Wreck Report for 'Closeburn', 1884

(No. 2360.)

CLOSEBURN."

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at the Sessions House, Westminster, on the 11th day of November 1884, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Admiral PICKARD, and Captains RONALDSON and HYDE, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the shipping of a heavy sea by the sailing ship "CLOSEBURN," of Glasgow, when off Cape Horn, on the 25th of June last, by which three of the crew were washed overboard and drowned.

Report of Court.

The Court having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons annexed, that the loss of the said lives was due to the violence of the gale which the vessel encountered, and that no blame whatever is attributable to the master, the chief officer, or to any person on board for the casualty.

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

Dated this 11th day of November 1884.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

A. RONALDSON.

BENIN. S. PICKARD,

GEORGE HYDE

Assessors.

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Westminster on the 11th day of November instant, when Mr. McConnell appeared for the Board of Trade. The managing owner and the master of the "Closeburn" were present, but were not represented by either counsel or solicitor. Five witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. McConnell handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. The managing owner then addressed the Court, and Mr. McConnell having replied, the Court proceeded to give judgment on the questions upon which its opinion had been asked. The circumstances of the case are as follow:—

The "Closeburn," which is an iron barque belonging to the Port of Glasgow, of 923 tons gross and 896 tons net register, was built at Port Glasgow in the year 1881, and at the time of the casualty which forms the subject of the present inquiry she was the property of Mr. Thomas Cochrane Guthrie, of 29, Waterloo Street, Glasgow, and others, Mr. Guthrie being the managing owner. She left Lyttleton in New Zealand on the 27th of May last, with a crew of 20 hands all told, and a cargo of about 1,406 tons of wheat in tags, bound to Queenstown for orders. Nothing particular occurred until noon of the 25th June following, when they were off Cape Horn. in latitude 56° 59' south and about 70° 40 west longitude, and the vessel was running before a gale from the W.S.W., under two lower topsails, reeled foresail, and foretopmast staysail, and making from 9 1/2 to 10 knots. At this time all hands were on deck, and were engaged hauling taut the port fore braces, when the vessel took a heavy lurch, and shipped a large quantity of water over both sides, which filled the decks fore and aft, washed overboard three of the hands, namely, the second officer, an A.B., and an apprentice, and injured some of the rest of the crew. We are told that the gale was so violent that it was impossible to bring the ship to, and that they were compelled to continue their course. At midnight the gale abated, and on the following morning it was discovered that some of the chain plates had been wrenched off, and some of the stanchions started on the port side, causing her to make water; and to ease her, about 160 bags of wheat, weighing from 15 to 16 tons, were thrown overboard, and on the following day, the 27th, about 40 bags more. On the 15th of July it was found that the wheat was beginning to swell from the quantity of water that she had in her, and accordingly 200 more bags were thrown overboard. On the 7th August it was deemed expedient to put into Bahia, and having there repaired damages, they left again on the 31st, reached Queenstown on the 20th of October, and there received orders to proceed to Plymouth, where they arrived on the 30th, and where, as I understand, the cargo is now being discharged.

These being the facts of the case, the Board of Trade have put to us some questions, the two first of which I propose to take together. They are as follow:—

(1) "Whether, when the vessel left New Zealand, " she was overladen?" and (2) "Whether she had " sufficient freeboard to enable her master, officers, and " crew to navigate her without risk to their lives in the " event of heavy weather being encountered?" We were told by Mr. Guthrie, the managing owner, that having applied to Lloyd's to assign to the vessel a freeboard, he received from them a letter, which he produced, bearing date the 25th of October 1883, and signed by Mr. Waymouth, the secretary to Lloyd's, informing him that the vessel might load in fresh water to 3 feet 5, in salt water to 3 feet 9, and for a voyage across the North Atlantic in the winter months to 4 feet 1. Accordingly the centre of the disc was placed at 3 feet 9 below the deck. Mr. Guthrie also produced a certificate from the surveyor to the Canterbury Marine Underwriters' Association in New Zealand, dated the 24th of May last, stating that the "Closeburn" had been surveyed and loaded at Lyttleton under his supervision, and that the cargo had been stowed to his satisfaction. He added that she drew 18 feet forward and 18 feet 4 aft, and that she had a freeboard of 4 feet 1, being 2 1/2 inches to every foot depth of hold; and this was fully confirmed by the master, who said that when she left Lyttleton the centre of the disc was about 4 inches out of the water. Wow 4 feet 1 is the freeboard which, according to Lloyd's, this vessel should have for crossing the North Atlantic in the winter months, and as we are told by the learned counsel for the Board of Trade that he is not instructed to argue that this was not a sufficient freeboard, the Court is not prepared to say either that the vessel was overladen or that she had not sufficient freeboard to enable her to perform her voyage in safety, even in the event of her meeting with bad weather.

The third question which we are asked is, "What " was the cause of the loss of life, and whether every possible effort was made to avoid and save it?" it seems that at the time when the casualty occurred the vessel was running before the gale, and that all hands were engaged hauling taut the braces on the. port side, when the vessel took a heavy lurch, shipping water on both sides, which filled the decks fore and aft, and washed three of the men overboard. It was one of those casualties, which must occasionally happen in such weather, as is not unfrequently met with off Cape Horn, and against which no human foresight can possibly provide. The assessors are also of opinion that in such a gale as the witnesses describe, it would have been madness to have hove the ship to, and would probably have resulted in the loss of the ship and all on board.

The fourth question which we are asked is, "Whether, " considering the state of the weather on the 25th of " June, the ship was carrying a proper amount of sail " at the time of the casualty." We are told that she had two lower topsails, a reefed foresail, and a fore topmast staysail set. In the opinion of the assessors they were the proper sails for her to have carried under the circumstances so as to keep her ahead of the seas.

The fifth question which we are asked is, "Whether " the master and chief officer are, or either of them is, " in default." In our opinion neither the master nor the chief officer is in any way to blame for this casualty.

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

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

A, RONALDSON,

BENJ. S. PICKARD,

GEORGE HYDE.

Assessors.

L 367. 2135. 170.—11/84. Wt. 36. E. & S.