Wreck Report for 'Emily', 1884

(No. 2108.)

"EMILY" (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at the Sessions House, Westminster, on the 6th day of March 1884, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captains CASTLE and PARFITT, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the stranding and loss of the steamship "EMILY," on Briggs Reef, off Groomsport, County Down, on the 11th of February ultimo.

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 and has of the said vessel was due to the wrongful act and result of George Metcalf Taylor, the master, in having ?? her on a course to pass to the northward of Mew ??, but without making any allowance for the tides ?? currents, which were setting her to the southward ?? her course, and towards the coast, and it accordingly ??pends his certificate for six months, but recommends ?? during the period of such suspension a first mate's ??ficate allowed to him.

The Court is not asked to make any order as to

Dated this 6th day of March 1884.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

JOHN S. CASTLE,

Assessors.

 

 

WM. PARFITT,

 

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Westminster on the 6th day March instant, when Mr. Muir Mackenzie appeared ?? the Board of Trade, Mr. Botterell for the owners, ?? Mr. Dickens for the master of the "Emily." The ??ate of the "Emily" was present, but was not represented by either counsel or solicitor. Six witnesses ??ing been produced by the Board of Trade and ??mined, Mr. Muir Mackenzie handed in a statement ?? the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired ?? opinion of the Court. Mr. Botterell and Mr. Dickens addressed the Court on behalf of their respective parties, and the chief officer was heard on his own behalf, and Mr. Muir Mackenzie having replied for the Board of Trade, the Court gave judgment on the questions upon which its opinion had been asked, The circumstances case are as follow:—

The "Emily" was an iron screw steamship, belonging to the port of Sunderland, of 787 tons gross, and ??7 tons net register, and was fitted with engines of 90 ?? power. She was built at Sunderland in the year 1876, and at the time of her loss was the property of Mr. Thomas Kish, of Sunderland, and others, Mr. Thomas Kish being the managing owner. She left Glasgow on the 8th of February last, with a crew of 16 ??ands told, and 820 tons of coal as cargo, besides 120 ??ons in her bunkers, bound to Bordeaux; but on the following day, the weather having become very bad, she put into Belfast Lough, and came to anchor in Bangor Roads. There she remained, with Bangor Pier bearing S.W. distant about 1 mile, until 11 p.m. of the 11th, when she got under weigh, and was at first put upon a E.E. by E. course magnetic for 10 minutes, during which we are told she made about a mile and a quarter. The course was then altered to E. 3/4 S., the Mew Island lighthouse then bearing S.E. by E. According to the master and chief officer she was kept from that time with the Mew Island Lighthouse bearing about a point or a point and a half on the starboard bow; and in about 20 minutes afterwards the chief officer, who was then alone on the bridge, the master having gone into the chart room four or five minutes before to look at the chart, observed a buoy about 2 points on the port bow, and distant about 350 yards; upon which he immediately ordered the helm to be starboarded; and the master, coming out at this time, ordered it to be put hard-a-starboard. The vessel however almost immediately afterwards struck on the extreme end of a reef of rocks called the Briggs. The story told by the boatswain and the man at the wheel, the only other two witnesses examined from the ship, is somewhat different; according to them the vessel, after she had been put upon an E. 3/4 S. or E. by S. course, was kept on that course until she struck; and then, and not till then, the order was given to starboard the helm; and that at that time the Mew Island Light had been brought a little on the port bow. The accounts are certainly conflicting, but whichever account is the true one, it can make no difference in our judgment. Various attempts were made to get the vessel off, but without avail, and as the tide was falling, she soon became fast. On the next tide it was found that she was making water, and ultimately the master and crew were taken off by the life boat and some shore boats, but the vessel herself became a total wreck.

These being the facts of the case, the first question with which I propose to deal is marked 1 (a), and is as follows:—"Was the vessel at the time of the casualty in good and seaworthy condition as regards her hull, machinery, and equipment?" It seems that in October last she had gone ashore on the coast of Ireland, about 20 miles from the place where she was lost; and that on that occasion a sum of about 4,500l. was spent for salvage and repairs. After, however, the repairs were complete, she was surveyed, and was continued on her class A 1 for 18 years in Liverpool Lloyd's, and there is no reason to think that she was not in a good and seaworthy condition when she sailed on her last voyage.

