Wreck Report for 'Derbyshire', 1884

(No. 2134.)

"DERBYSHIRE."

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at Bristol, on the 20th and 21st of March 1884, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captain FRENCH, Rear-Admiral MORESBY, and Captain DAVIES, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the damage sustained by the sailing ship "DERBYSHIRE," whilst on a voyage from San Francisco to Queenstown, whereby one life was lost.

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 ship left San Francisco in August last she was not in a good and seaworthy condition, nor well found; that she was also too deeply laden, and was insured much beyond her value.

The Court makes no order as to costs.

Dated this 21st day of March 1884.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

A. P. FRENCH,

 

 

 

J. DAVIES,

Assessors.

 

 

J. MORESBY,

Rear-Admiral,

 

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Bristol on the 20th and 21st of March 1884, when Mr. Macdonell appeared for the Board of Trade, Mr. Wimshurst for the owners, and Mr. Clifton for the master of the "Derbyshire." Nine witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. Macdonell handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. Three witnesses having then been produced on behalf of the owners, Mr. Clifton and Mr. Wimshurst addressed the Court on behalf of their respective parties, and Mr. Macdonell 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 "Derbyshire," which is an iron three-masted ship, belonging to the Port of Liverpool, of 1,163 tons gross and register, was built at Liverpool in the year 1863, and at the time of the casualty, which forms the subject of the present inquiry, she was the property of Mr. William Griffith, and others, Mr. William Griffith being the managing owner. She left San Francisco on the 18th of August, with a crew of 22 hands all told, and a cargo of 1,745 tons of wheat, bound to Queenstown for orders. They had fine weather at first, but on the 28th, by which time they had arrived in about latitude 22° North and longitude 122° West, it began to blow hard from the N.E., so that at about 8 p.m. the master deemed it advisable to lay the vessel to on the port tack; and at 10 p.m. she was under lower main topsail only, the wind blowing a hard gale from the N.E., with a heavy cross sea from the S.E. At 11 p.m. a heavy sea struck her, coming over the bows, filling the decks fore and aft, and making a clean sweep of everything moveable on deck, carrying away the hatch over the after peak, bursting in the cabin door, and filling the cabin and lazarette with water, and at the same time washing away two of the hands from the wheel. Robinson, one of the men, was soon afterwards picked up, and carried to the cabin, but in about a quarter of an hour afterwards he died. The other man, Larkins, was picked up in the alley way among the wreckage, and, although he had sustained considerable injuries, which laid him up for about a fortnight or three weeks, he recovered and returned to his duty. Orders were at once given to cover the hatchway over the after peak, and with great difficulty this was done; but all that night the vessel lay on her beam ends with her starboard rail under water, dipping her stern continually, so that it was impossible for any one to go to the helm. At noon the crew came aft, and according to their account they requested the master to jettison some of the cargo from aft, but according to the captain they only asked him what he intended to do. After consulting with his officers, the master determined to jettison a portion of the cargo, and he accordingly directed some of the crew to go down through the cabin into the after 'tween decks for that purpose. On getting below they found that the cargo had shifted over to starboard, that on the port side having shifted towards the centre, leaving an empty space some fifteen to eighteen inches broad at the side; whilst that on the starboard side had shifted about the same distance from the centre, and gone over to the side. During that day and following morning they brought up and threw overboard about 520 to 550 bags of wheat, which were estimated to weigh about 30 to 32 tons; and by trimming the cargo they succeeded, as the wind and sea went down, in getting her upright again. They then baled the water out of the after peak, and at the same time threw overboard some 5 or 6 tons of old rope and other articles which were stowed there. From that time until the 19th of October they had moderate weather, but from the 19th, when they were off Pitcairn's Island, until the 18th of November, when they were abreast of the Horn, they encountered a succession of gales, causing the cargo to shift again. They then had fine weather until the 24th of January, when a succession of strong gales again set in, and continued almost without intermission until the 3rd of February, during which time some damage was done to the bulwarks, and the cargo again shifted and had to be again trimmed. Altogether we were told that the cargo had shifted about half a dozen times, sometimes to one side, sometimes to the other, according to the tack on which she happened to be, and on each occasion it had to be retrimmed. At length, on the 6th of February they arrived at Queenstown, where they received orders to proceed to Bristol, and accordingly at about 9 a.m. of the 11th of the same month they left in tow of a steam tug, and having, when clear of the entrance to the harbour, cast off, they made sail and proceeding on their course, steering a S.S.E. course, the wind at the time being from the N.W. During the night the wind began to rise, getting round more to the southward, and on the following morning the master, finding that the weather was very thick and hazy, laid her to on the starboard tack, and allowed her to drift before the gale, thinking that she would in that way be drifted towards Lundy Island. In the afternoon, however, fearing to get too close to the land, and not knowing exactly where he was, he wore ship with her head to the westward, and brought her up on the port tack. Between six and seven o'clock p.m. the same day a light was observed bearing about N.E., which they made out to be the South Bishop's; and almost immediately afterwards land was seen to leeward, which proved to be Grassholme Island. Thereupon all possible sail was made forward, and the vessel paid off just in time to avoid running on the island. Finding that he had got so far to the northward of his course, the master then determined to make for Holyhead, where they arrived at about 6 p.m. of the following day, the 13th. There they remained until midnight of the 14th, when they again got under weigh, and proceeded in tow of a steam tug towards Bristol. At midday, however, the gale again commenced, and finding that they were making no way the master requested the tug to take him into Milford Haven. This, however, the tug seems to have been quite unable to do, and after holding on for some sixteen or eighteen hours, during which time the vessel was again nearly running on Grassholme Island, it was determined to return to Holyhead, which they reached on the morning of the 17th. There the officers and men refused to remain any longer by her, for they had then had enough of her, and accordingly they received their discharges. On the 25th she again started in tow of a steam tug, and after another very stormy voyage, she reached Bristol on the 27th, where we understand she now is.

