Wreck Report for 'Dotterel', 1886

(No. 3058.)

"DOTTEREL" (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at Westminster on the 18th and 19th of November 1886, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captains RONALDSON and COMYN, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the abandonment and foundering of the steam yacht "DOTTEREL," on the 2nd of September 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 foundering of the said yacht was due to the wilful act of Thomas Banks, the owner, in having, with the intention of destroying her, cut a hole in her port side below the water line, through which the water came into and sank her, and that James Clague, the master, and Thomas Guthrie, the engineer, although well aware that the owner was doing so, took no steps whatever to prevent him, which they might easily have done. The Court accordingly cancels the certificate of the said James Clague, and regrets that it has no power to punish the said Thomas Guthrie, as he does not hold any certificate.

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

Dated this 19th day of November 1886.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

A. RONALDSON,

Assessors.

 

 

D. R. COMYN,

 

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Westminster, on the 18th and 19th of November 1886, when Mr. Danckwerts appeared for the Board of Trade, and Mr. Bucknill, Q.C., and Mr. Garland, for the underwriters of the "Dotterel." The master and engineer of the vessel were present, but were not represented by either counsel or solicitor. The owner was neither present nor represented. Ten witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. Danckwerts handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. Mr. Garland, then addressed the Court on behalf of his parties, and Mr. Danckwerts, having been heard in reply, the Court proceeded to give judgment on the queetions on which its opinion had been asked.

The present is a case of so much importance, not only as regards the persons principally concerned, but also from a public point of view, that it will be well to state the circumstances at some length, and they are practically not disputed.

The "Dotterel" is a small screw steam yacht built of wood, of 33 tons gross, and 13 tons net register, and is fitted with engines of 16 horse-power nominally She was built at Port Glasgow in the year 1877, and was purchased in 1882 by Mr. Thomas Pinkney, of Sunderland, who in July last, agreed to sell her to a Mr. Thomas Banks for the sum of 520l., of which 400l. s to be paid in cash, and 120l. by a bill of one month. The money was duly paid, and the vessel was handed over to Mr. Banks on or about the 12th of August. At this time the vessel was lying at Sunderland, and Banks then engaged two persons, named James Clague and Thomas Guthrie, both of whom had been previously in his service, to serve on board as master and engineer respectively, and with these two men, and a seaman named Bob, she shortly afterwards left Sunderland for Cowes, the owner, Mr. Banks, being also on board. Meeting with bad weather, she put into Scarborough, and remained there till the weather moderated, when she sailed again, but had to put in at Grimsby, and there Mr. Banks left her. After a time she resumed her voyage, and finally reached Cowes, where Mr. Banks again joined her, and the master then got orders to take her to Dover. Mr. Banks did not go in her, but on her arrival at Dover on the 28th of August, he rejoined her, and she lay there till the 2nd of September. Whilst in Dover Harbour, a trawler, which was lying alongside of her, as the tide ebbed, fell over, and with her trawl beam carried away some 20 feet of the rail and broke four of the stanchions of the "Dotterel." The damages were estimated by a shipwright at Dover at from 8l. to 10l. Mr. Banks, however, consented to accept 5l., but the damages were not repaired before she left, beyond replacing the rails in their original position. Having then discharged Bob, the seaman, the vessel left Dover at about 4 p.m. of the 2nd of September, destined avowedly for Wivenhoe, her crew consisting of Captain Clague, as master, and Mr. Guthrie, as engineer, and the owner, Mr. Banks, was also on board. The weather at the time was fine, with a moderate breeze from N. to N.E. and a smooth sea, and the vessel proceeded on her course, with the master at the helm, steering, he told us, not any particular course, but by the land, and making some five or six knots an hour, with a pressure of about 40 lbs. of steam in her boiler. Some time after they had left, but when, more particularly, the engineer could not tell us, Mr. Banks came to the engine room and asked him if he had a chisel and hammer, to which he replied that he had not, but that they were on the top of the casing. Mr. Banks then left, and some time afterwards, but how long afterwards the engineer could not tell us, he and the captain heard a knocking forward, and the engineer told us that on then going on deck and looking through the hatchway, he saw the owner, Mr. Banks, hitting at the side of the vessel, apparently with a hammer or some other instrument. Upon this he went aft to the captain and told him that he (Mr. Banks) was at work forward damaging the vessel, meaning thereby that he was cutting a hole in the side. The engineer then returned to the stoke hole, and in about twenty minutes afterwards he observed that the water was rising over the stoke hole plates, upon which he came on deck and told the captain, who at once starboarded the vessel's helm, to get her nearer in to the land. The engineer then went down into the engine room, to see that the pumps were all in proper working order, and finding that they were so, he then, according to his own account, returned to the deck, there being no direct communication between the engine room and the stoke hole, and on going down to the stoke hole found that the water was up to the furnace bars, upon which he returned to the engine room, stopped the engine, and then went aft, and' having hauled in a small boat, which was towing astern, he got into her, and, fearing that she might get under the vessel's counter and be swamped, he cut the painter and let her go adrift. He then got out the sculls and pulled towards the vessel, when they hailed him and asked him for a crow bar, but he answered that, so far as he knew, there was not one on board. After a time he lost sight of the vessel, and then pulled for the shore, which he reached in safety. In the meantime Mr. Banks and the captain, after remaining on board for about half-an-hour or more, proceeded to lower the other boat, which was hanging to the davits; and having done so, they got into her and pulled for the shore, which they also reached in safety. We are told that when they left her she was fast sinking, and she shortly afterwards sank in about 4 1/2 fathoms of water, and about a mile and a half to the eastward of Deal Pier.

