Wreck Report for 'Fulmar', 1886

(No. 2853.)

"FULMAR" (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at Glasgow, on the 17th of March 1886, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Vice-Admiral PICKARD and Captain ANDERSON, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the supposed loss of the steamship "FULMAR," of London, with a crew of 17 hands, off Kilkee, County Clare, whilst on a voyage from Troon to Limerick.

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 vessel left Troon on her last voyage, she was, so far as regards her hull and equipments, in a good and seaworthy condition, but that she had a considerable list to starboard, and that, if that list still remained when she encountered the gale on the night of the 30/31st of January off the west coast of Ireland, it is quite possible that it may have caused or contributed to her loss.

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

Dated this 17th day of March 1886.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

BENJN. S. PICKARD,

ABSM. ANDERSON,

Assessors.

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Glasgow on the 17th of March instant, when Mr. Donald appeared for the Board of Trade, and Mr. Spens for the owners of the "Fulmar." Eleven witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. Donald handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. Mr. Spens then addressed the Court on behalf of his parties, and Mr. Donald 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 "Fulmar" was an iron screw steamship, belonging to the port of London, of 652 tons gross, and 418 tons net register, and was fitted with engines of 90 horse power. She was built at Middlesbrough in the year 1868, and at the time of her loss was the property of Mr. James Dixon, of No. 81, Gracechurchstreet, London, and others, Mr. Dixon being the managing owner. She left Troon, in Ayrshire, at about 4.30 p.m. of the 28th of January last, with a crew of 17 hands all told, and a cargo of 809 tons 11 cwt. of coal, besides 55 tons 5 cwt. in her bunkers, bound to Limerick, and in ordinary course should have arrived at her destination in about 50 hours. She, however, never did so, but on the 31st of January and following days, a quantity of wreckage was picked up near Kilkee, some 8 or 10 miles north of the entrance to the river Shannon, which has been identified as having belonged to the "Fulmar," and on the 4th of February the body of a person, who is believed to have been the captain, was washed ashore, so that there can be no doubt that the vessel has foundered, and the object of the present inquiry is to ascertain, if possible, how she was lost.

These being the facts, the first question upon which the opinion of the Court has been asked is, "Whether, when the vessel left Troon, she was in all respects in a good and seaworthy condition?" We are told that Messrs. Dixon bought the vessel in the year 1877, and that in 1883 she went ashore near Boulogne, which necessitated very extensive repairs to be done to her, amounting to something like 6,000l. Owing to the depressed state of the shipping interests she was then laid up in the Victoria Docks, in London, for about a year, and after making a few coasting voyages in the early part of 1885, she was again laid up for some months until November last, since which time she has been engaged in the coasting trade. It would seem, therefore, that since the very extensive repairs which were done to her in the end of 1883 and beginning of 1884, she has not done much Work; she has, however, we are told, been well kept up, and at the time of her loss still retained her 90 A 1 class at Lloyd's. So far, therefore, as the hull and machinery are concerned, and apart altogether from the damage done to her at Kingstown, and to which a separate question applies, we can have no doubt that she was, When she left Troon, in all respects in a good and seaworthy condition.

The second question which we are asked is, "Whether " the damage she had sustained at Kingstown Harbour " was properly and efficiently repaired; and whether " the owner was justified in neglecting to comply with " the recommendation of the harbour master and Mr. " Calderwood that she should go into dry dock?" That question, as Mr. Spens observes, has been put under a misapprehension of what the real facts of the case were. It seems that whilst the vessel was lying at Kingstown she sustained some damage to the plating on the port side, and finding in coming from Kingstown to Troon that she leaked a little, the master very properly had her surveyed by Mr. McMillan, the harbour master of Troon, and Mr. Calderwood, the manager to the Troon Shipbuilding Company, and those gentlemen, in the first instance, recommended that she should be put into the dry dock for repairs. It seems, however, that the vessel had a charter to carry a cargo of coal from Troon to Limerick, and accordingly Mr. Dixon telegraphed to the master as follows:—"Make temporary seaworthy repairs if " possible, without docking; if not possible, ascer- " tain probable cost docking and detention." It was thereupon decided, with the approval both of Mr. Calderwood and of the harbour master, that only temporary repairs should be done to her at Troon; and with that view a patch of iron plating about 18 inches square was put over the damaged plate, and was secured to the ship's side by 16 screw bolts, the inside being padded with a wooden frame filled in with cement. The reason, we are told, why the owner wished her to be only temporarily repaired at Troon was, because he intended to send her very shortly to Cardiff, where she would undergo a thorough overhaul and repair, under the supervision of Mr. Duncan, the owner's general superintendent. Now Mr. Calderwood would have had no object in scamping the temporary repairs, and he has told us that, in his opinion, they were properly done, and were quite sufficient to enable the vessel to perform her intended voyage in safety, and we have no reason to think that they were not so.

