Wreck Report for 'Isle of Hastings', 1887

(Jr. 6081.)

"ISLE OF HASTINGS."

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

The Court of Survey for Cardiff. held at the Town Hall, Cardiff, on the 24th of February 1887.

In the Matter of the detention by the Board of Trade of the steamship "Isle of Hastings."

I, Henry Cadogan Rothery, Wreck Commissioner for the United Kingdom, do report that, having heard this case, I did, with the concurrence of Sir Nathaniel Barnaby, the Assessor appointed by the Board of Trade, and of John Robert Christie, Esquire, one of the Assessors for the Court of Survey at Cardiff, order the said ship to be released for the reasons set forth in the annexed statement.

Dated this 24th day of February 1887.

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

NATHL. BARNABY,

Assessors.

 

 

J. R. CHRISTIE,

 

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Cardiff on the 24th February 1887, when Mr. R. S. Wright appeared for the Board of Trade, and Mr. Roche for the master of the "Isle of Hastings," but under protest to the whole proceedings, alleging, that since the detention, the vessel had been lightened to the extent required by the Board of Trade, and that all the Court had to do was to order the vessel to be released. Mr. Wright then opened the case, and having done so, asked the Court (1.) "to " order and declare that having regard to the con- " struction of the ship, and to the nature of the service " for which she was intended, the "Isle of Hastings" " was at the time of provisional detention overladen " so as to be unfit to proceed to sea without serious " danger to human life," and, (2.) "that the cause " of detention haying now been removed, the 'Isle of "Hastings' be released." The Court then, at the request of the Board of Trade, proceeded to inspect the vessel, and on their return a witness was produced by the Board of Trade, and Mr. Roche having been heard on behalf of his party, and Mr. Wright for the Board of Trade, the Court pronounced its judgment. The circumstances of the case are as follows:—

The "Isle of Hastings" is a steel screw steamship, belonging to the port of Newcastle, of 1646 tons gross, and 1078 tons net register, and is fitted with engines of 140 horse-power. She was built at Howdon-on-Tyne, in the year 1885, under special survey of Lloyd's, and was classed 100 A1, and she is now the property of Mr. Thomas Dixon, junior, of Newcastle-on-Tyne, and others; Mr. Thomas Dixon, junior, being the managing owner.

On the 21st February instant she was in the Penarth Dock, and had taken in a cargo of coals, with which she was on the point of starting for Alexandria, when Mr. Major, Engineer and Shipwright Surveyor to the Board of Trade at Cardiff, who had been instructed to look after her, observed that she had a freeboard of only 2 feet 2 1/4 inches, which added to 1 inches for rise on getting into salt water would give her, when she got to sea, a freeboard of 2 feet 3 3/4 inches, which he considered to be insufficient for her for the intended voyage. The way in which Mr. Major arrived at this conclusion was as follows:—he told us that her length was 250 feet, her breadth 35.2 feet, and depth of hold 18.75 feet, and that her moulded depth was 20 feet, which who give a "coefficient of fineness" of .80 and a freeboard, by Table A. of the Tables of Freeboard, which had been approved of both by Lloyd's and the Board of Trade, of 3 feet 11 1/2 inches. From this, however, would have to be deducted for sheer 3 1/2 inches, for deck erections 13 inches, and for an iron deck 3 1/2 inches, making a total deduction of 1 foot 8 inches, which subtracted from 3 feet 11 1/2 inches leaves a freeboard of 2 feet 3 1/2 inches. On the other hand, there would have to be added for excess in length, the vessel being 250 feet long, 1/2 an inch, for insufficient freeing ports 2 3/8 inches, and for want of a gangway between the bridge and the topgallant forecastle also 2 3/8 inches, making a total of 5 1/4 inches, which added to the 2 feet 3 1/2 inches would give 2 feet 8 3/4 inches as the minimum freeboard which this vessel should have for a winter voyage.

Believing her therefore, with a freeboard of only 2 feet 3 3/4 inches, to be "unfit to proceed to sea without " danger to human life, having regard to the nature " of the service for which she was intended," Mr. Major reported her, and orders were accordingly given on the same afternoon to detain her.

Communications then passed between the Board of Trade and the owners and their solicitor, Mr. Roche, into which it is not necessary to enter, and in the result the owners determined to lighten the vessel in accordance with the requirements of the Board of Trade, but under protest, and we are told by Mr. Major, and that is not denied, that her freeboard at the present time, as she lies in Penarth dock, is 2 feet 9 3/4 inches, to which would have to be added 1 1/2 inches for rise on getting into salt water, which would make her freeboard when she got to sea 2 feet 11 inches, or about 2 1/2 inches in excess of the freeboard which Mr. Major considered was necessary for her for her intended voyage. There being then no longer any question as to her fitness to proceed to sea, Mr. Wright has asked us to order her to be released, and that we shall accordingly do.