These being the facts of the case, the first question upon which our opinion has been asked is, "Did the "'Dotterel' sustain any serious damage in Dover " Harbour, and was the taking her to sea unrepaired " justifiable?" The damage which the "Dotterel" sustained by the trawler falling upon her, appears to have been confined to the carrying away of about 20 feet of her rail, the breaking of four stanchions, and the starting of some of the screws which passed through the covering board. The master and engineer indeed told us that they could see daylight through a crack of about the eighth of an inch wide, a little below the covering board on the starboard side, but they were not agreed as to whether they saw it before or after they left Dover. There is, however, nothing to show that the damage was not confined to the upper works, or that it was of so serious a character as to render it improper for them to proceed to sea without having had it properly repaired. Indeed, the facts which I shall presently mention show clearly that the damage was merely to the upper works.

The second 'question which we are asked is, "What " was the cause of the ' Dotterel' making water while " in the harbour?" We were told by Mr. Day, that whilst she was in Dover Harbour, he went on board one morning between 6 and 7, and found the captain in his bunk and the water over the cabin floor; that he called the captain's attention to it, but that the captain seemed not to think much of it, saying that it had come from the after well, owing to the vessel being aground aft, and that as soon as she floated and the stern went down the water would run aft to the well, whence it could be pumped out. Whether, indeed, this is the true explanation of the water being over the floor of the cabin, or whether it came through the scuppers when she heeled over as she took the ground, it is not possible to say. The fact however, that after she was raised, and the hole which was cut in the vessel's side was stopped up, she never made any water, is a sufficient proof that she could not have been damaged in her bottom.

The third question which we are asked is "Was the " 'Dotterel'" sufficiently equipped and manned, and were " her boats and pumps in good condition?" Her pumps seem to have been in good condition, and as regards her boats, of which she had two, one towing astern, the other hanging in the davits, they were in sufficiently good condition to take the crew in safety to the shore; she seems also to have been properly and sufficiently equipped. But as regards the crew, which practically consisted of only two hands, the master and the engincer—Mr. Banks, the owner, being apparently of little or no use—we think that it was wholly insufficient, especially at night, having regard to the crowded Channel through which she would have to pass, and to the extreme darkness of the night, which, according to the master, made it impossible for him to see more than half the length of the vessel.

