 23rd day of January instant, when Mr. Howard Smith appeared for the board of Trade and Mr. Roche for the owners of the "Cherubini." Nine 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. Roche then addressed the Court on behalf of his parties, and Mr. Howard Smith having replied for the Board of Trade, the Court proceeded to give judgment upon the questions on which its opinion had been asked. The circumstances of the cases are as follow:—

The "Cherubini" was an iron screw steamship, belonging to the Port of London, of 1,775 tons gross and 1,161 tons net register, and was fitted with engines of 180 horse power. She was built at Sunderland in the year 1880, and at the time of her loss was the property of Mr. Jenneson Taylor, of No. 36, West Sunniside, Sunderland, and others, Mr. Jenneson Taylor being the managing owner. She left Sunderland on the 29th of August last for Genoa with a cargo of coal, and a crew of 24 hands, all told, and from that time she has not been seen or heard of, and there can now be no doubt that she has perished with all hands. It is under these circumstances that the Board of Trade have ordered this inquiry to take place.

Now the first question which we are asked is, "Whether, when the vessel last left Sunderland, she was in good and seaworthy condition as regards her hull and equipments?" We were told by Mr. Darley, the chief draughtsman to Messrs. Shortt Brothers, the builders, and who was the designer of the vessel, that she was exceptionally well built, having been built under the special inspection of Lloyd's, and classed 100 A1. She had, we are told, an iron deck fore and aft, six water-tight bulkheads, iron bulkheads on the fore part of the poop and at the fore and after ends of the bridge house, and without any openings in them, and the coamings of her hatchways, which were 2 feet 6 inches high, were exceedingly strong. On the 15th of August last, shortly before her departure on her last voyage, she was put into Messrs. Austin and Co.'s dry dock at Sunderland to repair some damages, which she had sustained by striking on hard ground, and on that occasion she had had a new stem put into her, 2 new stern plates, and a new plate in the bottom, and was generally overhauled; and we are told by Mr. McColl, the manager to Messrs. Austin and Co., that when she left their hands she was in first-rate condition. We have, therefore, no reason to think that when she last left Sunderland she was not in good and seaworthy condition as regards her hull and equipments, and in that opinion we are confirmed by the evidence of Mr. Brown, the pilot who took her out.

The second question which we are asked is, "Whether the load-line disc was so placed as to give the vessel sufficient freeboard if loaded down to it?" We are told that the load-line was originally placed at 3 feet below the deck, and that it has never since been moved either up or down, and the question which we have to consider is whether, if loaded down to it, she would have had sufficient freeboard. Mr. Darley, the chief draftsman to Messrs. Shortt Brothers, who has gone very carefully into the figures, has told us that, after making all due allowance for the iron deck, for the bulkheads, for the coamings of the hatchways, and for everything, the minimum freeboard which she should have had, according to Lloyd's rules, was 3 feet 9 3/16 inches, and according to the Board of Trade rules 3 feet 9 11/16 inches. This Court has been very often charged with basing its judgments in these cases entirely on the Board of Trade rules, disregarding altogether Lloyd's rules. The charge is made sometimes, no doubt, by those who have never read either the judgments or the reports. but more frequently, I fear, by those who have read them, and who know perfectly well that the statements which they make are utterly untrue. It is well known to those who practise in this Court that we invariably endeavour to find out, when we can do so, not only what is the freeboard required by the Board of Trade rules, but also by Lloyd's rules, and it very often happens, as it does in this case, that they agree very closely, the minimum freeboard required in this case by the Board of Trade rules being 3 feet 9 11/16ths, and by Lloyd's rules 3 feet 9 3/16ths. Mr. Roche, however, stated that in his opinion the question which had been put by the learned counsel for the board of Trade was an impertinent one—not "impertinent" in an offensive sense, but as he explained it, not "pertinent" to the case. He told us that it is the practice of shipowners to place the load-line high up on the ship's side, not indeed with a view to the vessel being loaded down to it, but to lead seamen, when they join the vessel, to think that she was more lightly laden than she really was. Mr. Howard Smith said that that seemed very much like an attempt to deceive the seamen; but Mr. Roche replied that what he meant was that seamen, if they saw the water above the load line, when the vessel was in fresh water, might be led to think that the vessel was more deeply laden than she should be, forgetting that on getting into salt water she would rise considerably. But it does not appear to me that this makes much difference. The load-line, according to Mr. Roche, is put high with a view of leading seamen to think that she was not so deeply laden as she in fact was, and that I call deceiving them. If, however, it is the practice, as Mr. Roche says, for owners to place the load-line higher on the ship's side than it is ever intended to load her down to, it makes the load-line a farce; and there is always this danger, that the master may regard it as the point to which the owner thinks that she ought to be laden, and may consequently, when in a foreign port, load her down to it. Be this, how ever, as it may, if the minimum freeboard for this vessel according to Lloyd's rules was 3 feet 9 3/16, and by the Board of Trade rules 3 feet 9 11/16, it is clear that with a freeboard of only 3 feet she would have been grievously overladen.

