Wreck Report for 'Agatha' and 'Hannibal', 1885

(No. 2430.)

"AGATHA" AND "HANNIBAL."

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at the Sessions House, Westminster, on the 16th day of January 1885, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captain RONALDSON and Admiral MORESBY, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the loss of the sailing ship "AGATHA," of Dartmouth, and of one of her crew, through collision with the sailing ship "HANNIBAL," of Dublin, off the Start, on the 10th of November last.

Report of Court.

The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons annexed, that the "Agatha" was not provided with the lights required by Article 10 of "The Rules for Preventing Collisions at Sea," and that the collision was due to her not having exhibited any light or flare up in time to enable the "Hannibal" to keep out of her way, and that no blame attaches to the "Hannibal."

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

Dated this 16th day of January 1885.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

A. RONALDSON,

Assessors.

 

 

J. MORESBY,

 

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Westminster on the 16th day of January instant, when Mr. Howard Smith appeared for the Board of Trade, Mr. Nelson for the owners and master of the "Agatha," and Mr. Bateson for the owners and master of the "Hannibal." Five 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. Nelson and Mr. Bateson then addressed the Court on behalf of their respective 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 case of the "Agatha" is as follows:—She was a small fishing cutter, of less than 20 tons register, belonging to the Port of Dartmouth, and was the property of Mr. William Summers, of Brixham, Samuel Bartlett being the master. She left Brixham at about 11 a.m. of the 10th of November last, with a crew of three hands, bound to the fishing grounds off Start Point, and between 5 and 6 p.m. came to an anchor, and having shot their lines, they proceeded, as the night had then closed in, to light the masthead light, the only light which they had on board, but on hoisting it, it went out. It was accordingly lowered and re-lighted, and on again hoisting it, it again went out; and this having occurred four or five times, and finding that they could not keep it alight, they proceeded to fish without any light exhibited, but from time to time, when any vessel was seen approaching them, a flare up was burnt, as a warning to keep clear of them. Between 7 and 8 o'clock they set the jib and mainsail, then raised the anchor, and having laid her with her head to the wind, close hauled on the starboard tack, began to haul in their lines. We are told that the night was clear and starlight, but that there was a strong wind from the S.E., and a good deal of sea on. Whilst still engaged in hauling in the lines, the boat being still close hauled to the wind on the starboard tack, heading about E.S.E., and making about half a knot headway, the green light of a sailing vessel, which afterwards proved to be the "Hannibal," was seen about 3 or 4 points on the lee bow, coming down upon them; upon which the master ordered the third hand to get a flare up, and show it over the port bow. This was accordingly done, and when the "Hannibal" had got very close to them, they shouted out to her to port her helm and keep away, but instead of doing so, she continued her course and came into them, striking the "Agatha" nearly stem on, just forward of the fore rigging on the port side. Finding that the smack was sinking, the master and the third hand clambered on to the "Hannibal," but before the second hand could do so, the "Agatha" sunk, carrying him down with her.

The case of the "Hannibal" is as follows:—She was a barquentine, belonging to the Port of Dublin, of 214 tons gross and 198 tons net register. She was built at Hayle in the county of Cornwall, in the year 1868; and at the time of the casualty, which forms the subject of the present inquiry, she was the property of Mr. Robert Kearon, of No. 5, Vavasour Square, Dublin, and others, Mr. Kearon being the managing owner. She left Ealing Quay, in the Port of Southampton, on the 4th November last, with a crew of six hands all told, a little boy, a friend of the captain, as passenger, and 222 tons of pit props, bound to Cardiff. Meeting, however, with contrary winds, she had to bring up first at Cowes and then at Hurst Castle, which she left at about 6.30 to 7 a.m. of the 10th of the same month. At 5 p.m. the same day she was off the Bill of Portland; and night having closed in, the side lights were put up, and she was put on a W. by S. course, and proceeded under all possible sail, making from 9 to 10 knots an hour, the wind blowing a strong breeze from about S.E. to E.S.E. At 8.30 p.m. they picked up the Start Light, bearing N.W. by W., distant about 18 miles, and at about 10 the course was altered to W. 1/2 N. At this time, the night was dark but clear; it was the master's watch, which consisted of himself, of a man named Murphy, who was at the helm, and another named Jansen, who was forward on the look-out. Shortly before 10.30 the master went forward, as he was accustomed to do from time to time, to look about him, and to see that the look-out man was doing his duty; and in about 5 or 10 minutes after he had been there, and whilst he was still looking forward over the port bow, Jansen being on the starboard bow, he saw a flare up suddenly appear nearly right ahead, and only about 100 feet off, and a voice was heard saying, "Ship ahoy, keep her away;" upon which he immediately sang out to hard aport the helm; but before it had time to act, they struck the smack on the port side; upon which he at once ordered the helm to be put hard down to throw the vessel up into the wind. On learning from the two men, who had got on board, that one of the hands was missing, they continued cruising about the spot, but without hearing or seeing anything; and at length, when all hopes of saving him were over, they bore away for Plymouth, where the two hands from the "Agatha" were landed.