I will next take questions 1 and 2 together; they are, "1. What was the cause of the stranding of the vessel?" and "2. Shortly after leaving Belfast Lough, was a safe and proper course steered, and were due and proper allowances made for tides and currents?" When the master laid his course to pass to the north of Mew Island, he put her, as I have stated, upon an E. 3/4 S. course, and with the lighthouse bearing S.E. by E.; and if there had been no tide and no current setting him to the southward, that would, as Mr. Dickens said, have been a very proper course, and would have taken him clear to the northward of the Briggs and Mew Island. But, unfortunately, the tide was setting strongly to the southward, and in the direction of the Briggs; and for this the master made no allowance whatever, for he said that he knew nothing about the tides there, never before having been on that part of the coast; but if he had looked at his chart and sailing directions he would have seen that the tide does set, and very strongly too, in that direction, and that it was a danger to be carefully guarded against. Now it seems that the master, when he first laid his course to pass Mew Island, brought, as I have said, the lighthouse to bear S.E. by E.: when, however, she stranded, it bore about S. 1/2 E., as a glance at the chart will show. Now this alteration of the compass bearing of the light should have shown him that he was being drifted to the southward and towards the coast. It matters not whether the light was kept from a point to a point and a half on the starboard bow by continually starboarding the helm, as the master and chief officer tell us; or whether, as the boatswain and the helmsman say, she was kept on an E. 3/4 S. course all the time, and gradually brought the light from being a point and a half on the starboard bow to a little on the port bow; the fact that the light altered its compass bearing some 2 1/2 points to the eastward, should have warned him that he was being carried to the southward. The course then which was steered was not a safe or proper course, having regard to the set of the tide to the southward; and it is to this, and to the fact that the master made no allowance for the tide, that the stranding of the vessel is due.

The third question which we are asked is, "Was the master justified in keeping the vessel at full speed, especially having regard to the haziness of the weather?" We are not disposed to think that the weather was so hazy, as to have rendered it improper for the vessel to have been going at full speed; for we are told that, before they left their moorings, they could see the light on Mew Island Lighthouse, although it was then about 5 miles off. On the contrary, the strength of the tides and currents made it very desirable that he should keep at full speed so as to have her under better command, and there was nothing in the state of the weather to render that course an improper one.

The fourth question which we are asked is, "Was a good and proper look out kept?" The only look out which was kept on board was from the bridge, at first by the master and the mate, and when the master went into the 'chart room, by the mate alone; but there was no proper look out set, all hands we are told being engaged forward stowing the anchor.

The fifth question which we are asked is, "Was the vessel navigated with proper and seamanlike care?" In our opinion she was not. What the master should have done was to have watched the compass bearing of the Mew Island Light; which, if he had been on his proper course, should, as he drew down towards it, have become more southerly; instead of which he allowed it to get from S.E. by E. to E. 1/2 S., showing clearly that he was being set to the southward of his course. In our opinion she was not navigated with ordinary care and skill.

The sixth question which we are asked is, "In the opinion of the Court, were the ship and freight insured for amounts exceeding their several values at the time of the casualty?" Mr. Botterell has asked us to defer our answer to this question until he should have had an opportunity of applying to a Superior Court for a writ of prohibition, on the ground that the question related to matters which were not within our jurisdiction, and on which we had no right even to take any evidence. Mr. Botterell's contention is that the functions of this Court are confined to an inquiry into the circumstances under which the casualty occurred, and that the amount at which the vessel and freight were insured could have no possible bearing on the question. But I am not quite satisfied that this is so. I will suppose a case (I do not say that it is this case), but I will suppose that the master and owner had conspired together to cast away a ship—would the fact that she was heavily over insured, and that the owner would gain largely by her loss, have no bearing on the question? But it was said that, assuming that the owner and master had colluded together to throw away the ship, and that she was heavily over insured, the Court would have no power to criminally punish the owner and master for the offence, and consequently that we had no right to inquire into that question, or to take any evidence upon it. But the fact that we have no power to criminally punish the parties appears to me to be no reason why we should not inquire into the facts. As Mr. Muir Mackenzie justly observed, we are a court of inquiry, and it is our duty to ascertain, so far as we can do so, what cause or causes may have contributed to the casualty, and to report thereon to the Board of Trade. Take the case of a vessel having been feloniously scuttled by the master with the knowledge and connivance of the owner, can there be any doubt that we have the power, nay, that it is our bounden duty, to inquire into and report on all the circumstances attending the casualty, even though we may not have the power to punish either the master or the owner criminally for the offence of which they have been guilty. If I had the slightest doubt as to what my course ought to be under the circumstances, I should have at once acceded to Mr. Botterell's application; but I have no such doubt, and as Mr. Muir Mackenzie, on behalf of the Board of Trade, has pressesd for an answer to this question, I shall proceed to state the views at which we have arrived from the evidence produced before us.

