Wreck Report for 'Elizabeth Curry', 1887

(No. 3146.)

"ELIZABETH CURRY."

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at the Sessions House, Westminster, on the 3rd of February 1887, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captains METHVEN and PAFITT, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the loss of the life of the owner of the sailing ship "ELIZABETH CURRY," through being washed overboard from her on the 24th of December 1886, and into the circumstances attending the stranding of the said ship near Bognor, on the 4th of January 1887.

Report of Court.

The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons annexed, that there is no evidence to show what was the cause of the owner falling overboard on the 24th of December 1886, but that proper measures were not thereupon taken by William Thomas Johnson, the master, to save him; and that the stranding of the said ship on the 4th of January 1887 was due to the wrongful acts and defaults of the said William Thomas Johnson. The Court accordingly cancels his master's certificate, but in lieu thereof recommends that a first mate's certificate be granted to him.

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

Dated this 3rd day of February 1887.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

R. METHVEN,

Assessors.

 

 

WM. PARFITT,

 

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Westminster on the 3rd of February 1887, when Mr. Roscoe appeared for the Board of Trade. The master of the "Elizabeth Curry" was present, but was not represented by either counsel or solicitor. Three witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. Roscoe handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. A further witness was then produced by the Board of Trade; and the master having been heard on his own behalf, and Mr. Roscoe for the Board of Trade, 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 "Elizabeth Curry," which was a wooden schooner, belonging to the Port of Newcastle, of 110 tons gross and 99 tons net register, was built at Malinöe, in Sweden, in the year 1865; and at the time of the casualty, which forms the subject of the present inquiry, she was the property of Mr. Joseph Sharp, of 150, Leadenhall Street, London, who was likewise the managing owner. She left Gijon, in Spain, on the 19th day of December last, with a part cargo of nuts and butter, and on the following day arrived at Riva di Cella, and having there filled up with more nuts she left again on the 21st for London, with a crew of five hands, consisting of the master, the owner as mate, two A.B.'s, and a steward, and having on board a woman, who, it was said, was supposed to be the owner's wife. Nothing particular occurred until the night of the 23rd, at which time she was in the Bay of Biscay. It was the master's watch from 8 to 12 that night, and at 12.15 a.m. Mr. Sharp, the mate, came on deck to take his watch, and having looked at the compass he went over to the lee quarter, and was seen by the master standing by the rail. In about five or six minutes afterwards the master, not seeing him, called out to the look-out man forward to know if the owner was there; and on being told that he was not, all hands were called up, and the master, who was at the wheel, then put the helm hard down, so as to bring the vessel up into the wind, and a lifebuoy or life-buoys were thrown out, and lines were hung out over the stern. After remaining in that position for about twenty minutes or half-an-hour, and not seeing anything of the owner, the helm was again put up, and she continued her course, and at noon of the 2nd of January following made the Lizard. At 10.30 p.m. the same day she passed Start Point, distant about 10 miles; at 4 a.m. of the 3rd, Portland Light was abeam, distant about 12 miles; and at 3 p.m. St. Catherine's Light was passed, distant about from 10 to 11 miles; and from there she was put on an E. by S. 1/2 S. course, the wind being about S.W., until 9 p.m., when the course was altered to S.S.E., and at 10.30 p.m. they sighted the Owers Light-vessel, bearing E.N.E., and distant, according to the master, from 11 to 12 miles. At this time we are told the vessel was still heading to the S.S.E., the wind being about W.S.W., and the vessel was making about 2 1/2 knots. According to the master (but in this, as we shall presently see, he is not quite in accord with the other witnesses) they continued on that course till midnight, when they wore ship to the northward, the wind increasing with terrific squalls; and at 3 a.m. her head was put to the S.E., the wind then being about S.W. At 4 a.m. we are told that the wind suddenly chopped round to the S.E. in a terrific snow squall, and then fell calm; and the vessel becoming unmanageable, it became impossible to steer her, and she fell off into the trough of the sea. From that time nothing more seems to have been done, and at 5.15 a.m. she went on shore at a place called Middleton, a little to the eastward of Bognor, and about 8 1/2 miles to the northward of the Owers Lightship. Signals were thereupon made by burning kerosine, and the coastguard having come off to their assistance, all, with the exception of the master, got into the boat and left her; and having landed them the boat returned and took off the master. The same day a steam-tug came up, and having taken hold of the vessel, towed her off, and took her to Little-hampton.

These being the facts of the case, the first question upon which our opinion has been asked by the Board of Trade is, "Did the 'Elizabeth Curry,' when she left " Gijon, carry the boats required by section 292 of the " Merchant Shipping Act 1354; and was the boat " which she carried, at all times fit and ready for " service?" The captain has told us that the vessel had one boat, which was about 16 feet long by about 4 feet 6 broad, and about 2 feet deep. Now schedule S of the Act states that a vessel under 200 tons shall carry a boat 14 feet long by 5 feet broad and 2 feet deep; and there is a clause at the end of the schedule, which says that "in sailing ships of 150 tons burthen, and under, " not carrying passengers, a substantial boat of capa- " city sufficient to carry the crew may be substituted " for those above specified." If then the boat, which this vessel carried had been a good substantial boat, we should have been disposed to say that it was in accordance with the requirements of the Act. But the evidence is that the boat was not a good substantial boat, that on the contrary it was utterly unseaworthy, the starboard top sides being out of her, so that it would have been impossible to have lowered her, if there had been any sea on. In our opinion therefore, the boat which she carried was not such as is required by section 292 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1854, and was not fit for the service for which it was required.

