Wreck Report for 'Eugenie', 1886

(No. 2869.)

"EUGENIE."

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at the Sessions House, Westminster, on the 6th of April 1886, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captain CURLING and Captain KIDDLE, R.N., as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the loss of the sailing ship "EUGENIE," and her crew of eight hands, off the coast of Northumberland, on or about the 2nd of March 1886.

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 ship, when she sailed from the Tyne on her last voyage, was in a good and seaworthy condition, and was not insufficiently manned; and that her loss was probably due to the exceptionally violent gale from the East, which prevailed during the night of the 1st to the 2nd of March, accompanied with blinding snowstorms, rendering it very difficult to see where she was going.

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

Dated this 6th day of April 1886.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

WILLM. CURLING,

R.N.R.,

JAMES KIDDLE, J

Assessors.

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Westminster on the 6th of April 1886, when Mr. Howard Smith appeared for the Board of Trade, and Mr. Aspinall for the owners of the "Eugenie." Five witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, and the depositions of three witnesses taken at Honfleur having been put in and read, Mr. Howard Smith 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 the owners, and Mr. Howard Smith 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 "Eugenie," which was a wooden brig, belonging to the port of Shields, of 239 tons gross, and 223 tons net register, was built at Blyth in the year 1855, and at the time of her loss was the property of Mr. James Knott, of the Baltic Chambers, Quayside, Newcastle-on-Tyne, and others, Mr. Knott being the managing owner. She left the Tyne on the 2nd of February last, with a crew of 8 hands all told, and a cargo of 360 to 380 tons of coal, bound to Honfleur, in France, and duly arrived there on the 8th of the same month. Having discharged her cargo, and taken in 86 tons of stone ballast, she left again on the 20th, with orders to go either to Cardiff or to the Tyne, according as the wind might serve. She never reached her destination, but on the morning of the 2nd of March, the wreck of a vessel was seen about 50 yards from the shore, and about half a mile to the south of the coastguard station at Craster, which is on the coast of Northumberland, and about 40 miles north of the entrance to the Tyne. Subsequently some bodies were washed on shore, and were identified as having belonged to the "Eugenie;" the ship's register, the indentures of some of the apprentices, and a board with the name "Eugenie" painted on it, have likewise been picked up in the neighbourhood, so that there is every reason to believe that the vessel, the wreck of which was seen off Craster on the morning of the 2nd of March last, was the "Eugenie."

These being the facts of the case, the first question upon which our opinion has been asked is, "Whether, " when the vessel left the Tyne, she was in all respects " in good and seaworthy condition?" Mr. Knott, we are told, purchased her in the year 1882, and in the following April put her into dry dock, where she had a thorough overhaul, and a new set of rigging given to her. In October last she was again put into dry dock, and was thoroughly overhauled, and we were told by the foreman to Messrs. Boutland, who did the repairs, that she was on both occasions put into a thoroughly efficient condition. His evidence was confirmed by that of Mr. Colvin, shipwright surveyor to the Board of Trade at North Shields, who was well acquainted with her, and who saw her just before she left the Tyne on her last voyage, and he told us that she was then in a thoroughly good and seaworthy condition.

The second question which we are asked is, "Whether " she was provided with proper and sufficient means " of making signals of distress"? Mr. Milburn, the ship's husband, told us that she had a flare-up, as well as three red lamps and three balls with which to signal in case of need, but whether she had a gun or rockets on board he could not say. It seems that the coastguard, who were out all that night, saw no signals of distress, but that is no proof that signals were not made, for the exceptionally violent character of the storm on that night, accompanied with thick snow showers, would have made it very difficult to see them.

The third question which we are asked is, "What " number of hands had she on board, and what were " the respective ages of the apprentices, and whether " she was properly and efficiently manned"? She had a crew of eight hands, a master, a mate, two A.B.'s, one of whom acted as cook, and four apprentices. The first apprentice, who had served for 3 1/2 years, was 20 years old; the next, who had served for 2 years, was about 18 years old; the third, who had served for one year, and had before that been an ordinary seaman, was 18 years old; and the last, who had served for one year, was 16 years old. No doubt the vessel had a large proportion of apprentices on board; but Mr. Knott, who owns 18 steamers and 17 sailing vessels, and who is his own insurer, told us that he prefers to carry a good many apprentices in his sailing ships, that they are there instructed in seamanship, and when their time is up they are promoted to his steamers, and that he thus obtains a more competent set of men than he could pick up at the shipping offices, and that they are more reliable, especially when the vessel first puts to sea. He told us that his sailing ships, which are all of about the same size as the "Eugenie," carry only 7 or 8 hands, of whom 3 or 4 are always apprentices; that the "Eugenie" never had more; that they had taken the royals and flying jib off her to make the work lighter; and that she had never met with any casualty since he had bought her in 1882. Mr. Milburn also, the ship's husband, told us that on the day before she sailed from the Tyne, the master asked him to take out an apprentice who had nearly served his time, as he had plenty of hands without him; and that he had done so, and had put him into another of their vessels. Taking all these circumstances into consideration, and having regard to the fact that one of the apprentices was nearly out of his time, and was 20 years of age, that two others were 18 years old, and that one only could be regarded as a boy, the assessors are not disposed to think that the vessel was insufficiently manned.

The fourth question which we are asked is, "What in " the opinion of the Court is the cause of the loss of the " vessel?" Mr. Morgan, the chief boatman in charge at Craster Station, told us that at daylight on the 1st of March the wind was from the S.E. with a force of 5, that at noon it was E.S.E. with a force of 6, that at sunset it was E. and had a force of 7, that at midnight the force was from 5 to 7, and that at daylight of the 2nd the wind was still from the east, and had a force of from 7 to 9; and during all this time snow had been falling thickly, rendering it extremely difficult to see objects at any distance; indeed, we are told that it was almost the heaviest fall of snow that has ever been known on this part of the coast. Under these circumstances the assessors are of opinion that the vessel had elected to make the Tyne instead of Cardiff, that she overshot her port, and was driven to leeward by the exceptionally violent gale from the east which prevailed during the night of the 1st to the 2nd of March, accompanied with snow storms, which would make it very difficult for them to see where she was going.

The fifth question which we are asked is, "Whether " the owner is to blame for the loss?" In our opinion no blame whatever attaches to Mr. Knott. He was, as I have said, his own insurer, and had consequently every inducement to keep the vessel in a thoroughly good and seaworthy condition, and at the same time properly and efficiently manned, and that he appears to have done.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

WILLM. CURING,

R.N.R.,

JAMES KIDDLE,

Assessors.

L 367. 2649. 200.—4/86. Wt. 12. E. & S.