Wreck Report for 'Conquistador', 1887

(No. 3170.)

"CONQUISTADOR" (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at Cardiff, on the 16th of February 1887, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Vice-Admiral PICKARD and Captain COSENS, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the supposed loss of the steamship "CONQUISTADOR," of Glasgow, with a crew of 19 hands, whilst on a voyage from Newport, Monmouth, to Malaga, in October last.

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 on her last voyage, she was in all respects in a good and seaworthy condition; that her deck openings were properly secured, and her cargo properly stowed and trimmed; and that there is nothing to show how she was lost, but that in all probability she foundered with all hands during the gale which prevailed on these coasts on the 15th and 16th of October last.

Dated this 16th day of February 1887.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

BENJ. S. PICKARD,

Assessors.

 

 

WILLIAM COSENS,

 

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Cardiff on the 16th of February instant, when Mr. Howard Smith appeared for the Board of Trade, and Mr. Vachell for the managing owner of the "Conquistador." Eight witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, and the depositions of four witnessess taken at Newport, Glasgow, Burntisland and Penzance respectively, 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. Vachell then addressed the Court on behalf of his party, and Mr. Howard Smith having replied, the Court proceeded to give judgment on the questions upon which its opinion had been asked. The circumstances of the case are as follows:—

The "Conquistador" was a steel screw steamship belonging to the Port of Glasgow, of 924 tons gross and 568 tons net register, and was fitted with engines of 130 horse-power. She was built at Dumbarton on the Clyde in the year 1883, and at the time of her loss was the property of Mr. John Crum, of 65, Great Clyde Street, Glasgow, and others, Mr. Crum being the managing owner. She left the Newport Docks at about 6 p.m. of the 13th of October last, with a cargo of 842 tons of coal, besides 245 tons 8 cwt. in her bunkers, and having a crew of 19 hands all told, and in charge of a pilot, bound to Malaga. The pilot left her at about 9 p.m. off the Breaksea Lighthouse, and she proceeded on her voyage; and from that time nothing has been seen of her, and as she never reached her destination the probability is that she has been lost with all hands.

These being the facts of the case, the first question upon which our opinion has been asked is, "Whether, " when the vessel left Newport, she was in all respects " in a good and seaworthy condition?" The "Conquistador," which was launched in the year 1883, was built under special survey, and was classed 100 Al at Lloyd's. We were told by Mr. Donaldson, a consulting marine engineer at Glasgow, that he had superintended her building; and that in July last, when she was in Messrs. Brodie's dock at Rotherhithe, he, by the owner's directions made a thorough overhaul of the hull, machinery, and boilers, and found them all to be in excellent con. dition. She was also at the same time surveyed by Lloyd's, and was continued on her class. She seems to have been employed by Mr. Crum very largely in the fruit trade, and we are told that during the last three years she has been the first that has arrived from Patras with fruit. We are told also that she was specially surveyed by the Admiralty, and was engaged by the Government to take out stores to Souakim. There can therefore be no doubt that she was a very superior vessel; nor have we any reason to think that she was not in a thoroughly good and seaworthy condition when she left Newport, so far as her hull and machinery were concerned. As regards her loading, we find from the evidence of Mr. Dixon, the general foreman to the London and South Wales Coal Company, the shippers of the cargo, that her draft on leaving Newport Dock was 15 feet 7 forward and 15 feet 10 aft, giving her a mean of 15 feet 8 1/2 inches. He has also told us that the centre of the disc was just about half an inch below the water. His evidence was fully confirmed by Mr. Thomas, who is an out-door officer of the Mercantile Marine at Newport, who told us that he saw her when she was in the dock as well as when she was at the Dock head, that he saw the starboard as well as port side, and that the centre of the disc was on both sides half an inch below water. Now it seems that the load line was placed at 1 foot 2 1/2 inches below the upper line of deck, so that her freeboard on leaving Newport Dock would be 1 foot 2. We are told, however, that she would rise 4 inches on getting into salt water, the water in Newport Dock being practically fresh, which would make the freeboard 1 foot 6 inches. It seems that the owner has in this instance applied to Lloyd's to assign the vessel a freeboard, and that they have given her a freeboard of 1 foot 2 1/2 inches for the summer, and 1 foot 4 inches for the winter, and it is on this account that the load line was placed at 1 foot 2 1/2 inches, the summer freeboard. Lloyd's estimate of the freeboard which the vessel should have in winter and in summer is confirmed by Mr. Traill, the shipwright and nautical assessor to the Board of Trade at Cardiff. Seeing then that the vessel had a freeboard of 1 foot 6 inches on leaving Newport, and that 1 foot 4 is the freeboard required for a winter voyage, it is clear that it was sufficient for the voyage on which she was bound.