These, then, being the facts of the case, the first question upon which our opinion has been asked is, Whether, when the Derbyshire left San Francisco on August 18th, 1883, she was in good and seaworthy condition, and well found in all respects?" The vessel was built in the year 1863, and we are told cost 22l. a ton. The managing owner, Mr. Griffith, however, said that he and his co-owners purchased her in the year 1875, and gave 14,682l. 17s. 6d. for her, but immediately afterwards they spent a sum of 1,317l. 2s. 6d. upon her, making her total cost 16,000l. When they bought her she was classed * at Lloyd's, and had also the highest class in the Liverpool Book, namely 20 years. It seems that she was surveyed in May 1882, shortly previous to her departure on her last voyage, and although very little seems to have been then done to her at that time, she was continued on her class * at Lloyd's, and 20 years in the Liverpool Book. Having taken on board a cargo of coal, she left Liverpool on the 10th of June 1882 for Wilmington, in California; thence she proceeded to Manilla in ballast, and having there shipped a cargo of sugar and hemp, sailed for San Francisco, where she arrived on the 6th of July 1883, and there took in the cargo of wheat with which she sailed for this country on the voyage into which we are now inquiring. Now whether she was or was not in good condition when she left Liverpool in June 1882, it must be remembered that she had since then been knocking about for more than a year; and, according to the evidence of the men, she was then in a bad way, not as regards the hull, but as to the rigging and in other respects. One fact, too, seems to be proved beyond dispute, and that is that when she left San Francisco her rudder was in a defective state; this is proved not only by the evidence of the men, but by that also of the master and the officers themselves; they said she was heavy to steer, that she kicked, and that the rudder had some play; and we have been told by Mr. Stewart, the Board of Trade Surveyor at this port, who has examined her since her arrival, that the rudder had a play at the gudgeons of from 3/4 of an inch to an inch, that the pintles were worn, and that the whole would have to be renewed She appears also to have been entirely wanting in spare rigging; a list of what she had on board was produced but it was found to consist of warps and hawsers, not rope or running gear. Moreover we were told that the boats' davits had been unshipped and put below, and the tackles used owing to there being a deficiency of rope and running gear aboard. On the whole, the conclusion to which we have come to is, that when the vessel left San Francisco on her last voyage she was not well found, and the assessors say that she ought never to have left with her rudder in the state in which it seems to have been, more especially having regard to the fact that she was bound round Cape Horn, and was timed to arrive in this country in mid-winter. We are not therefore prepared to say that when she left San Francisco in August 1883, she was in a good and seaworthy condition, or that she was well found in other respects.