The third question which we are asked is, "Whether " the holds were properly ventilated, and whether the " ventilators were so constructed, fitted, and arranged " as not to be or become a source of danger in the " event of the vessel shipping a heavy sea?" It seems that this vessel had two holds, one forward, the other abaft of the engine-room. Each of the holds was fitted with two ventilators, one in the fore part, and the other in the after part of the hold. These ventilators had strong substantial iron coamings two feet high, and were fitted with cowls rising some 4 feet 6 or 5 feet above the deck. In case of bad weather the cowls could be unshipped, and wooden plugs inserted, with tarpaulins to cover them. In our opinion the holds were properly ventilated, and the ventilators so constructed, fitted, and arranged as not to be a source of danger to the vessel in the event of her shipping heavy seas.

The fourth question which we are asked is, "Whether " the hatchways and all other deck openings were pro- " perly secured?" The hatchways, of which-there were four, had iron coamings 6-16ths thick, standing some 18 inches above the deck, with solid substantial hatches, and double tarpaulins to go over them. The only defect about the deck seems to have been in the bridge, which projected some 7 or 8 feet forward of the bulkhead of the deck-house, and which would, if the vessel had shipped a heavy sea forward, have held a large body of water. Apart from this, the deck openings and hatchways appear to have been thoroughly good in every way.

The fifth question which we are asked is, "Whether " the cargo was properly stowed, and whether the " vessel proceeded to sea in proper trim?" The stevedore has told us that the holds, as well as the bunkers, were chock full of coals, and that, when she went to sea, she had a list to starboard of something like 12 to 15 inches, due to the fact that the starboard bunker held some 10 or 12 tons more coal than the port bunker. Such a list would, no doubt, in the event of her encountering a severe gale of wind, be a source of some danger to her; and we are therefore not prepared to say that she left in proper trim.

The sixth question which we are asked is, "Whether, " as laden, she had sufficient stability?" On this point we have not a particle of evidence, the vessel never having been inclined, and no steps having ever been taken with a view to ascertain her stability. There is no evidence, however, that she had not a sufficient amount.

The seventh question which we are asked is, "What, " in the opinion of the Court, from the evidence before " them, is the cause of the vessel not having arrived at " her destination?" It was suggested by Mr. Spens that probably the master got out of his reckoning, and struck upon the rocks somewhere to the north of Loop Head, at the entrance to the Shannon, and then got off again seriously damaged, and foundered off Kilkee Bay. But it is not very easy to see what rocks she would be likely to strike between Slyne Head and Loop Head, her regular course taking her at a considerable distance from the shore in that part; and the chief officer of the coast guard at Kilkee thinks that if she had got so near as to have struck the rocks she would probably have been seen by some of the coast guard men or the inhabitants. Nor does it appear probable that her loss was due to the coal which she had on board. We are told that it came from the Portland Collieries, and from the Main, Major and Tourhahall seams, which are worked with naked lights, and give off very little explosive gas. Another suggestion is that the list, which she had on leaving Troon, may still have remained when she arrived off the west coast of Ireland; for it is well known how difficult it is to make firemen take the coal from only one bunker, as it obliges them to carry it across to feed the fires on the opposite side; and, if this was so, she might very well have foundered in the gale which, the chief officer of the coast guard at Kilkee told us, prevailed on that coast during the night of the 30th and the early morning of the 31st, when the wind blew from the N.W. with a force of 9 or 10, accompanied by a very heavy sea. This appears to us to be the more probable suggestion, but, after all, it can only be a matter of conjecture.

The eighth question which we are asked is, "What " was the cost of the vessel to her owners?" We are told that the owners bought her in 1877, and gave 9,000l. for her.

The ninth question which we are asked is, "What " was her value at the time she last left Troon?" The value of shipping has fallen very considerably since this vessel was bought, and the assessors are of opinion that she could not have been worth more than 8l. a ton upon the gross tonnage, or about 5,200l., when she was lost. That, in their opinion, would be a very full value for her, having regard to the low value of shipping, and to the fact that she was then about 18 years old.

The tenth question which we are asked is, "What " were the insurances effected, and how were they " apportioned?" We are told that the vessel was insured for 8,000l., but of this 3,000l. was taken by the owner; practically therefore she was insured for only 5,000l. The freight, which amounted to 235l., was wholly uninsured; but there was an insurance of 240l. on premiums, commissions, &c.

The eleventh question which we are asked is, "Whether the owner is in default?" In our opinion the owner is not in any way to blame in this case. Assuming even that the vessel's loss was due to the heavy list which she had on starting from Troon, it is clear that it would not be the owner, but the unfortunate master, who would be responsible for that circumstance. Nor is he in any way to blame for her having been only temporarily repaired before starting from Troon, for he did not forbid her being docked there, but only asked whether she could not be temporarily repaired; and he was right in so doing, as she was about shortly to undergo a thorough overhaul and repair under the supervision of his own superintendent at Cardiff. We cannot think therefore that the owner was in any way to blame.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

BENJ. S. PICKARD,

ABSM. ANDERSON,

Assessors.

L 367. 2632. 180.—3/86. Wt. 408. E. & S.