These being the facts of the case, the first question upon which the Board of Trade has asked for our opinion is, "Whether the 'Agatha' was provided with " proper and sufficient lights, as required by Article 10 " of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea?" It is admitted that the only light which the "Agatha" had on board was a white masthead light, as well as a flare up; and the question which we have to consider is, whether these were proper and sufficient lights, as required by the Regulations. It seems that the Regulations which were in force at the time when this casualty occurred were those which were confirmed by Her Majesty's Order in Council of the 11th of August 1884, and which came into operation on the 1st of September last; and the 10th Article is in these words: "Open " boats and fishing vessels of less than 20 tons " net registered tonnage" (which would be the " Agatha's" case) "when under way, and when " not having their nets, trawls, dredges, or lines in " the water, shall not be obliged to carry the coloured " side lights; but every such boat and vessel shall in " lieu thereof have ready at hand a lantern with a " green glass on the one, side and a red glass on the " other side, and on approaching to or being approached " by another vessel, such lantern shall be exhibited in " sufficient time to prevent collision, so that the green " light shall not be seen on the port side nor the red " light on the starboard side." Sub-section (c) then goes on to say that "a vessel employed in line fishing " with her lines out shall carry the same lights as a " vessel when- engaged in fishing with drift nets;" which are defined in sub-section (b) to be as follow: " All vessels, when engaged in fishing with drift nets, " shall exhibit two white lights from any part of the " vessel, where they can be best seen," and it then proceeds to say where those lights may be placed about the vessel. The lights, therefore, which this vessel ought to have had were two white lights, and a light with a green and red slide; seeing, however, that the "Agatha" had only one light, and that a white light, on board, beside the flare, it is clear that she was not provided with proper and sufficient lights, as required by the Regulations.

This then will dispose of the first part of question No. 2, which is, "Whether the 'Agatha' duly complied " with Article 10?" If the only light which the "Agatha" had on board was a white masthead light, it is clear that, whether we are to regard her as a vessel under way or fishing, she could not have complied with the Article. And even the white light which she had on board was not exhibited, owing to their not being able to keep it alight.

I will take now the remainder of question No. 2, and the three following questions together; they are as follow: "Did the 'Agatha' duly comply with Article 22 " of the said Regulations?"

"(3.) Did the 'Hannibal' duly comply with Article 14, " sub-section (a) of the said Regulations?

"(4.) Whether a good and proper look-out was kept " on both vessels?

"(5.) Whether both vessels were navigated with proper and seamanlike care?" Article 14, subsection (a) is as follow, "A ship which is running " free, shall keep out of the way of a ship which is " close hauled," and Article 22 says that, "Where by " the above Rules one of two ships has to keep out of " the way, the other shall keep her course." Now it is admitted that the "Hannibal" was running free, and that the "Agatha" was lying to close hauled on the starboard tack; it was therefore the duty of the "Hannibal" to keep out of the way, and of the "Agatha" to keep her course. The "Agatha," it is admitted, did keep her course, for she did nothing from the time of seeing the "Hannibal's" light until the collision, and so far therefore she complied with Article 22. The "Hannibal," however, did not keep out of the way, and so far did not comply with Article 14 (a), and the reason which she gives for not doing so, is because the "Agatha" exhibited no light, and took no steps to indicate her presence until the two vessels had got within 100 feet of one another, and when, therefore, there was no time to avoid a collision. The "Agatha," on the other hand, says that the flare up was shown when the "Hannibal" was yet a mile to a mile and a half distant, and some five minutes before the collision. Here then, as Mr. Nelson has said, there is a direct conflict of evidence between the parties, and the Court has to decide which of the two is the more probable, and whether the flare up was shown by the "Agatha" when the two vessels were a mile to a mile and a half distant, or when they were 100 feet from each other.