The second question which we are asked is, "Whether the vessel's boats were on August 18th, 1883, sufficient in number and seaworthy, and well found in all respects?" She had four boats in all—a lifeboat, 26 ft. by 6 ft. 6 in., a gig, 22 ft. by 5 ft. 6in., and two long boats, each 27 ft. by 7 ft. 4. It is admitted that the lifeboat was in good condition, and perhaps also the gig, but there cannot be the slightest question that both the long boats were in a very bad condition. According to the captain, who had commanded her for the last four years, he had never had them off the skids during all that time; he painted them, it is true, shortly before their arrival in this country, and it is that which seems to have deceived Mr. Hill, the boatbuilder, for he told us more than once that they were well painted; but according to Mr. Stewart, the Board of Trade Surveyor, who fully bore out the statements of the crew on the subject, they were not seaworthy, the planking being rent, and the hood ends of one started. it was said, however, that the lifeboat alone was sufficient to contain the whole of the crew but the assessors tell me that, although the lifeboat might have carried the whole of the crew if the sea had been smooth, it would have been madness to have put 22 men into her on a rough sea. The gig, too, they tell me, would not have live for five minutes in such a sea. We are therefore of opinion that in August 1883, when she left San Francisco, she had not a sufficient number of boats, having only one boat, the lifeboat, fit for use, the two long-boats being unseaworthy and unfit for service, in case they had been required.

I will take the three next questions together, as they relate to the stowage and to the shifting of the cargo; they are as follow: "3. Whether the cargo was in all respects properly stowed, and whether all the regulations of the marine surveyors at San Francisco, as approved by the Board of Trade, and subject to the provisions of the second Schedule in the Board of Trade's second notice, dated 8th of May 1882, were complied with?" "4. Whether proper measures were taken to pre. vent the cargo from shifting?" And "5. Whether as laden the vessel had sufficient stability, and if so, what was the cause of the shifting of the cargo on the 28th of August 1883, and subsequently during the voyage?" I may observe that the whole of the cargo was in bags, and I think it has been clearly established that the vessel was very well fitted with shifting boards, sparred shifting boards as they are called, that is to say, with spaces between the tiers, but not wide enough to allow a bag to pass between them. We are told also that they extended from deck to deck in the 'tween decks, and in the lower hold went about half way down. That they were well and securely fastened is proved by the fact that when examined by Mr. Stewart, the Board of Trade Surveyor, after the vessel's arrival at Bristol, not one of the shifting boards had been displaced. This, Mr. Macdonell told us, was the only point in the regulations as to the stowage of the cargo, to which he wished to call our attention. As regards the vessel's stability we are asked to conclude from the fact that the cargo shifted some half-dozen times on the voyage, that the vessel as laden was unstable; but this we are not prepared to do. Not knowing the position of her centre of gravity, or her meta centric height as laden, we are quite unable to say whether she was or was not unstable. Let us see however, whether there was anything in the manner in which this cargo was stowed to account for its having shifted so often. So far as the lower hold is concerned the stowage appears to have been in every respect quite satisfactory; the bags seem to have been all stowed in longers, except where there was broken stowage, when they were laid aburton; and we are told by Mr. Stewart that there was no appearance of any portion of the cargo in the lower hold having shifted at all. In the 'tween decks, however, the bags were found by Mr. Stewart, on the vessel's arrival at Bristol, to be somewhat mixed up together, and not laid regularly, but this may very well have arisen from the fact that this portion of the cargo had shifted six times and been six times re-trimmed by the crew. There was, however, one thing which may have contributed to the shifting of the cargo, and it is this; instead of the cargo being stowed right up to the deck amidships and stepped down forward and aft, we are told that in the 'tween decks it was in some places two feet, in others three feet, from the deck, and the fact spoken to by the officers that the bags were very tight, may, as they stated, have contributed to their shifting. I should add that the bags were not, as it is called, married, nor were any special precautions taken to prevent the upper tiers going over to leeward when the vessel rolled very heavily. One fact, however, was very clearly established, and that is, that if the shifting boards had not been very strong and substantial, the whole of the cargo would have gone bodily over to leeward, and nothing then could possibly have saved the vessel.

