Wreck Report for 'Brazilian', 1888

(No. 3677.)

"BRAZILIAN."

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of a formal Investigation held at the Lecture Hall, Greenwich, on the 10th day of December, 1888, before R. H. B. MARSHAM, Esq., assisted by Captains COSENS and BROOKS, into the circumstances attending the stranding of the British sailing ship "BRAZILIAN," off Oland Island, on the 4th of October 1888.

Report of Court.

The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances attending the above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons stated in the annex hereto, that the cause of the casualty was that the master, James Farmaner, mistook his position, and did not use his lead sufficiently. The Court therefore finds him in default, and suspends his certificate for six months, recommending him to a mate's certificate in the meanwhile.

Dated this 13th day of December 1888.

 

(Signed)

R. H. B. MARSHAM, Judge.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

WILLIAM COSENS,

Assessors.

 

 

EDWD. BROOKS,

 

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at the Lecture Hall, Greenwich, on the 10th day of December 1888, when Mr. Aspinall represented the Board of Trade, but no counsel or solicitor appeared for the master or owners of the vessel.

The "Brazilian," official number 62,106, was a three-masted sailing schooner, built of wood at Banff in 1869, and registered at that port of 239.36 net tonnage. Her length was 116.4 feet; her breadth was 24.47 feet; her depth was 14.1 feet, and at the time of her loss she was owned by Mr. Joseph Gaston, of Shoreham, and Mr. William James Ingram, of West Brighton, who was managing owner, and was also the chief officer of the vessel during the voyage in question.

She had two compasses-one being in the binnacle, which was said to have no deviation, the other, a spare one, being kept below. She left Sandarne, in the Gulf of Bothnia, in a good and seaworthy condition on the 27th day of September last, with a cargo of 116 1/2 standards of wood, including a deck-load, bound for Shoreham, and with a crew of eight hands all told. She met with fine weather till the evening of the 28th day of September, when it became hazy and thick, continuing so, with occasional intervals of clear weather, up to the time of her loss.

The chart, log-book, and ship's papers were not produced in Court, which caused some inconvenience, as the witnesses spoke entirely from memory, and frequently contradicted one another on matters that those documents would probably at once have explained.

On the 2nd day of October, at about 6 p.m., the wind being south-westerly, and the ship on the port tack heading W.N.W., the vessel, according to the mate, sighted the Gottske Sands Light, and at 8 p.m. on the same day a light assumed to be the Landsort Light. The Court are, however, of opinion that, from the position the vessel was afterwards in, and the spot where she stranded, neither of these lights was sighted at the time stated; but that the lights were in fact the North Oland Light, seen at 6 p.m., and a light on the mainland of Sweden at 8 p.m. Upon sighting the second light the vessel tacked to the S.E.; the wind soon became light, it falling a calm between 11 p.m. and 1 a.m. of the 3rd, when, the wind blowing from the eastward, the ship was put on a S. by E. course. About 3 a.m. a light was seen on the starboard bow, which the master took to be the Stenkyrke Huk Light; the vessel was then kept away to S.S.W. 1/2 W. This light was in fact the North Oland Light; and had the lead been used, the master would have discovered his error.

The vessel held on this course, the master steering down the Kalmar Sound, under the impression that he was between Gottland and Oland. The weather was thick, with rain; and at about 10 a.m., land being seen on both sides of the vessel, the master, who was now doubtful of his position, took, for the first time, a cast of the lead, obtaining 10 fathoms. He thereupon brought her to on the starboard tack, heading N.N.E., with the view of reaching out the Kalmar Sound, where the master now believed himself to be. The vessel made little way, it being nearly calm. At about 7 p.m. soundings were obtained in 20 fathoms, the vessel then being, as the master stated, about two miles from an island which bore W.N.W.