The second question which we are asked is, "Whether " she was properly and sufficiently manned?" She had a crew of 5 hands all told, namely, a master, the owner as mate, two foreign seamen, and a black man who acted as steward, and whose duties seem to have been confined entirely to the cabin; practically therefore she had only 4 hands. The master had a certificate of competency; but the owner, so far as appears, had none—and judging from the witnesses who have been produced before us, we should hardly be disposed to say that she was properly and sufficiently manned.

The third question which we are asked is, "What " was the cause of the loss of life during the voyage?" There is not a particle of evidence to shew how the owner was lost. The only persons who were on deck were the master who was at the wheel, and one of the A.B's who was forward on the look-out, but who has not been produced before the Court; the two other witnesses who have been produced were down below. The master has told us that he saw him go to the lee quarter, and after standing there for 5 or 6 minutes he missed him; but whether he was knocked overboard, or whether he jumped over the side, there is nothing to shew.

The fourth question which we are asked is, "Were " all possible measures taken to avoid loss of life; and " was the master justified in not lowering a boat when " he found that Joseph Sharp had fallen overboard?" Looking at the description which has been given us of the boat, we think that the master would not have been justified in lowering it into the water and sending it off. But did he take all possible measures to save the man's life?" In our opinion he did not. All that he seems to have done was to put the helm down and bring the vessel up to the wind, and to throw a life-buoy or life-buoys, and hang lines over the stern; and after remaining in this position for about twenty minutes or half-an-hour, he again put the helm up and continued his course. He admits that he did not put his topsail aback, so that during the whole of that twenty minutes or half-an-hour the vessel must have been forging ahead, and getting further and further from the spot. What he ought to have done was to have put his ship about, so as to bring her round again to the same spot, and if possible pick up the buoys which had been thrown overboard, and to which Sharp might have been clinging; but he did nothing of the kind. In our opinion the conduct of the master was quite unjustifiable.

I will take the fifth and sixth questions together; they are as follow:—" 5. Were proper courses set, on " and after passing St. Catherine's Light, and was due " and proper allowance made for tide, currents, and " leeway "and" 6. Were safe and proper alterations " made in the course of the vessel, at or about 9 p.m. " of 3rd January, midnight of the 3rd—4th January, " and 3 a.m. of the 4th January; and whether due and " proper allowance was made for tide, currents, and " leeway?" I do not think that it is necessary to trouble ourselves with what courses were steered, before she made the Owers Light-vessel. According to the master, he made the Owers Lightship at 10.30 p.m., bearing E.N.E., distant from 11 to 12 miles, but seeing that the Owers Light is only visible on a clear night at a distance of 10 miles, there is evidently some exaggeration here. He told us that he was then on a S.S.E. course, and that he continued on that course from 10.30 till midnight, when he put her head to the northward, and kept her on that course till 3 a.m., when he again put her on a S.E. course, and that at 4 a.m. the wind suddenly chopped round to the S.E. and fell calm, and at 5.15 he went ashore. But, if those were his courses, we are at a loss to understand how he could have got where he did, some 8 miles N.N.E. of the Owers Light-vessel. On the other hand the men's account was, that when they sighted the Owers Light-vessel, it was only about 4 or 5 miles distant, that the vessel's head was then put to the W.N.W. close hauled on the port tack, the wind being from the S.W., and that this had the effect of bringing the light upon her starboard side, and that they never got to the eastward of the Owers Light at all. And this seems to us to be a much more probable way of accounting for the casualty; for if, whilst they were still to the westward of the Owers Light-vessel, her head was put to the W.N.W., she might very possibly have been carried by the current through the Looe, and landed on the beach to the eastward of Bognor. I am told by the assessors that this is quite possible, the current through the Looe running with very great velocity. But whether she passed to the eastward or to the westward of the Owers Light-vessel before getting ashore, it is clear that the courses steered were neither safe nor proper; and that she had no right to have been anywhere near there. The master was asked why he had put the vessel's head at midnight to the northward, when, according to his own account, the wind was from the W.S.W., and was therefore favorable for making Beachy Head; and his only answer was that he did not wish to get in amongst the shipping on a dark and squally night; but he was much more likely to have come across shipping by dodging about the Owers now on one tack and now on the other; and at the speed at which he was going, 2 1/2 knots, it would have been daylight long before he could have reached the neighbourhood of Beachy Head. Whatever were the courses steered, we do not believe that they were those which the master has stated, for those courses could not have taken him to the place where the vessel grounded. We are much more disposed to believe the evidence of the seamen, that they never did get to the eastward of the Owers Lightship, and in that case we can under. stand how she got on the beach at Middleton.

