Wreck Report for 'Ann' and 'Matthew Cay', 1884

(No. 2251.)

"ANN" and S.S. "MATTHEW CAY."

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at the Sessions House, Westminster, on the 26th of July 1884, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captain PARISH, Vice-Admiral POWELL, C.B., and Captain RONALDSON, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the collision between the fishing vessel "ANN" and the steam vessel "MATTHEW CAY," on the 18th of June 1884, 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 the said collision was due to the wrongful act and default of James Archbold, the second officer of the "Matthew Cay," who was at the time in charge of that vessel, in having neglected to keep out of the way of the "Ann," as it was his duty to have done. The Court accordingly suspends his first mate's certificate for six mouths, but recommends that during the period of such suspension he be allowed in lieu thereof a second mate's certificate.

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

Dated this 26th day of July 1884.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

ALFRED PARISH,

R. ASHMORE POWELL,

A. RONALDSON,

Assessors.

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Westminster on the 26th day of July 1884, when Mr. Kenelm Digby appeared for the Board of Trade, Mr. Gibson for the owners of the "Ann" and for the relatives of the boy who was drowned, and Mr. Botterell for the owners, and Mr. Roche for the second officer of the "Matthew Cay." Nine witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. Kenelm Digby handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. Mr. Gibson and Mr. Roche then addressed the Court on behalf of their respective parties, and Mr. Kenelm Digby having been heard in reply, 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" Ann," which was a small fishing boat, belonged to the port of North Shields, of about 8 tons burden, left the Tyne on the 17th of June last, with a crew of six hands, of which Mr. James Crawford, the master and a part owner, was one, for the purpose of fishing between the Cocket and Newbiggin. She arrived on the fishing ground the same day, fished during the night, and on the following day, at about 11.30 a.m., was about five miles from Newbiggin Point, with her head to the eastward, but making hardly any way, the weather being perfectly clear and fine, and the wind light from the northward, when a steamer, which afterwards proved to be the "Matthew Cay," was observed at a distance of some seven or eight miles, coming from the northward. The steamer continued to approach them, the "Ann" still heading to the eastward, until she was within 200 or 300 yards of them, when the crew of the "Ann" observed the helm of the steamer to be put first to port and then to starboard, and shortly afterwards she struck the "Ann" forward on the port side, cutting her down to within a plank of her keel, and throwing her over on her port beam. The captain having become wedged between the boat and the steamer a rope was thrown to him, and he was hauled on board the steamer. The rest of the crew, after having been in the water for some 20 minutes or more supporting themselves on pieces of the wreck, were all, with the exception of a boy, ultimately picked up by the boat of the "Matthew Cay" and taken on board. The "Ann," although so seriously damaged, continued to float, and was picked up the following day and taken ashore.

The story told by the "Matthew Cay" is as follows: She is an iron screw steamship, belonging to the port of South Shields, of 1,354 tons gross, and 869 tons net register, and is fitted with engines of 120-horse power. She was built at South Shields in the year 1873, and at the time of the casualty which forms the subject of the present Inquiry she was the property of Mr. Matthew Cay, of Dean Street, South Shields, and others, Mr. Matthew Cay being the managing owner. She left Sligo on the 15th of June last, in ballast, bound to the Tyne, with a crew of 21 hands all told, and drawing 9 feet 6 inches forward and 12 feet 6 inches aft. At about noon of the 18th, she was about five miles from Newbiggin Point, having come north about, when the captain and chief officer went down to their dinners, leaving the second officer in charge of the bridge. At this time the only sails in sight were a schooner on the port beam, and the "Ann" some distance ahead, and on the starboard bow. The weather, we are told, was perfectly fine, with a light wind from the northward, and the vessel was proceeding at full speed, steering a S. by W. 1/2 W. course, and making from 8 1/2 to 9 knots an hour. According to the second mate he did not see the "Ann" until he had been for some time on the bridge, and when he did see her, she was about a mile off, and about 2 1/2 points on his starboard bow. He continued his course, intending, he said, to pass ahead of her, but when they had. got to within a quarter of a mile of her, finding that she had rather more headway than he expected, he determined to go astern of her, .and with that view ordered the helm to be put hard aport. Finding, however, when within 20 yards of her, that they should not clear her, he rushed to the telegraph, and gave the order to "stop" and "full speed astern," and almost immediately afterwards the steamer struck her forward on the port bow, turning her over on her port side. The story, however, told by the man who was at the wheel is somewhat different: he told us that the first order which he got was to hard-a-port the helm, that he got it right over, and that then he got an order to starboard, and that the wheel was half over when the collision occurred; and his evidence was confirmed by Barclay, one of the watch, who was on deck at the time, and is in accordance with that of the crew of the "Ann." Mr. Roche has admitted that the balance of the evidence is that the helm was first ported, and then starboarded, and in that opinion we are disposed to concur. I should add that no time was lost in lowering the steamer's boat, and in proceeding to the assistance of the crew of the "Ann."