The 6th question which we are asked is, "Whether every possible effort was made to get and keep the vessel upright on and subsequently to the 28th of August 1883?" The cargo, as I have said, shifted some six times, and six times had to be retrimmed; and we think that the master and officers deserve very great credit for the efforts which they made to get the vessel upright again on these occasions, and for having brought her in safety into port.

I will take the 7th and 8th questions together; they are as follow: "7. Whether, having regard to the nature of the cargo and voyage, the vessel was overladen?" and "8. Whether she had sufficient freeboard?" We are told that she had on this occasion 1,745 tons of wheat on board, and that that was the intake weight. Now the owner has brought in his account books, showing the nature and duration of the voyages which this vessel has made during the time she has been in their hands, the cargoes carried, the receipts and disbursements, and the net amount divisible amongst the shareholders on making up the accounts at the termination of each voyage, and they throw a great deal of light upon this case. Now the first voyage was from Liverpool to Newport, thence to Melbourne with coal, thence to Port Pirie in ballast, and back to Leith with timber, the voyage extending from the 2nd of September 1875 to the 4th of September. 1876. The second voyage was from Leith to Rangoon with coal, and back to Liverpool with rice, the voyage lasting from the 4th of November 1876 to the 22nd September 1877. The third voyage was from Liverpool to Melbourne, thence in ballast to Newcastle, New South Wales, thence with coal to San Francisco, returning with wheat to Liverpool, the duration of that voyage being from the 7th November 1877 to the 9th March 1879. The fourth voyage was from Liverpool to Melbourne with passengers and goods, thence to Port Pirie in ballast, and back to Havre with wheat, the voyage lasting from about April 1879 to April 1880. The fifth voyage was from Havre to Montreal in ballast, returning to Havre with wheat, the voyage lasting from June the 29th to the 26th December 1880. The sixth voyage was from Havre to Cardiff in ballast, thence with coal to Singapore, thence in ballast to Astoria in Oregon, and back to Liverpool with wheat, the voyage lasting from the 14th of February 1881 to the 31st March 1882. The last voyage was from Liverpool to Wilmington with coal, thence to Manilla in ballast, back to San Francisco with sugar and hemp, returning with wheat to Bristol, that voyage commencing on the 10th of June 1882 and terminating, as we have seen, at Bristol on the 27th of February last. Let us now see what were the respective weights of the cargoes which she carried on these voyages. On the 1st voyage the weight of the coal carried out is not stated in the account book, but the owner told us that it weighed 1,716 tons; on the return voyage she carried only timber. On the second voyage the coal carried out weighed 1,601 tons, and the rice brought home about 1,604 tons. On the third voyage the weight of the outward cargo is not given, but the coals carried from Newcastle, New South Wales, to San Francisco, weighed 1,597 tons, and the cargo of wheat which she brought home 1,691 tons. On the 4th voyage the weight of the outward cargo is not given, but the homeward cargo consisted of 8,011 quarters of wheat. On the 5th voyage she went from Havre to Montreal in ballast, returning with 7,826 quarters of wheat. On the 6th voyage she took out 1,708 tons of coal, returning from Astoria with 1,712 tons of wheat and flour. On the last voyage we are not told what weight of coal she carried out to Wilmington, in California, but the sugar and hemp from Manilla to San Francisco was a light cargo, and from San Francisco she brought 1,745 tons of wheat. It will thus be seen that the cargo which she brought from San Francisco on her last voyage was considerably heavier than any cargo that she had ever before had on board during the time that she has been in the possession of her present owners, and it amounted to 50 per cent. above her gross tonnage. And now let us see what was her freeboard on this occasion. We were told by the managing owner that the loadline was placed at 4 feet 7 inches below the deck, and according to the master and officers of the vessel the bottom of the disc was about a-wash when they left San Francisco, from which Mr. Wimshurst asked us to conclude that she must have had a freeboard at that time of about 5 feet 1. But in the statutory notice which the master left with the British consul at San Francisco, he gives the freeboard in salt water as 4 feet 11 inches, and that agrees with the entry in the certificate given by Mr. Freeman, the marine surveyor, who examined her both before and after she was laden at San Francisco. Now was this a sufficient freeboard for her under the circumstances? Taking first the Board of Trade Rules we find that an iron sailing ship of her length, namely 207 feet long, should have a freeboard of 2.35 inches for every foot depth of hold, and as the hold was 23.55 feet deep, that would give us a freeboard of 55 1/3 inches or 4 feet 7 1/3 inches. It must be observed, however, that this is the freeboard required by these rules for first-class iron sailing vessels in a thoroughly good and efficient condition in all respects; whereas this vessel was 20 years old, and her condition, as we have seen, was not first-class. Turning now to Lloyd's Rules we find that her co-efficient of fineness was .68, and Mr. Wimshurst has told us that her moulded depth was about 25 feet; if so, she ought by Table D. to have had a freeboard of 5 feet 3 inches. We have no evidence as to what her camber, or what her sheer was, and whether any allowance or deduction from the freeboard should be made on this account; but judging from her behaviour on the night of the 28th of August we are inclined to think that she had not much sheer aft. Taking all these facts into consideration, and remembering that she was bound round Cape Horn, and was timed to arrive in this country in mid-winter, the assessors are disposed to think that this vessel was too deeply laden when she left San Francisco; and that she was so, is strongly confirmed by the evidence, not only of the crew, but also of the second officer, who told us that he thought her too deep, and that after they had thrown overboard the 30 to 35 tons, thus reducing her to the largest weight carried on previous voyages, she behaved better.