But Mr. Wright has not stopped here, but he has also asked us to say, "that having regard to the construction " of the ship, and to the nature of the service for which " she was intended, the 'Isle of Hastings' was at the " time of provisional detention overladen so as to be " unfit to proceed to sea without serious danger to " human life." And the obvious intention which the Board of Trade have in view in making that application, is to obtain from the Court an expression of its opinion that the vessel was, at the time of the detention, overladen, and that consequently the Board of Trade was justified in detaining her; in other words that the Board of Trade are not responsible to the owners in damages and costs for the detention, that detention having been justifiable. Now, I doubt very much whether it is competent to the Court to do what it is asked to do, and to express an opinion on a matter on which it has no power to give effect to its finding. The 8th section of the Act defines the duties and powers of the Court; they are that the case shall be heard in open Court, that the judge and assessors may survey the ship, or that the judge may appoint any competent person to do so, that the judge may, with the assent of the assessors, order the ship to be released or finally detained, and lastly that the judge shall send a report of the proceedings to the Board of Trade. These are practically all the powers which the Act gives to the Court. It is true that the 10th section of the Act goes on to say that "if it appears that there was not reason- " able and probable cause by reason of the condition " of the ship, or the Act, or default of the owner for " the provisional detention of the ship, the Board of " Trade shall be liable to pay to the owner of the ship " his costs of and incidental to the detention and " survey of the ship, and also compensation for any " loss or damage sustained by him by reason of the " detention or survey"; and on the other hand, that " if it appears that a ship provisionally detained was " at the time of such detention unsafe within the " meaning of the Act, the owner of the ship shall be " liable to pay to the Board of Trade their costs of " and incidental to the detention and survey of the " ship," &c.; but the Act nowhere says that the rights of the respective parties to costs or to costs and damages may be enforced by the Court of Survey. On the contrary, if we look to the 32nd section of the Rules, we shall find that the Court is not competent to decide any question relating to costs or to costs and damages without an express consent in writing of the parties. That section is in these words: "The Court " may, if the parties consent thereto in writing, decide " whether costs or costs and damages are due, and to " and from whom, and may assess the amount thereof, " or the parties may by consent in writing refer the " question to the Wreck Commissioner." Now, that consent has not been given, and if we were now to go into the question of whether the vessel was unfit to go to sea when she was provisionally detained, we should be deciding whether the detention was or was not justifiable, and whether, therefore, costs and damages were or were not properly due, and to whom, and that we have no power to do without the consent of the parties. In fact we should be endeavouring to prejudge a question which we are told is to be taken to another Court, and by a kind of side wind, expressing an opinion on a matter in which we should have no power to give effect to our own finding. This I apprehend we have no right to do, our duty is simply to say whether the vessel is or is not now in a fit state to proceed to sea, and without expressing any opinion as to whether she was or was not properly detained, and whether, therefore, costs and damages are or are not due, and to whom.

Whilst, however, the Court has felt itself bound by the terms of the statute and of the Rules to decline to express any opinion as to whether the provisional detention was or was not justifiable, and consequently whether costs or costs and damages are or are not due, and to whom, we cannot but express our regret that the Legislature has not given us the necessary powers for that purpose. It certainly does appear to us to be very desirable that the same tribunal which is called upon to decide whether the vessel is or is not in a fit state to proceed to sea should be also permitted to say whether she was so when she was provisionally detained, and consequently whether costs or costs and damages are or are not properly due, subject of course always to an appeal to a superior court, should the decision of the Court of Survey be erroneous.

Lastly, Mr. Wright has asked us to say whether, in our opinion, the Board of Trade were right in declining to anticipate the action of the Court of Survey, or in other words, in not releasing the vessel after she had been unladen to the extent required by the Board of Trade, on the ground that the Court being seized of the affair, it would not have been proper for them to release her without the express authority of the Court. Looking, however, at subsection 7 of the 6th Article of the Act, which says that "the Board of Trade may at " any time, if satisfied that the ship detained under this " Act is not unsafe, order it to be released either upon " or without the conditions," I think that it would have been quite competent to the Board of Trade to have released the vessel even after the case had been appealed to the Court as soon as it was satisfied that its requirements had been complied with, and that the vessel was fit to proceed to sea, and that in doing so the Board of Trade would not have been doing anything which, in our opinion, would have been considered so derogatory to the Court. I ought to add, however, that the Board of Trade appear to have done every. thing in its power to expedite the proceedings, the vessel having been provisionally detained in the afternoon of the 21st, and the case heard and decided and the vessel ordered to be released on the afternoon of the 24th instant, so that as little inconvenience and injury as possible would seem to have been occasioned to the owners, consistently with the duty which the Board of Trade owes to the public, and to the persons who were about to go in the vessel.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

NATH. BARNABY,

Assessors.

 

J. R. CHRISTIE,

 

A 50813. 50.—3/87. G. 86. E. & S.