Wreck Report for 'Ocean', 1886

(No. 2870.)

"OCEAN."

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at Westminster, on the 7th of April 1886, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captain METHVEN and Rear-Admiral MORESBY, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the supposed loss of the sailing ship "OCEAN," of Hayle, together with 6 lives, whilst on a voyage from Newport to Penzance.

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 Newport in February last, she was in a good and seaworthy condition, and was not overladen, and that she probably foundered. off the North Coast of Cornwall in the exceptionally violent gale which prevailed on that part of the coast during the night of the 28th of February and the morning of the 1st of March last.

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

Dated this 7th day of April 1886.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

R. METHVEN,

J. MORESBY,

Assessors.

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Westminster on the 7th of April instant, when Mr. Arnold White appeared for the Board of Trade, and Mr. King for the owner of the "Ocean." Eleven witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and two witnesses by the owner, Mr. Arnold White handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. Mr. King then addressed the Court on behalf of the owner, and Mr. Arnold White having replied for the Board of Trade, 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 "Ocean," which was a wooden schooner, belonging to the Port of Hayle, in Cornwall, of 122 tons gross and 112 tons net register, was built at Appledore, in the county of Devon, in the year 1841, and at the time of her loss was the property of Mr. William Calf, of Penzance, coal merchant, who was also the managing owner. She left Newport on the 27th of February last with a crew of 5 hands, the captain's stepson as a passenger, and a cargo of 195 tons of coals, bound to Penzance. She never reached her destination, but part of a boat with the name "Ocean of Penzance," and the master's name, "Captain Laity," painted thereon, was on the 4th of March last picked up some 3 1/2 miles to the west of Port Isaac, on the north coast of Cornwall; and there seems to be little doubt that she must have perished in the gale, which Mr. Corkhill, the chief boatman in charge of the coast guard station at Port Isaac, tells us prevailed on that coast during the night of the 28th of February to the 1st of March, accompanied with very heavy snowstorms, and which we are told was of an exceptionally violent character.

These being the short facts of the case, I will now proceed to answer the questions which have been put to us by the Board of Trade, and the first question which we are asked is, "Whether, having regard to the " age and condition of the vessel, she has been properly " and sufficiently examined and repaired from time to " time since the year 1879; and whether proper and " sufficient means were adopted by the owner to keep " the vessel in a state of seaworthiness?" It seems that Mr. Calf, the owner, bought her in the year 1876, and that he then gave for her the sum of 250l., but he immediately afterwards spent above 300l. upon her to put her into a state of thorough repair. The total sum, he told us, which he had spent upon her by the end of 1877 was: 655l. 17s. 5d., including the purchase money. In 1879 he spent in repairs upon her above 131l.; in 1880, 73l. 15s. 5d.; in 1881, 107l. 9s. 11 1/2d.; in 1882, 124l. 2s. 10 1/2d.; in 1883, 94l. 12s. 8d.; in 1884, 208l. 11s. 7d; and in 1835, 155l. 7s. 11d. These are very considerable sums to be spent year after year upon a small vessel like the "Ocean." Like all old wooden vessels, she would no doubt make more or less water, which would require to be pumped out pretty frequently; but she had been originally built of English oak, and we have the evidence not only of Mr. Calf, but also of Mr. Legge, of Penzance, by whom the repairs were chiefly done, that her planking and timbers were good, and that she was kept in a proper seaworthy condition. We have also the fact before us that during the whole time that Mr. Calf has had her, she has had only three masters. A Captain Johnson commanded her from 1876 to June 1883, and having had a dispute with the owner, he was dismissed, and a Captain James was appointed in his place. Captain James commanded her from June 1883 to December 1885, when he also had a difference with the owner and was dismissed; and Captain Laity, who commanded her at the time of her loss, was appointed to take charge of her. Now the master would be the person who would know best whether the vessel was seaworthy, and yet none of them ever left her voluntarily, but were dismissed. Moreover, we were told by Captain James, a witness by no means friendly to the owner, that he had never asked for anything to be done to the vessel which the owner had ever refused. On the whole the assessors are of opinion that proper and sufficient means were adopted by the owner to keep the vessel in a state of seaworthiness.

The second question which we are asked is, "Whether " the owner was acquainted with the condition of the " vessel in 1883, when the crew left her at Mousehole? " and whether he subsequently had the vessel properly " and sufficiently examined and repaired?" We are told that in December 1883 the vessel had discharged a cargo of coals at Penzance and had then proceeded to Mousehole, which is about 2 1/2 miles distant, to take in a cargo of broken stones for one of the South Wales ports. -The crew, after taking her to Mousehole, had left her and gone to their homes whilst the stones were being put on board, and on their return 3 or 4 days afterwards, they stated that they had found the water some 2 or 3 inches above the top of the kelson, and their bunks and all their clothes wet through. It was also a Saturday, a day on which it seems the sailors in those parts object to go to sea, and above all it was a Saturday in Christmas week. The result was that they refused to sail in her, and that a fresh crew had to be engaged to take her to her destination. One of the men stated that his reason for leaving her was that he did not think that she was seaworthy, but we are strongly inclined to think that it was not so much that he anticipated any danger from going in her as because his bunk and clothes were wet, and that it was a Saturday in Christmas week. Moreover, we have the fact that another crew was engaged and did take her safely to her port of destination, and that Captain James, who now tells us that the vessel was in his opinion unseaworthy, continued to command her for two years after this, and even then did not leave her voluntarily. But whatever may have been her?? condition in December 1883, it seems clear that she was afterwards properly and efficiently repaired, for we find that in the following year, 1884, no less a s??um than 208l. 11s. 7d. was spent upon her in repairs, a very large sum for so small a vessel. On the w??hole we are strongly inclined to think that the principal reason which induced the crew to leave ??er at that time was the fact that their clothes and bu??s were wet, and that they were required to sail on a Saturday, and that too a Saturday in Christmas week, rather than any thought that she was not seaworthy.