We are told that the "Agatha" was at the time hauling in her lines, that they had had a very good catch of fish that evening, and had already got in some 7 or 8 cwt., and that they had not yet hauled in all their lines. We are also told that the "Hannibal's" light was first seen, not by the master, but by Lowe, the third hand, who on calling the master's attention to it, received orders to go and show the flare up. To do so he would have to go aft, get the flare up, dip it into a pan of paraffin, then light it at the binnacle light, and then go forward and show it over the port side, all of which would necessarily take a good deal of time to do, during which the "Hannibal" was approaching at the rate of some 9 or 10 knots. it is therefore quite possible that the flare up may not have been shown until the vessels had, as the master of the "Hannibal" says, approached to within 100 feet of one another; for, if it had been exhibited at any earlier period, it seems very unlikely that it should not have been seen either by the master of the "Hannibal," who was on the port bow, or by the look-out man on the starboard bow. It was said by Mr. Nelson that the master had gone forward on a report from the look-out man that there was a flare-up ahead. Unfortunately the look-out man, a Swede named Jansen, has not been produced; his absence, however, was fully accounted for; nor did I understand Murphy, the helmsman, to say that the master had gone forward in consequence of a report of a flare-up ahead; but what the master told us was that it was his habit to go forward from time to time, not only to look about him, but to see that the look-out man was doing his duty; in our opinion a very proper course to take, seeing that the night was dark, and that the vessel was going free and making some nine or ten knots. It appears to us much more probable that the light of the "Hannibal" was not seen by those on board the "Agatha" until it had got very close to them, owing to their being all employed hauling in the lines, rather than that the "Agatha's" flare-up should have been shown, when she was a mile to a mile and a half off, and yet not have been seen by the "Hannibal's" people until they were within 100 feet of one another. In our opinion the "Hannibal" was navigated with proper and seamanlike care, and was keeping a good and proper look-out; but the "Agatha" was not keeping a good look-out, although it was especially incumbent on her to do so, seeing that she had no lights exhibited, as she ought to have had, to indicate her presence to an approaching vessel.

The sixth question which we are asked is, "What " was the cause of the masthead light of the 'Agatha' " being extinguished?" How this was it is not possible for us to say; we are quite ready to give the master credit for having done his best to keep the masthead light alight; but it seems to have been impossible to do so, whether owing to the faulty construction of the lamp, or to the badness of the oil, we are not able to say. In all probability however it must have been due to the one or to the other, for it can hardly be contended that the night was such as to have prevented a light being exhibited at the masthead.

The seventh question which we are asked is, "Whether " blame attaches to the masters of both vessels, and to " the owner of the 'Agatha,' or either, and which of " them?" in our opinion no blame attaches to the master of the "Hannibal," but the blame for this casualty rests with the master and the owner of the "Agatha," with the master for not having kept a good and vigilant look-out, knowing that he had no light exhibited; and with the owner for having sent this vessel to sea with only one white masthead light, so that, whether when under way or when fishing, it was not possible for those on board to have exhibited the lights required by the 10th Article of the Regulations. Mr. Nelson indeed stated that he was under the impression that at the time of the collision the 10th Article of the Regulations of the 1st of September last relating to fishing boats' lights was suspended, and that in lieu thereof the old Regulations were in force. This however is not the case; but even had it been so, the old Regulations required fishing boats to carry the coloured lights, or to have on board a lantern with coloured slides, to exhibit to an approaching vessel, and this the "Agatha" had not.

We were told that Samuel Bartlett the master of the "Agatha" held no certificate with which this Court could deal, and no application was made for costs.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

A. RONALDSON,

Assessors.

 

 

J. MORESBY,

 

L 367. 2205. 170.—1/85. Wt. 36. E. & S.