Wreck Report for 'Marie' and 'Sailor Prince', 1886

(No. 3014.)

"MARIE" AND "SAILOR PRINCE" (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at Westminster, on the 6th of October 1886, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Vice - Admiral POWELL, C.B., and Captains RONALDSON and VAUX, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the loss of the Norwegian sloop "MARIE," and of the life of one of her crew, through collision with the steamship "SAILOR PRINCE," of North Shields, off the Trindelen Lightship in the Cattegat, on the 20th of August 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 said collision was due to the wrongful act and default of James William Williamson, the second officer of the "Sailor Prince," in not, having kept out of the way of the "Marie," as it was his duty to do; and it accordingly suspends his certificate for nine months.

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

Dated this 6th day of October 1886.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

R. ASHMORE POWELL,

Assessors.

 

 

A. RONALDSON,

 

 

 

C. VAUX,

 

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Westminster on the 6th of October instant, when Mr. Howard Smith appeared for the Board of Trade, Mr. Stokes for the owner of the "Marie," and Mr. Botterell for the master of the "Sailor Prince." The second mate of the "Sailor Prince" was present, but was not represented by either counsel or solicitor. Seven 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. Botterell and Mr. Stokes then addressed the Court for their respective parties, and the second mate of the "Sailor Prince" having been heard on his own behalf, and Mr. Howard Smith for the Board of Trade, the Court proceeded to give judgment on the questions upon which its opinion had been asked.

The "Marie" was a small Norwegian sloop of 47 tons register, belonging, as I understand, to a Mr. Hellieson, who was acting as a supercargo on board the vessel at the time. She left Veile, in Denmark, on the 18th of August last, with a crew of 4 hands all told, and in ballast, bound to Stavanger in Norway, and at about 3.30 a.m. of the 20th was near the Trindelen Lightship. At this time the master was at the tiller, and there was another man forward on the look out. The weather, we are told, was fine but cloudy, the wind was blowing a strong breeze from about W.N.W. with a high sea, and the vessel was under the inner jib, fore stay sail, and reefed main sail, close hauled on the port tack, and heading about N. by W. 1/2 W. At about 4 a.m. a steam vessel, which afterwards proved to be the "Sailor Prince," was observed coming up astern, and distant about two miles; and as it was then about time to relieve the watch, and the day was beginning to break, the captain ordered the seaman to call the hands, and after that to take in the side lights. On the men coming on deck it was observed that the steamer was approaching them, and that if she continued her course she would in all probability run into them; they accordingly hailed her, but she still continued to approach, and soon afterwards ran into them, striking the sloop on the port side of the taffrail, capsizing her, and throwing the whole of her crew into the water. Three of the hands succeeded in regaining the wreck, but the fourth was drowned, and a boat having been lowered from the "Sailor Prince," the survivors were rescued from the wreck, and taken to the steamer, but the sloop shortly afterwards foundered.

The case of the "Sailor Prince" is as follows:—She is an iron screw steam ship belonging to the port of North Shields, of 1303 ton gross, and 825 tons net register, and is fitted with engines of 125 horse power. She was built at Blyth, in the County of Northumberland, in the year 1882, and at the time of the casualty, which forms the subject of this inquiry, she was the property of Mr. James Knott, of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and others, Mr. Knott being the managing owner. She left Pitea, in Sweden, on the 15th of August last with a crew of 17 hands all told, and a cargo of about 1,000 tons of timber, bound to Whitehaven, and having called at Copenhagen for coals, she again left that place at about 2 p.m. of the 19th, and at 3.25 a.m. the following morning the Trindelen Lightship bore about W.N.W., distant about 2 miles. At this time the weather was clear but cloudy, there was a strong breeze from about west, and the vessel was proceeding at full speed, making about 8 knots an hour and heading about N.N.W. At this time the master, whose watch it was, went down to the chart room, which is on the lower bridge, leaving the deck in charge of the second officer, with orders to tell him when they passed the Trindelen Lightship. From this time, we are told, the second officer remained on the upper bridge; there was also a seaman named Chapman there looking out, and a man named Johannsen in the wheel house, which is on the lower bridge, steering. At 3.40 a.m. the second mate reported to the master that they were abreast of the Lightship; but he received no other orders, and the vessel continued her course, and about ten minutes afterwards, the second officer says that he sighted the "Marie" about a mile off, and a little on the port bow. On making out that she was a small vessel proceeding in the same direction as they were, and when she was yet about half a mile away he ordered the helm to be ported so as to pass to leeward of her; but finding that she did not pay off so rapidly as he wished, he called out a second time to port the helm, and then jumped down from the upper bridge and assisted the man to put the wheel hard over to port. In the meantime the master, on hearing the second order to port, thinking that there was something wrong came out of the chart room and proceeded to go on to the upper bridge, and was immediately followed by the second mate. On getting on the upper bridge, they saw the "Marie" ahead and almost under their bows, upon which the master at once gave orders to stop and reverse full speed; but before the vessel's way could be taken off she struck the sloop in the manner already described, capsizing her, and throwing all hands into the water. No time seems to have been lost in lowering a boat, which, as has been already said, succeeded in rescuing three of the crew from the wreck.