The 9th and 10th questions which we are asked are "What was the cause of the casualty on the 28th of August?" and "what was the cause of the loss of life, and whether every possible effort was made to prevent it?" The casualty and loss of life were no doubt due to the vessel having been too deeply laden and to her having too little sheer aft, so that when the waves broke over the bows, they made a clean sweep of the vessel fore and aft; but after the casualty happened, every possible effort seems to have been made by those on board to remedy the mischief done.

The 11th question which we are asked is, "Whether prompt and proper measures were taken to free the vessel of the water, which got below aft?" In our opinion proper measures were taken to free the vessel of the water which got into her. We think that the master did quite right not to open the sluices so as to allow the water to run out of the after peak, so long as the vessel remained on her beam ends, for it would not have got to the pumps, and to bale it out afterwards, when the vessel righted.

The 12th question which we are asked is, "Whether the vessel was properly navigated both before reaching and after leaving Queenstown?" in the opinion of the assessors she was. It is true that after leaving Queenstown they got some 40 miles out of their course, but that was due to the violence of the gale, which drove them away to the northward, and we do not think that the master is to blame for this.

The 13th question which we are asked, and which, as Mr. Macdonell has stated, is perhaps the most important of all, is as follows:—"Whether the vessel and the freight were insured for amounts exceeding their respective values?" We were told by the managing owner that they gave for her originally 14,682l. 17s. 6d., but that they almost immediately afterwards spent upon her various sums; which he estimated at 1,317l. 2s. 6d., making, as he said, her total cost to them 16,000l.; and in that sum she was insured regularly every year from 1875 down to April 1882, when at a meeting of the shareholders it was agreed to reduce the insurance upon her to 12,000l.; and that is the sum for which she was insured on her last voyage. Now, was that too large a sum for which to insure her? It seems that shortly before her departure from this country in June 1882 one of the shareholders was desirous of selling his shares, and accordingly Messrs. Kellock, the highest authority in Liverpool on the subject, were instructed to value her; and although the valuation has not been brought in, we were told by Mr. Griffith, the managing owner, that they valued her at 9,500l. or 9,600l., he couldn't say exactly which. After this, however, she made a voyage to Wilmington in California, thence to Manilla, returning to San Francisco with sugar and hemp. She had thus had a year's knocking about at sea after Messrs. Kellock had valued her at 9,500l. to 9,600l., and consequently, when she left San Francisco, she could hardly have been worth as much; and according to the managing owner she is now worth in the market between 6l. and 7l. a ton only, or between 7,000l. and 8,000l. This being so, was it right to insure her up to April 1882 for 16,000l., and subsequently thereto for 12,000l.? In our opinion it was not. Mr. Griffith stated that he was only a very small shareholder, owning one share, and that he had to obey the orders of the other shareholders, who he said considered that they had a right to insure the vessel in such a sum as would, in case she were lost, return to them the whole of the principal that they had embarked in her. But it seems to me that this is very much like saying, that if you have had a coat or a pair of shoes in use for some two or three years, you are entitled to expect that they will be just as good at the end of that period as they were at the beginning, and that you are not to allow anything for wear and tear. It will perhaps however be said that the market value of the vessel is no proper index of her value to her owners, and that no doubt may be so in some cases, but in the present instance there seems to be no pretence for saying that she had any special value beyond the ordinary market price; for I find on looking at the accounts brought in by the managing owner that the net profits available for distribution amongst the owners after the 1st voyage was 1,385l. 10s. 9d.; after the 2nd voyage, 825l. 3s.; after the 3rd, 903l. 5s. 9d.; on the 4th voyage we are fold that they made a loss of 515l. 7s. 8d.; on the 5th