The fourth and fifth questions which we are asked are as follow:—(4) "What was the cause of the " 'Dotterel'" making water on the evening of Sep- " tember 2nd. 1886?" and (5) "What was the cause of " the loss of the 'Dotterel'?" The evidence which has been laid before us on this point leaves not a shadow of doubt in our mind as to what was the cause of the vessel foundering. It seems that after the vessel had sunk, Mr. Day, an engineer at Dover, applied to the owner, Mr. Banks, to know whether he proposed to raise her, to which Mr. Banks replied that he did not think she would be worth it; upon which Mr. Day offered him 5l. for her, but to that offer he never received any reply. Lloyd's Salvage Association then took steps to have her raised, which seems to have been done without difficulty; and on the 13th September she was put upon the beach at Deal, and on the 14th was towed into Dover Harbour, and there put upon the mud. Finding that after the tide had left her she still continued to be full of water, they proceeded to examine her very carefully outside, when they found a little trickle of water, on stirring which a hole was discovered in her bottom. As, however, the water was coming out very slowly, another hole was made rather further aft and close down to the keel, and by this means they emptied the whole of the water out of her. Having then stopped up both the holes, she floated as the tide rose, and was found to be perfectly water-tight, and we are told that from that time to this she has made no water at all, or practically none. They then proceeded to examine the inside, and found that the side of the vessel had been cut away, apparently with a blunt hatchet, somewhat similar to one found close to the hole, for a space of about 6 1/2 inches long by about three inches broad, and that in the centre of this space there was a hole through the ship's side about 2 3/4 inches deep by about one inch broad. The position of this hole was 4 feet 6 inches below the covering board, 18 inches below the surface of the water, and 11 feet 7 inches abaft a vertical line drawn through the hawse hole; and it had evidently being made from the inside, the Jagged edges of the copper sheathing being bent outwards.

There was also a little below and abaft of this hole a chisel which had been driven in between two of the planks, and had then broken off, leaving the point projecting about an inch and a half outside of the vessel. These facts were spoken to by gentlemen whose testimony cannot for one moment be questioned; by the harbour master at Dover; by Mr. Day, an engineer residing at Dover; by the Board of Trade surveyor at Dover; by Mr. Flannery, a naval architect; and by Mr. Cullen, a ship builder, also residing at Dover. There can then be no doubt whatever that it was through this hole in her bottom that the water came in, which caused her to sink, and there can equally be no doubt, from the evidence of the master and the engineer, that this hole was cut by Mr. Banks, and with the object of sinking her.

The sixth question which we are asked is, "Was the " 'Dotterel' properly navigated after leaving Dover?" On this point we have little or no evidence. It strikes us as somewhat extraordinary, if the master's statement is correct, that it was 9 o'clock before the water was reported in the stokehole, and that they were then only about 1 1/2 miles to the eastward of the Deal Pier; that they should have taken from 4 o'clock to 9 o'clock, or about 5 hours, to do that short distance—something like 9 1/2 or 10 miles—the vessel, we are told, going all the time at the rate of 5 knots an hour, and for the first two hours having the tide with her. But there is nothing to shew that she was not being properly navigated during that time.

The seventh question which we are asked is, "Did " those on board the 'Dotterel' use all necessary or " proper endeavours for the safety of or preventing the " loss of the 'Dotterel' on September 2nd, 1886?" Not a soul on board did anything for the safety of the vessel, or to prevent her sinking. Mr. Banks seems to have been the prime agent in making the hole in her side, and as to the captain and the engineer, although it is abundantly clear that they knew what he was doing, they made no attempt to prevent him, or to stop up this hole after it was made.

The eighth question which we are asked is, "Was " the 'Dotterel' insured, and for what amount; and " what was her value when lost?" Mr. Pinkney has told us that when he sold her the vessel was, in his opinion, worth 600l., and that he sold her to Mr. Banks for 520l. According, however, to Mr. Cullen, a shipbuilder at Dover, she would, when at Dover, have been worth only about 400l. We have also this fact before us, that during the whole time she was in Mr. Pinkney's possession, from 1882 until he sold her to Mr. Banks, she was not recoppered, nor did she have new sails supplied to her. As regards the insurances upon her, we are told that there was a policy upon her for 600l. for one month from the 10th of August, and as it would expire on the 10th of September, and she was about to be laid up for the winter, Mr. Thomas Banks would be somewhat pressed for time if he intended to realise the amount of that policy. But although we have only evidence of one policy for 600l. upon her, it by no means follows that there may not have been others, possibly so-called honour policies, so that she may for all we know have been insured for two, three, or four times her value. All that we do know is, that no demand has been made by Mr. Banks upon the underwriters of the 600l. policy, and if there were any other policies it is not very likely that any demand would have been made upon them, so that we might know nothing about them.