The third question which we are asked is, "Whether the vessel was thoroughly examined, overhauled, and " repaired in October 1855, and whether the owner " took proper measures to ascertain the condition of " the vessel, after it was discovered in January 1886 " that she was leaking on a voyage to Newport?" Mr. Legge told us that in October 1885 she was put into his hands, and that he thoroughly overhauled and repaired her; and that she was then adzed all over, which I am told by the assessors would be the best mode of discovering the defects, if any existed. Mr. Legge told us that on her return from her first voyage after the repairs had been done to her in October 1885, he had asked Captain James how she had behaved, and that Captain James' answer was "first rate;" and Captain James admitted that this was so, and that the work had been well done. We have, therefore, no reason to think that she was not thoroughly examined, overhauled, and repaired in October 1885. It seems, however, that in the month of January following, when on a voyage to Newport, and when Captain Laity had assumed the command, she sprang a leak, which upon her arrival at Newport was found to proceed from a split in one of the planks between two bolt holes. This was, however, we are told, filled up by the captain and mate with oakum; and although there is nothing to shew that Mr. Calf knew of this leak, she was upon her return to Penzance again put into Mr. Legge's hands to do any necessary repairs that she might require. We think, therefore, that the owner did take all proper measures to insure the seaworthiness of the vessel.

The fourth question which are asked is, "Whether, " when the vessel last left Newport, she was in good " and seaworthy condition? If not, whether the owner " was acquanted with her condition, and did he use all " reasonable means to insure that the vessel was sent to " sea in a seaworthy state?" It seems that on the voyage immediately preceding the last, she had brought a cargo of coals to Penzance, and having discharged a portion of it, she proceeded to Mousehole, and there discharged the remainder, Mr. Calf having sold it to a Captain Dodge, a coal merchant, residing at Mousehole. Now Captain Dodge has told us that he personally weighed the coal as it came from the ship, and that it was in excellent condition, and had no appearance of having been in contact with water. He told us also that, when all the coal was out, he looked down into the hold, and saw that there was no water there. She then took in a cargo of broken stones, with which she proceeded to Cardiff, and having there discharged the stones, she was towed to Newport, where she took on board the cargo with which she sailed on her last voyage. Now, although we have no positive evidence as to what was her condition when she left Newport, it may fairly be inferred from Captain Dodge's evidence that, when she left Mousehole, she was in good condition; and there is no reason to think that between that time and the time of her leaving Newport she had sensibly deteriorated.

The fifth question which we are asked is, "Whether, " having regard to the age and condition of the vessel, " she was overladen?" We are told that she bad from 195 to 196 tons of coals on board, and that that was the quantity which she usually carried, although on one occasion she had carried as much as 208 tons. She has been in the same trade, carrying coals from the South Wales ports to Penzance and the neighbourhood, and returning with broken stones, for at least the last six years; and although, like all old wooden ships, she made water, which required to be pumped out every watch, there is nothing to shew that the cargoes which she carried were too heavy for her. We are told that when she left Newport the water was just lapping the bottom of the disc; and as the water would be brackish at Newport she would rise somewhat when she got to sea; but as we do not know where the disc was placed, it is not possible to say what her freeboard was, nor whether it was sufficient for her. There is, however, no evidence to shew that she was overladen.

The sixth question which we are asked is, "Whether " blame attaches to the owner?" In our opinion no blame whatever attaches to the owner in this case. It was stated by Mr. King that the owner, not being fully insured, would have a direct interest in keeping her in a good and seaworthy condition, which he seems to have done.

The seventh question which we are asked is, "What " was the cost of the vessel to the owner?" Mr. Calf purchased her in the year 1876, and he then gave 250l. for her, but he immediately spent 300l. upon her to put her in a thorough state of repair. And he told us that by the end of 1877 he had spent altogether 651l. upon her.

The eighth question which we are asked is, "What " was her value when she last left Newport?" Mr. King has told us that she would at that time have been worth about 3l. a ton, or something like 350l. to 360l.; and in the opinion of the assessors that would be a fair value to put upon her.

The ninth question which we are asked is, "What " were the insurances effected, and how were they " apportioned?" The hull, it seems, was insured in the Truro Mutual Insurance Association for the sum of 250l., her estimated value in the club's books being 450l.; the cargo, which also belonged to Mr. Calf, and the invoice price of which was 90l. 3s. 9d., was insured for 90l.; the freight, which was 5s. a ton, and amounted to about 50l., was insured for 50l.; and the outfit was also insured for 50l. Mr. Calf, therefore, was not fully insured, at all events on the hull.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

R. METHVEN,

J. MORESBY,

Assessors.

L367. 2650. 200.—4/86. Wt. 12. E. & S.