The seventh question which we are asked is, " Whether the lead was used with sufficient fre- " quency?" The master has told us that he took a cast of the lead at 4 a.m., which gave him 17 fathoms, and that he took another sounding at about 4.30 a.m., which he at first said gave them 15 fathoms, but afterwards he said it gave them from 10 to 15 fathoms. On looking, however, at the log-book, the last entry that we find of any sounding having been taken was at 10.30 p.m., when according to the master they first sighted the Owers, and they then got 16 fathoms, which they might very well have done, whether they were then 10, 4, or even only 2 miles W.S.W. of the Owers. But seeing the rate at which the vessel was going, it is quite impossible that they could have got as much as 17 fathoms at 4 a.m., or 10 to 15 fathoms at 4.30 a.m.; the utmost depth which they could then have got, whether they had gone to the west or to the east of the Owers, would probably not have been more than some 4 or 5 fathoms. We do not, therefore, believe the master when he stated that he had taken soundings at 4 and 4.30 a.m. Had he done so, it would have at once shown him the dangerous position into which he had got, and having, as he said, two anchors at his bows, with 100 fathoms of chain each, it would have been his duty to have them let go at once.

The eighth question which we are asked is, "Whether " a good and proper look-out was kept?" According to the master the vessel was quite unmanageable from about 4 a.m. until she drifted ashore at about 5.15 a.m., any look-out therefore, however good, would, it is said, not have been of much use; but as a fact there is no evidence that there was any look-out at all.

The ninth question which we are asked is, "Were all " proper measures taken to prevent the stranding of " the vessel?" The measures which the master took were not, in our opinion, such as to prevent the stranding of this vessel. We do not say that there is any proof that he intended purposely to put this vessel ashore, but certainly the step which he took in putting her head to the northward when he had a fair wind for continuing his course up Channel was well calculated to put her ashore. And how it was that he could have got some eight miles inside the Owers Lightship without knowing it or without intending to put her there, it is very difficult to understand.

The 10th question which we are asked is, "Was the " 'Elizabeth Curry' navigated with proper and sea " manlike care; and is the master in any way in " defanlt?" And it is added that "in the opinion of " the Board of Trade the certificate of the master " should be dealt with." From what has been said, it is clear that, in our opinion, this vessel has been navigated in a very improper and unseamanlike way, both in the measures which he did take and which he omitted to take, after Mr. Sharp the owner had fallen or been knocked overboard, as well as after the Owers Light-vessel was sighted, we think that the master has shewn himself to be quite unfit to have charge of a vessel, and we shall therefore cancel his certificate.

I cannot conclude this case without adverting to another matter, which it appeared to us required to be cleared up. As no evidence had been tendered, and no questions asked as to the amount in which this very old Swedish-built vessel had been insured, I asked the Counsel for the Board of Trade why this was so, and was told that the owner having been drowned, and the mortgagee having refused to give any information, they were not in a position to tender any evidence on the subject. Mr. Roscoe, however, stated that the mortgagee was in Court, and that, if I thought it necessary, he should be put into the box. I did think it necessary, and Mr. Thomas William Croughton Syer, the mortgagee, was accordingly sworn. Mr. Syer then informed us that the purchase of the vessel had been negotiated, not by him, but in his office, which is at 150, Leadenhall street, the same address as that of the owner. He stated that he had lent the owner 1301. towards the purchase of the vessel, and had taken a mortgage upon the vessel for that sum with interest and costs, and that the total amount now due to him was 150l. Os. 7d. Mr. Syer also told us, that after the purchase, he insured the vessel on the owner's account, with a Glasgow Firm through Mr. Marwood, of St. Michael's Lane, Cornhill, for a sum of 200l. The policy was not produced, but he told us that it was in his office, and that it had been assigned over to him by the owner as a security for his mortgage. He told us also that on the expiration of that policy in December last, he had effected an insurance on the vessel against total loss for the sum of 200l. for the last voyage, from Gijon to Bristol or London, viâ Riva di Cella, with the Commercial Union Company, Cornhill; that the freight was also insured by him for 100l.; and that Mr. Sharp being abroad at the time, he had taken out the policies in his own name. Mr. Syer fenced a good deal with the questions that were put to him, whether he had been asked to give information as to the amount of the insurance on the vessel, and whether he had refused to give any. He said at first that he had not been asked in writing; he would not, however, swear that he had not been asked to do so verbally, but said that he did not remember. That is the state of the case as regards the insurance, and it is as well that the facts should be known, The whole case appears to us to be one of very grave suspicion.

At the conclusion of the inquiry, the master asked that he might have a mate's certificate granted to him; and the Court, though with some hesitation, agreed to recommend to the Board of Trade that he should be allowed a mate's certificate in lieu of the master's certificate which he had hitherto held.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur,

 

(Signed)

R. METHVEN,

Assessors.

 

 

WM. PARFITT,

 

50022—57. 200.—2/87. Wt. 12. E. & S.