Wreck Report for 'Gainford', 1886

(No. 2862.)

"GAINFORD" (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at the Sessions House, Westminster, on the 23rd of March 1886, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captains RONALDSON and HARLAND, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the stranding of the steamship "GAINFORD," on the coast of Uruguay, on the 30th of August 1884.

Report of Court.

The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons annexed, that the stranding and loss of the said ship was due to the negligent navigation thereof by William Daniel Cameron, the master, and it accordingly suspends his certificate for three months, but recommends that during the period of such suspension a first officer's certificate be granted to him.

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

Dated this 23rd day of March 1886.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

A. RONALDSON,

ROBERT HARLAND,

Assessors.

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Westminster on the 23rd of March 1886, when Mr. Radcliffe appeared for the Board of Trade, and Mr. Butler Aspinall for the master of the "Gainford." The owner of the vessel was present, but was not represented by either counsel or solicitor. Seven witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. Radcliffe handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. Mr. Aspinall then addressed the Court on behalf of his party, and Mr. Radcliffe 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 "Gainford" was an iron screw steamship, belonging to the Port of London, of 719 tons gross and 547 tons net register, and was fitted with engines of 95 horse power. She was built at Low Walker, in the County of Northumberland, in the year 1866, and at the time of her loss was the property of Mr. Louis Breslauer, Mr. Breslauer being the managing owner. She left Rio Grande do Sul on the 29th of August 1884, with a crew of 17 hands and in water ballast, bound to Monte Video. Having discharged her pilot outside the bar, she was, at about 2.30 p.m., put on a S.E. course to get an offing, and in about an hour afterwards the course was changed to S. by W. 1/2 W. She continued on that course, going all the time at full speed, and making about 7 1/2 knots an hour, with the wind light from about N.E. and a smooth sea, until about 2.30 a.m. of the following morning, when the course was altered to S.W. 1/2 S. Shortly afterwards a thick fog set in, upon which the engines were put at half-speed, the vessel making about 5 knots, and she continued upon that course until about 10 a.m., when sounds, like the cries of human beings, were heard on the starboard side, upon which they stood in towards the land, keeping the lead continually going, until they had gradually shoaled their water to six fathoms, when, thinking that the sounds must have proceeded from seals, they put her head off shore, and continued for two hours on a S.E. course at full speed. After this the original course S.W. 1/2 S. was resumed, and was continued until 3.30 p.m., when, without any notice, the vessel suddenly struck the ground. At this time we are told the weather was so thick, that it was not possible to see more than about half a ship's length ahead, but on the fog clearing it was found that they had run ashore in Castillo Bay, some 8 or 10 miles to the north of Cape Polonio. Immediately on her striking, the captain ordered the helm to be put hard a-starboard, and the engines to be reversed full speed, and as she still remained fast, an anchor and cable were laid out seaward, and were hauled upon. Finding, however, that they could not get her off, a message was on the following morning sent to Monte Video for assistance, and three days afterwards a steam tug arrived, but all attempts to get the vessel off proved ineffectual, and on the 14th November, 1885, sixteen months after she had gone ashore, she ultimately broke up and became a total wreck. It was not, however, until the 30th of December following, that the master and crew, who had remained by her all the time, were able to leave for Monte Video, whence they were brought to this country.

These being the facts of the case, the first question upon which our opinion has been asked is, "What was " the cause of the stranding of the vessel?" The master attributes the casualty to an unknown current setting him to the westward of his course, but this question can be more conveniently disposed of when we have dealt with some of the other questions in the case.

The second question which we are asked is, "What " number of compasses had she on board? where were " they placed? and when and by whom were they last ad- " justed?" She had, we are told, three compasses, a spirit compass before the after wheel, a standard compass before the midship wheel, and another upon the upper bridge. The captain told us that they had not been adjusted since he joined the ship in January 1883, and there is no evidence to shew when they were last adjusted.

The third question which we are asked is, "Did the " master ascertain the deviation of the compasses from " time to time? were the errors correctly ascertained " and the proper corrections to the courses applied?" The master told us that soon after he joined her, he prepared, from the observations which he made, a deviation card, which he brought in, and which shewed the compass on the upper bridge to have half a point of easterly deviation upon every course, and the midship steering compass to be perfectly true upon every course, except on a N.E. by E. 3/4 E. course, when the deviation was a quarter of a point easterly. That an iron ship, however, should have two compasses, one with an easterly deviation of half a point upon every course and in all latitudes, and the other quite true upon every course, except one, seems to the assessors to be so remarkable, that they are not disposed to place much reliance on the master's observations, or on the accuracy of the deviation card which he brought in.