At about 8.30 p.m. the wind blew strong from the westward; the sails were trimmed for the port tack, and the vessel was head-reached to the northward. She continued so till 1.30, making but little headway, and necessarily driving to leeward, at which time breakers were seen by the look-out man on the lee bow. Efforts were made to get sail on her, but before this could be done she struck and remained fast. Anchors were got out at daylight with the object of heaving the ship off, but without avail. The vessel remained tight till about 11 a.m., when she began to make water. A salvage steamer at two o'clock attempted to drag her off, but failing to do so, the deck cargo was discharged and rafted alongside. She was then towed off full of water, and eventually taken to Oscarshamm, where, with the consent of all parties, she was sold for 462l. The exact spot where she stranded was ascertained by the master to be off Gillberga, on the west coast of Oland.

With reference to question la, the Court wishes to state that the answer has been given under the assumption that the Landsort Light was actually sighted on the 28th of September, as stated by the mate; but the Court is of opinion that this light was not seen on that day. These were the facts of the case, and on the conclusion of the evidence Mr. Aspinall, on behalf of the Board of Trade, put to the Court the following questions:-

1. Whether, at or about 8 p m. of the 2nd October, a safe and proper course was set and thereafter steered, and whether due and proper allowance was made for the tide, currents, and leeway?

1a. Whether a safe and proper course was set and steered after sighting the Landsort Light on the 28th of September last?

1b. What were the lights seen at 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. of the 2nd of October?

2. Whether a safe and proper alteration was made in the course at or about 1 a.m. of the 3rd October, and whether due and proper allowance was made for tide, currents, and leeway?

3. What was the light seen at or about 3 a.m. of the 3rd October, and was the master justified in taking it for the Stenkyrke Huk Light?

4. Whether safe and proper alterations were made in the course at or about 3 a.m., and thereafter, and whether due and proper allowance was made for tide, currents, and leeway?

5. Whether proper measures were taken from time to time to ascertain and verify the position of the vessel?

6. Whether the lead was used with sufficient frequency and proper care?

7. Whether a good and proper look-out was kept?

8. What was the cause of the casualty?

9. Whether the vessel was navigated with proper and seamanlike care?

10. Whether the master and mate are, or either of them is, in default?

And stated that the Board of Trade were of opinion that the certificate of the master should be dealt with.

The Court then gave judgment as follows:-

1 & 1a. After sighting the Landsort Light on 28th of September, the wind being southerly, the ship was worked to windward, which under the circumstances. was right.

1b. The light seen about 6 p.m. on 2nd October was the North-Oland light. There is not sufficient evidence to show what was the light seen at 8 p.m., but it was probably one of the lights on the coast of Sweden, considerably to the south of the Landsort Light, which it was taken to be by the master. At about 8 p.m. a safe and proper course was not set by reason of the master having mistaken the light.

2. If a mistake had not been made as to the light seen; a safe and proper alteration was made, and though the mistake was made, the alteration was nevertheless correct.

3. The light seen about 3 a.m. on 3rd October was the North Oland Light. The master was not justified in taking it for the Stenkyrke Huk Light, as a single cast of the lead would have shown him his error.

4. The alteration was proper as in answer No. 2.

5 & 6. Proper measures were not taken to verify the ship's position. The weather was so hazy that it was impossible to take celestial observations, but the position ought to have been verified by soundings, which were not taken as soon as they should have been, or with sufficient frequency and care when commenced to be taken.

7. A good and proper look-out appears to have been kept.

8. The cause of the casualty was that the master mistook his position, and did not use his lead sufficiently.

9. The vessel was not navigated with proper and seamanlike care.

10. The captain alone is in default.

The Court suspends the master's certificate for six months, but recommends him to a mate's certificate in the meanwhile.

 

(Signed)

R. H. B. MARSHAM, Judge.

 

 

WILLIAM, COSENS,

Assessors.

 

 

EDWD. BROOKS,

 

54010-189. 180.-12/88. Wt. 23. E. & S.