These being the facts of the case, the first question which the Board of Trade has put to us is, "Whether " a good and proper look out was kept on board both " vessels?" it is not denied that there was a good look out on board the "Marie," or that they hailed the "Sailor Prince" in sufficient time, for the master of that vessel told us that he heard the shouting from the "Marie" whilst he was still in his chart room. As regards the "Sailor Prince," the two persons whose duty it was to keep a good look out, were Chapman the look out man, and the second officer. Chapman has not been produced, and we were told by the counsel for the Board of Trade that they had not been able to find him. As regards the second officer, his story is that he first saw the "Marie" when she was yet a mile off, and that at that time she was a little on his port bow; that, as soon as he could make out which way she was going, and when she was still about half a mile off, he ordered the helm to be ported, and finding that she did not pay off sufficiently quickly he jumped down from the upper bridge, and himself assisted to put the helm hard over to port; and that the "Marie" by throwing herself up in the wind got stern way, and came under their bows. The assessors are, however, of opinion that, if the second officer's story is to be believed that he ported his helm, when the "Marie" was yet half a mile off, and when she was on his port bow, he must have gone clear of her, even if the "Marie" had then thrown herself up into the wind; and that the only way in which they can account for the collision is by supposing that the "Marie" was not seen until they were close upon her. And if so, seeing that it is admitted that the weather was quite clear, and that the day had dawned sufficiently to allow objects to be seen at the distance of from one to two miles off, it is obvious that the failure to see the "Marie" in time to go clear of her must have been due to the want of a good and proper look-out on board the "Sailor Prince."

The second question which we are asked is, "Whether " the 'Sailor Prince' duly complied with Articles 17 " and 18 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions " at Sea?" The 17th Article of the Regulations is in these words: "If two ships, one of which is a sailing " ship, and the other a steamship, are proceeding in " such directions as to involve risk of collision, the " steamship shall keep out of the way of the sailing " ship." And Article 18 is as follows: "Every steam- " ship, when approaching another ship so as to involve " risk of collision, shall slacken her speed or stop and " reverse, if necessary." it is clear then that it was the duty of the "Sailor Prince" to keep out of the way of the "Marie;" but she did not do so, and she has therefore violated Article 17. It was equally her duty to slacken her speed, and to stop and reverse her engines, if necessary; but it is admitted that she did. not slacken her speed nor stop and reverse her engines until she was so close to the "Marie" that it was too late to avoid a collision. Had the second officer, instead of going down to the wheelhouse to help put the wheel hard over, telegraphed to the engine room to stop and reverse full speed, it is possible that the collision might have been. avoided; but he did not do so, and he has consequently violated Article 18 of the Regulations.

The third question which we are asked is, "Whether " the 'Marie' duly complied with Article. 22 of the " said Regulations?" That article is in these words; " Where by the above rules one of two ships is to " keep out of the way, the other shall keep her course." It was therefore the duty of the "Marie" to keep her course, and we were told by the master of the "Marie" that he remained at the wheel and kept the vessel on her course until she was capsized, and they were all thrown into the water; and there is nothing to support the statement of the second officer of the "Sailor "Prince" that the "Marie" was thrown up into the wind previous to the collision, and that she thus got stern way and came across the steamer's bows.

The fourth and fifth questions which we are asked are, "Whether both vessels were navigated with proper " and seamanlike care?" and "What was the cause of " the collision and its attendant loss of life?" The "Marie" was in our opinion navigated with proper and seamanlike care, the vessel having been kept on her course up to the moment of the collision. But as regards the "Sailor Prince" we think that she was not navigated in a proper and seamanlike way, a good and proper look out not having been kept, so that the "Marie" was not seen until they were close upon her; which was, in our opinion, the immediate cause of this collision and of the consequent loss of life.

The sixth question which we are asked is, "Having " regard to the above questions, was the collision caused " by any wrongful act or default on the part of the " second officer of the 'Sailor Prince'?" and it is added that, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, the second officer's certificate should be dealt with. The collision was, in our opinion, due to the wrongful act and default of the second officer of the "Sailor Prince" in not having kept a good and proper look-out, the result of which has been the loss of this Norwegian vessel, and of the life of one of her crew. Looking at all the facts of the case, the assessors are of opinion that his certificate should be suspended for nine months.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

R. ASHMORE POWELL,

Assessors.

 

 

A. RONALDSON,

 

 

 

C. VAUX,

 

L 367. 2795. 200.—10/86. Wt. 12. E. & S.