The fourth and fifth questions are as follow:—" (4.) Whether a safe and proper course was set and " steered after leaving Rio Grande Lighthouse? and " whether due and proper allowance was made for " tide and currents" and, "(5.) Whether a safe and " proper alteration was made in the course at 2.30 a.m., " on the 30th of August? and whether due and proper " allowance was made for tide and currents?" The courses steered after leaving the Rio Grande do Sul were first S.E. for one hour, then S. by W. 1/2 W. till 2.30 a.m., then S.W. 1/2 S. till about 10 a.m., then towards the coast in search of the sounds which they heard, then S.E. for 15 miles, and then S.W. 1/2 S. till she struck. The master said that he estimated that those courses would take him some 8 or 10 miles clear of Cape Polonio, and so no doubt they would, had they been made good. No doubt they would have taken him rather near the land, and through very shallow water, but seeing that he drew only 5 feet forward and 9 feet 8 aft, there would have been no danger in that, so long as he could see well ahead. But after 2.30 a.m., when the weather became so foggy that they could not see more than half a ship's length ahead, the master had no right to continue a course so near the land, without being certian of his position. Nor was there any necessity for his so doing. Had he on leaving Rio Grande do Sul kept her on a S.E. course for some three hours before putting her head to the S.W., and then kept her in from 15 to 20 fathoms of water, he would have lost very little way, and there would have been no chance of his getting ashore. In our opinion the courses steered were not, under the circumstances, safe or proper, at all events after the fog had set in. The master attributes the loss of the vessel to an unknown current setting him to the westward of his course; but the assessors do not believe in the existence of any such current. The chart and sailing directions tell us, that between Santa Catharina Island and the mouth of the River Plate, the current generally sets to the southward with a N.E. wind; and if so, the current would not tend to set him towards the land. In our opinion, the cause of his getting so far to the westward of his course was not any current, but because an improper course was steered; whether owing to the deviation of the compass, or to a wrong course having been set or steered, it is not possible for us to say.

The sixth question which we are asked is, "Whether " the weather was thick, and if so, whether the speed " of the vessel was promptly and sufficiently reduced?" It is admitted that soon after 2.30 a.m. the weather became foggy, and according to the evidence of some of the crew it ultimately became so thick that it was not possible to see more than half a ship's length ahead. It is said that on the fog coming on the engines were put at half speed, the vessel making about 5 knots, and if the master had been quite sure of his position, we are not prepared to say that this would have been too great a speed, seeing the little chance there was of their meeting with any other vessels; but in such a fog almost any speed would be too great when the master was in ignorance of his true position.

The seventh question which we are asked is, "Whether " the lead was used with sufficient frequency and in a " proper manner?" The master told us that the lead was kept frequently going all the time, and that between half past 12 and 3.30 p.m. it was used three times, the last time by himself, only a quarter of an hour before the vessel struck. He said that the lead weighed 7 or 8 lbs., and that they had 15 to 20 fathoms of line out, and that they never found any bottom except when they were standing in towards the land in search of the sounds which they had heard. If this is true, it is clear that the soundings could not have been taken in a proper way, for we find that both on the courses on which the master supposed he was, as well as on those on which the vessel must have been before she struck, the soundings never exceeded 15 fathoms, and that they were frequently much less; so that if the soundings had been taken frequently, and in a proper manner, the lead must have touched the bottom. It is admitted that the vessel was not stopped to take the soundings, and I am told by the assessors that this was probably the cause why he got no soundings; either then the lead was not used sufficiently frequently, or if it was, it was used in an improper way.

The eighth question which we are asked is, "Whether " a good and proper look out was kept?" There is no reason to think that a good and proper look out was not kept; but however good the look out might have been, it would be of no use in such a fog; the only mode of ascertaining the vessel's true position was by the lead.