The second question which we are asked is, "Whether " the ventilators, the hatchways, and all other deck " openings were properly constructed, protected, and " secured?" Although the hatchways were large for a vessel of her size, they seem to have been well protected with iron coamings rising above the deck nearly as high as the bulwarks, which, we were told, were 4 feet 6 high. The pilot also who took her to sea has told us that before he left her the hatchways were closed and tarpaulins put over them, and that all the deck openings were properly secured. There is but one respect in which she seems to have been somewhat deficient, and that is in not having had iron covers to the fiddley gratings. We were told that there were tarpaulins to cover them, but she should, in the opinion of the assessors, have had iron covers, which are usual at the present day. In all other respects the deck openings seem to have been well protected and secured.

The third question which we are asked is, "Whether " the cargo was properly stowed and trimmed?" Mr. Dixon, the general foreman, and Climo, the foreman trimmer to the London and South Wales Coal Company, have told us that the two centre holds, the one forward, the other abaft the engine-room space, were choke full of coal, and that in No. 1 hold there was an empty space forward sufficient to hold about 40 tons of coal, and in No. 4 hold sufficient space aft to contain about 60 tons of coal. There were no shifting boards, but seeing that the cargo was contained in 4 separate holds, so that there would not be a very large quantity in any one of them, and that we are told that they were trimmed well up into the wings, we have no reason to think that the cargo was not properly stowed and trimmed.

The fourth question which we are asked is, "What " was the cost of the vessel to her owners?" Mr. Crum has told us that she cost him originally 20,049l.

The fifth question which we are asked is, "What " was her value at the time she last left Newport?" Mr. Crum has valued her at 16,0001. to 17,000l., and we think that that is a very fair valuation to put upon her.

The sixth question which we are asked is, "What " were the insurances effected, and how were they " apportioned?" Mr. Crum has told us that the hull and machinery were insured for 14,500l., but of this the owners took 3,700l., leaving, therefore, 10,800l. as the amount for which they were covered. The freight was not insured, and there was no insurance on outfit.

The seventh question which we are asked is, "What, " in the opinion of the Court, from the evidence before " them, was the cause of the vessel not having been heard " of since she last left Newport on the 13th of October " last?" From a deposition made by the Receiver of Wreck at Penzance, it seems that the stern board of a boat, having the name "Conquistador of Glasgow" upon it, was picked up on the 4th of November last at Mullion, on the south coast of Cornwall, a little distance west of the Lizard, and that on the 7th December, the covering of a life buoy marked "Conquistador" on one side, and "Glasgow" on the other, was picked up at Polpry, near St. Just, on the north coast of Cornwall. We have also a deposition made by Captain Caines, the master of a steamer called the "Coronet," which was on a voyage fram Alexandria to Hull; in which it is stated that, when they were in latitude 49° 51' north and longitude 4° 49' 40" west, they observed a quantity of wreckage floating about apparently belonging to the deck of some sailing vessel; and that after steering E. by N. 3/4 N. for about 18 miles they saw a lifeboat, which they picked up, and on which was the name of the "Conquistador," "Glasgow." It may at first sight seem strange that the lifeboat should have been picked up so far from the land, and from the wreckage which was cast on the coasts of Cornwall; but the assessors think that, if the vessel was lost after she had cleared the British Channel, and somewhere to the southward and westward of the Lands End, it is quite possible that the gale, which we know blew with extreme violence from the north during a great part of the 15th and 16th may have carried the lifeboat to the southward, whilst at the same time the regular current, which sets to the northward across the mouth of the English Channel, would carry the floating portions of the wreckage to the northward, and land them on the Cornish coast. How indeed the vessel was lost, we do not and probably never shall know. The evidence shews that she was a first rate vessel, and not likely, laden as she was, to succumb to any ordinary gale that she might encounter. Captain Anderson, who commanded her from June 1883 to October 1885, tells us that he had frequently been in gales of wind and heavy weather with her, and that she was a splendid vessel at sea. And Mr. James Moar, who served in her as 2nd officer from the 27th November 1885 to the 8th or 9th of October 1886, just before she started on her last voyage, says that in March 1886 he was in her, when she encountered a very heavy gale and a very heavy sea, and that she behaved well, and always shewed herself to be a good sea boat. Whilst then it is reasonable to suppose that she would not have foundered in an ordinary gale, it does not necessarily follow that she would be able to encounter the gales of the 15th and 16th of October, which were of an exceptionally violent character, and it is probable that she did fall in with them. But whether the vessel was lost by the violence of the gale, or by collision, or by stranding, there is nothing to shew that her loss was in any way due to any act or default on the part of the owner of the vessel.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

BENJ. S. PICKARD,

Assessors.

 

 

WILLIAM COSENS,

 

50022—81. 200.—2/87. Wt. 12. E. & S.