The third question which we are asked is, "Whether when she last left Sunderland the vessel was overladen?" We were told that she had on board 1,780 tons of coal as cargo, besides 455 tons in her bunkers, making a total of 2,235 tons, which is only a little over 45 per cent. above the under tonnage. But the question is, what water did she draw with this weight in her? Now the best evidence on this point is that of the pilot Brown, who told us that before taking charge of the vessel he looked at her draft of water, and found that she drew 19 feet 3 inches forward, and 20 feet 3 inches aft, giving her a mean of 19 feet 9 inches, and that on each side the water was within 2 or 3 inches of the bottom of the disc. It is true that on the port side he saw it only from the quay, and as Mr. Roche observed he might, therefore, easily have been deceived, as to the distance between the bottom of the disc and the water; but on the starboard side he examined it from his boat, and could hardly therefore be very far wrong. He admitted, however, that he might have been an inch or two out. Now, if the water was only 3 inches below the bottom of the disc, seeing that the load-line was at 3 feet below the deck, that would give her a freeboard of 3 feet 9, and assuming that he had under estimated the distance between the bottom of the disc and the water by two inches, that would give us a freeboard of only 3 feet 11 inches. But it was said by Mr. Roche that this was not consistent with Mr. Darley's evidence, who stated that with the cargo and bunker coal, which she had on board; she would according to the. displacement scale have had a freeboard of 4 feet. 1 1/8 inches. He admitted, however, that owing to her having been running for three years, she would probably be a little deeper, and for this he allowed about an inch, making her freeboard about 4 feet. There is therefore not much difference between them, and we may perhaps fairly take her freeboard, when she left Sunderland on her last voyage, at from 3 feet 9 inches to 4 feet. Now, was that a sufficient freeboard? I have already stated that according to Lloyd's rules the minimum freeboard which she ought to have had, was 3 feet 9 3/16 inches; according to the Board of Trade rules 3 feet 9 11/16 inches for a summer voyage. Whilst then we are not prepared to say that she was overladen according to those rules, it is clear that she was very deeply laden, and was very near the extreme limit prescribed by Lloyd's and the Board of Trade.

The fourth question which we are asked is, "What, in the opinion of the Court from the evidence before them, is the cause of this vessel not having been heard of since she left Sunderland on the 29th of August last?" Nothing having been seen or heard of the "Cherubini" since she left Sunderland, it must of course be a mere matter of conjecture what has become of her. It was suggested by Mr. Roche that she might have gone down after collision with some other vessel, or that she might have been wrecked upon the French or Spanish coasts. He stated also that at the time when the vessel would in the ordinary course have got into the Bay of Biscay there was a storm raging there, in the course of which several other vessels appear to have foundered, namely, two outward and two homeward bound vessels, in one of which an inquiry has already been held by this Court. The weather reports, too, of the Meteorological Society shew that on the 2nd September, when the "Cherubini" would probably be in the Bay of Biscay, a violent storm was raging there. She may therefore have foundered in that gale, and the assessors are quite prepared to believe, seeing how very deeply she was laden, that it may have been so. It was said, however, by Mr. Roche that at that time some 48 tons of her bunker coal would have been consumed, being three days' consumption at 16 tons a day, which would have raised her about 2 1/2 inches out of the water,. her displacement at that draft being 18.9 tons to the inch. But even then, the assessors are of opinion that laden as she was it is quite possible that she may have foundered had she encountered the violent gale which was then raging in the Bay of Biscay.

It is proper to add that after the evidence of Mr. Willis, the Government inspector of mines for the Newcastle district, and of Mr. Bell, the inspector of mines for the Durham district, as to the character of the coal which she had on board both as cargo and in her bunkers, there could be no grounds for supposing that her loss was due either to explosion or to spontaneous combustion, and consequently no question was asked by the learned counsel for the Board of Trade on these points. There was also no evidence as to the insurances effected upon either the vessel or the freight; and although Mr. Roche stated that he could produce evidence which would prove highly favorable to the owners, he declined to do so, as he said that he did not think that the question of insurance had anything to do with these cases of missing ships; and there was consequently no evidence whatever on the point.

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

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

WILLM. CURLING, R.N.R.,

Assessors.

 

 

JAMES KIDDLE,

 

L 367. 1831. 150.—1/84 Wt. 73. E. &. S.