These being the facts of the case, the first question upon which our opinion has been asked is, "Whether " the 'Matthew Cay' took proper measures to keep " out of the way of the 'Ann,' as required by Article 17 " of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea?" Article 17 is in these words: "If two ships, one of " which is a sailing ship and the other a steam ship, " are proceeding in such directions as to involve risk " of collision, the steam ship shall keep out of the way " of the sailing ship." It was therefore the duty of the "Matthew Cay" to keep out of the way of the "Ann"; and whether we accept the statement of the second mate that he saw her at the distance of a mile, but took no steps to get out of the way until he was within a quarter of a mile of her, and that he then ported, but too late to avoid her, or whether we take the statement of the man at the helm, supported as it is by Barclay and by the crew of the "Ann," that the helm was first ported and then starboarded, it is equally clear that proper steps were not taken to keep out of the way of the "Ann."

The second question which we are asked is, "Whether " she slackened speed, stopped or reversed, as required " by Article 18 of the said Regulations?" It is admitted that the engines were not stopped until just before the collision, but it appears to us that it was rather a question of getting out of the way of the "Ann," either by going ahead or astern of her, than of either stopping or reversing the engines.

The third question which we are asked is, "Whether " a good and proper look-out was kept on board the " 'Matthew Cay.'" The master told us that he saw the "Ann" before he went below, which was some 18 or 20 minutes before the collision, and when consequently she must have been some three or four miles off. On the other hand, the second mate says that he did not see her until they had got within a mile of her, and that he did nothing until they were within a quarter of a mile of her. The excuse which he gives for not having seen her sooner is that when he took charge of the bridge he first went to the port side, and after standing there for some time he turned to go to the starboard side, and that then for the first time he caught sight of the fishing boat. But this is no excuse for his not having seen her sooner, for we are told that the vessel had no top-gallant forecastle, and that the bridge was seven feet above the main deck, so that there was nothing to prevent a person on the bridge from seeing a vessel on either bow. Something indeed was said about there having been no look-out stationed forward, but I am told that this is not usual in broad daylight, and with the weather as clear as it was then; and that a person on the bridge could, had he been looking out, have seen as well as, if not better than, a man forward. It appears to us, therefore, that the second mate was not keeping a good look-out, otherwise he would certainly have seen her sooner than he did.

The fourth question which we are asked is. "What was the cause of the collision?" It appears to us that the collision arose either from the second mate, after sighting the "Ann," choosing to continue his course with the intention of passing ahead of her, and not porting his helm .until it was too late; or from his not having seen the boat at all until he was very close to her, and in the flurry of the moment first porting and then starboarding his helm.

The fifth question which we are asked, is "Whether " the master and second mate of the "Matthew Cay' " are, or either of them is, in default, and whether " blame attaches to the master of the 'Ann?'" And it is added that "the Board of Trade are of opinion that the certificate of the second officer of the 'Mathew Cay' should be dealt with." No charge whatever is made against the masters of either the "Matthew Gay" or the "Ann," nor is there any reason to think that any blame attaches to the owners of the "Matthew Cay," for she appears to have been sent to sea in a thoroughly good condition, and to have had a good and sufficient crew on board. The blame for the casualty rests entirely with the second officer of the "Matthew Gay." Mr. Roche has said that he showed a certain amount of coolheadedness: I should rather be disposed to call it pigheadedness. As Mr. Gibson said, there is only too much reason to believe that these coasting steamers are in the habit of holding on until the last moment with the view of compelling smaller vessels to give way to them, or be run down. According to the second mate's own statement he saw the vessel about a mile off standing across his course, and instead of porting his helm as he was bound to do and going astern of her, he held on until he had got so close to her, that, according to his own showing, he could not clear her. Either then he saw her in ample time to avoid her, and neglected to give way, as it was his duty to do, until it was too late, or he did not see her until the last moment, and then first ported, afterwards starboarded his helm. In either case his conduct was reckless in the extreme, and is deserving of severe punishment. He has produced a number of certificates, testifying to his sobriety and previous good conduct, and attention to his duties; but this is not a case which the Court can pass over, and we shall therefore suspend his certificate for six months.

Subsequently, on the application of Mr. Roche, his advocate, the Court agreed to recommend to the' Board of Trade, that during the suspension of. his chief mate's certificate he be allowed a second mate's certificate.

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

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

ALFRED PARISH,

R. ASHMORE POWELL,

A. RONALDSON,

Assessors,

LA 367. 2023. 170—8/84. Wt. 36. E. & S.