The ninth question which we are asked is, "Whether " the vessel was navigated with proper and seamanlike " care?" Mr. Aspinall has told us that the master did everything which a prudent and skilful master should have done, and that the cause of the casualty was an unknown current which set him to the westward of his course. As I have already said the assessors do not believe in the existence of any such current; they think that the cause of the casualty was the vessel being put upon too westerly a course, owing to some error in the compass which was not allowed for, or to some other cause, and to that course having been kept, after the weather had become so thick that they could not see more than half a ship's length ahead, and without any proper measures having been taken to ascertain the vessel's true position. This was neither careful nor skilful navigation. It was said that this was the first time that the master had been down the coast, and that he had therefore to rely solely upon his chart, but if so, that should have made him all the more careful, and the fact that he got no soundings at 15 fathoms, when his chart shewed him that he should have had soundings at that depth, if he was where he expected to be, should have excited his suspicions, that at all events he had got out of his course. In our opinion the vessel was navigated in a very improper and unskilful way.

The tenth question which we are asked is, "Whether " the master and the mate are, or either of them is, in " default?" In our opinion the whole blame for this casualty rests with the master, who was on deck and attending to the navigation of the vessel at the time when she took the ground. It was he, too, who took the last cast of the lead only a quarter of an hour before the vessel struck, and according to his own account then found no bottom, although it is obvious that at that time they must have been in very shallow water. On that occasion therefore he was personally responsible for the defective way in which that sounding was taken.

The eleventh question which we are asked is, "What " was the value of the vessel when she left this country " in June 1883, and what were the insurances effected " upon her at that time?" The owner has told us that he bought her originally in the year 1880, and that he then gave a sum of between 8.000l. and 9,000l. for her. He seems to have obtained all the money by a mortgage on the vessel, but soon afterwards the mortgagees foreclosed, and took possession of the vessel. In 1882 Mr. Breslauer again became the owner, this time he tells us for a sum of 11,000l.; and he seems again to have obtained all the purchase money by mortgage on the vessel. She seft this country in June 1883 for the coast of South America, and had since that time been trading on that coast and in the River Parana, but we were told by Mr. Breslauer that she had not paid her expenses, and that the mortgagees had to remit money to pay the ship's disbursements. What then was her value when she left this country in June 1883, it is very difficult to say; apparently she was of no value to Mr. Breslauer, and to the mortgagees she was a constant expense. The assessors are, however, of opinion that a new vessel equally good could have been obtained at that time for about 10l. a ton on the gross tonnage, or for a little over 7,000l.; and she was then 17 years old. According to Mr. Breslauer she was at that time insured for about 12,000l.

The twelfth question which we are asked is, "What " was the amount of the mortgages effected upon her " at the time of her loss, and for what amount was she " insured?" We are told that at the time of her loss a Mr. Berridge had a mortgage upon her for 7,600l., amounting with interest to about 9,300l. or 9,400l. There was also a mortgage to a Mr. Uzielli for 7,898l. 10s., besides interest, the amount of which, however, he could not tell us. So that at the time of her loss, the vessel was mortgaged for a sum of 15,498l. 10s., which, with the interest thereon, would amount to between 18,000l. and 19,000l.

As regards the insurances upon her it seems that Mr. Breslauer, the owner, not being able to pay the calls of the Mutual Insurance Clubs, had assigned over some of the policies to the mortgagees. Mr. Berridge had taken over 6,000l. of the Insurances, and had insured her for 2,500l. additional to cover his advances, making a total of 8,500l.; whilst Mr. Uzielli had taken over from Mr. Breslauer 3,300l. of the insurances. So that the total amount of the insurances on the vessel at the time of her loss was 11,800l.

Lastly, it is said that "the Board of Trade are of " opinion that the certificate of the master should be " dealt with." The case is one of very grave neglect, for which the Court is bound to deal with this master's certificate. But it has been urged by Mr. Aspinall that the master and crew have been placed in a very painful position; that they had to remain by the ship for 16 months after she had gone ashore, without instructions from the owner or the mortgagees, and exposed all the time to great hardships and considerable risk of life; and that now on their return to this country they can get no wages, the vessel having gone to pieces, and the owner being bankrupt. Whether, indeed, they will be entitled to recover their wages out of the insurance monies, is a point upon which this Court will not venture to offer any opinion. Taking, however, all these circumstances into consideration, and remembering the length of time that has elapsed since the casualty occurred, the Court will suspend the master's certificate for only three months.

The Court further, on the application of Mr. Aspinall, will recommend to the Board of Trade that during the suspension of his master's certificate, he be allowed a first mate's certificate.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

A. RONALDSON,

ROBERT HARLAND,

Assessors.

L 367. 2641. 180.—3/86. Wt. 408. E. & S.