voyage she earned 164l. 13s. 8d.; on the 6th, 1,655l. 6s. 6d., and the owner has told us that he estimates the net earnings for the last voyage will be about 1,000l. So that the total amount of the net earnings made by this vessel from the time they have owned her, namely, from about June 1875 to the present time, or for nearly 8 3/4 years, has been 5,418l. 12s., or about 620l a year. Now this would be a little less than 4 per cent. upon 16,000l. the amount at which they had valued her, and for which they had insured her up to April 1882, and a little more than 5 per cent. on 12,000l., the amount at which she was insured for the last voyage. There is therefore not the slightest pretence for saying that her earnings were so great that she was of exceptional value to them, and that therefore they were entitled to put this high value upon her. Taking all these facts into consideration we have no hesitation in saying that the vessel was insured very largely beyond her value. And now as to the freight—we were told that the freight on the homeward voyage was 5,250l., and that it was insured for its full amount; so that, if the vessel had gone down on the way home the owners would have been entitled to recover the gross sum of 5,250l. from the insurers on account of the freight, and would not have been required to pay out of it wages or port charges in this country. As however she has arrived safely at her port of destination, the owners receive the gross freight, but out of it they have to pay the wages and charges in this country, and to that extent the owners would have benefitted by the vessel going down on the way home, and being lost with every one on board. In saying this, however, I would wish it to be distinctly understood that we make no suggestion that the owners had any such object in view in thus insuring the vessel and freight beyond their values; but it is a vicious system, founded upon an entirely mistaken notion, that vessels will or ought to last for ever without depreciating in value, so that, if she happens to go down, they are entitled to get back the whole of the capital they have invested in her. If, however, she continues to float, the owners find themselves in the end saddled with a vessel worth very little. If, indeed, the owners, instead of spending so much on insurance, were to spend a little more in the necessary repairs to the ship, and in keeping her in a good state of efficiency, they would no doubt find it pay better.

The 14th question which we are asked is, "Whether the master and officers were, or either of them was, in default, and whether any blame attaches to the managing owner?" As regards the officers, no blame appears to attach to any of them. The master, however, can hardly be said to have been free from blame for leaving San Francisco with his vessel in the state in which she was, and with her rudder and two of her boats in such a defective condition, more especially as he knew that she was bound round Cape Horn, and that he would probably arrive in this country in mid-winter. He is to blame also for having loaded her down too deeply, more deeply than she had ever been before; and it is no justification for him to say that he employed persons, who are generally considered the best stevedores in the place, to stow the vessel, or that Mr. Freeman, the marine surveyor, was employed to see that she was properly loaded. It was his duty to see that the vessel was not too deeply laden, and that she was in a fit and proper condition to perform the voyage on which she was bound; and that he did not do. As regards the managing owner, he is chiefly to blame for having kept up the vessel in somewhat too niggardly a way. The reply is that he is only a very small holder, having only one share in the ship, and that he was bound to carry out the orders of the other shareholders, and especially of the large holders. In justice to him also it should be said that he gave his evidence in a very straightforward way, and has not attempted to conceal anything from the Court. At the same time we think that, if the owners knew that the loss of their vessel would have entailed a loss upon themselves instead of a gain, more care would probably have been taken in seeing that she was sent to sea in a better and more seaworthy condition.

The Court made no order as to costs.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

A. P. FRENCH,

 

 

 

J. MORESBY,

Rear-Admiral,

Assessors.

 

 

J. DAVIES,

 

L 367. 1906. 150.—3/84. Wt. 73. E. & S.