Now we were told by the owner that the vessel had been built for himself and his partners in the year 1876 and that she had then cost about 15,500l., or, in other words, very nearly 20l. a ton upon the gross tonnage. Now for a mere cargo vessel, built too at Sunderland, this is, I am told by the assessors, rather an extravagant, price. But be this as it may, she seems to have been anything but a fortunate ship. According to the owner, she had been stranded very often, but he could not tell us how many times; he did, however, remember two occasions within the last year. One of these was, as I have stated, in October last, when the salvage and repairs came to no less than about 4,500l. But this, he said, was perhaps not the most serious casualty which had happened to her, for about a year ago she had run on the coast of France, but what the damages amounted to on that occasion he could not tell us. He told us also that at the time of her loss she was insured for 14,000l., being 1,500l. less than she is said to have cost them when new. And now as to the freight; it seems that the freight was insured by an annual policy for 500l.; on this occasion, however, the freight in course of being earned—that is, for the carriage of the coals from Glasgow to Bordeaux—was only 215l. and we are told that the practice in such cases is for the insurer to pay, in addition to the amount of the freight which she would have earned, half the difference between that and the sum insured. In this case then the sum which the owner would receive from the insurers would be the 215l., the gross amount of freight, plus one half the difference between that and 500l., or 142l. 10s., making a total of 357l. 10s., without deductions for wages or port charges payable at Bordeaux. Whatever then may have been the case with the owners, it can hardly be said that the insurers have made a very profitable business out of this vessel; they have had to pay for two heavy repairs in the last year, in one of which if not in both, the amount of the salvage and expenses came to about 4,500l., and this is now followed by the total loss of the vessel; which was insured at the time for 14,000l. The owners, on the other hand, are in this position: in place of the vessel which they have been continually running for the last 7 years, latterly carrying cargoes of ore, they get from the insurers a sum of 14,000l., which the assessors tell me will be sufficient to give them a perfectly new vessel, as good, if not better than the "Emily" ever was, the price of ships having of late fallen considerably. As regards the freight, too, they will receive not only the 215l., the full amount of freight which she would have earned had she arrived safely at Bordeaux, and without deduction for port charges and wages payable there, but they will have in addition a sum equivalent to about two-thirds of the total gross freight. Our answer, therefore, to the question that has been put to us is that, in the opinion of the Court, the ship and freight were insured for amounts exceeding their respective values at the time of the casualty.

The sixth question which-we are asked is, "Are, or is, the master and officers, or any and which of them, or any other person, to blame for the casualty?" and it is added that "The Board of Trade are of opinion that the certificates of the master and chief officer should be dealt with." The master has in this case accepted the full responsibility for all that has occurred; he has admitted that he laid the course, and although he was below for between four and five minutes immediately preceding the casualty, it is not pretended that, during his absence from the deck, the mate did anything else but carry out his orders. The responsibility for the casualty therefore rests entirely with the master. Mr. Dickens said that he was not there to contend that the master was not to blame, but he asked the Court to hold that he had been guilty only of an error of judgment, and not of any wrongful act or default. Now the fault of which the master has been guilty is of having laid the vessel upon a course to pass to the northward of Mew Island, and then neglected to see that she was being set to the southward, as he might easily have done by watching the alteration in the compass bearing of Mew Island Light. This, in our opinion, is not a case of mere error of judgment; it is a case of very gross neglect, and for which, in our opinion, his certificate ought to be dealt with. Now I have left it to the assessors to say, as I always do in these cases, what ought to be done in this case, and they are both strongly of opinion that this master's certificate should be suspended for six months. His certificate will therefore be suspended for that period; at the same time we shall recommend to the Board of Trade that, during the time of its suspension, he be allowed a first mate's certificate. As regards the chief officer we think that he is also not wholly free from blame, for he was in sole charge of the deck for between four and five minutes before she struck, and during that time he must have seen that the compass bearing of the light on Mew Island was altering to the northward, and that consequently the vessel must have been getting to the southward of her course; but as he had nothing to do with the navigation beyond carrying out the master's orders we shall not deal with his certificate.

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

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

JOHN S. CASTLE,

Assessors.

 

 

WM. PARFITT,

 

L 367. 1880. 150.—3/84. Wt. 73. E. & S.