The ninth question which we are asked is, "Is the " owner, master, or engineer deserving of blame, and " in what respects?" and it is added that "the Board " of Trade are of opinion that the master's certificate " should be dealt with." As regards Mr. Banks, the owner, it seems that he had a room at No. 12, John Street, Minories, which he called his office, but what business this gentleman carried on we were not able to find out; and he had also a private residence at 45, Windmill Street, Gravesend. It seems that an attempt had been made to serve him with a notice of these proceedings at both of those addresses, but without success. We are told that Mr. Banks has not been at his office for the last three months, and that on inquiries being made of his wife, the officer was informed that he was on the Continent, but that she did not know where, and could not therefore forward any letters to him. Mr. Banks has, no doubt, very good reasons for keeping out of the way. What object a man in Mr. Banks's position could have had in buying such a vessel as the "Dotterel," it is very difficult to say, unless indeed it was to over-insure and then lose her, for she would be quite useless as a cargo vessel. But be this as it may, it is quite clear that it was by his hand that this hole was made in the vessel's side, and that it was done with the object of sinking her. As regards the master and the engineer, it seems that they had both been in Mr. Banks's employ previously, the master for about a year previous to September 1885, since which time he has not had any employment afloat, and the engineer from August 1883 to September 1885.

They were both therefore well known to Mr. Banks, but what is most remarkable is that on being applied to they at once joined the "Dotterel," but without making any agreement or having any conversation with Mr. Banks as to the wages they were to receive from him.

It was said by Mr. Garland that the engineer was apparently the more honest of the two, but I am disposed to think that this may have been due to the fact that be was examined after and not before the master, Mr. Danckwerts had very properly produced all his other witnesses before examining these two men, and had shewn conclusively that the vessel had been scuttled, and that that had caused her to founder.

He then called the master and engineer, but before swearing them I warned them that anything that they should say might be used against them hereafter, and asked them whether, under these circumstances, they wished to be examined, and they both said they did. The master was then produced, and notwithstanding the overwhelming mass of evidence which had been given, shewing that the vessel must have been scuttled from the inside, he adhered to the statement which he had made when he was examined before the Receiver of Wrecks at Deal, that her loss was due to her having sprung a leak, and that it had been unavoidable, and he maintained that he was quite unable to account for her loss in any other way.

The engineer was then produced, and at first he seemed disposed to take the same course; but at length, finding that he could no longer keep up the delusion, he astonished us all by saying suddenly, "But we are " all beating about the bush;" and he then proceeded for the first time to make what is called a clean breast of it, telling us how he had seen the owner chopping at the side of the ship, how he had thereupon gone and told the master that the owner was "working at her " forward, and damaging the ship?" meaning that he was making a hole in her side, and the whole story of his finding the water some 20 minutes afterwards rising over the stoke hole plates, and of his getting into the boat astern, and cutting her adrift. The master was thereupon recalled, and admitted that the engineer had told him that the owner was working at the vessel forward, by which he understood him to mean that he was damaging her with a view-of sinking her, and yet it seems these two men took no steps to prevent him, but allowed him to go on until he had made a hole in the vessel's side. Although then the owner was no doubt the prime agent in scuttling the ship, we think that the master and engineer must be regarded as participes criminis, for they knew what he was doing, and by taking no steps to prevent him, they must be regarded as little, if at all, less culpable than the owner. We shall therefore cancel the master's certificate, and we regret very much that it is not in our power to punish the engineer, as he holds no certificate.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

A. RONALDSON,

Assessors.

 

 

D. R. COMYN,

 

L 367. 2839. 200.—11/86. Wt. 12. E. & S.