(No. 3554.)
"CAERAU" (S.S.)
The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.
IN the matter of a formal Investigation held at the Mayor's Court, Town Hall, Cardiff, on the 29th, 30th, and 31st days of May, and the 1st, 2nd, and 4th days of June, before T. W. LEWIS, Esquire, assisted by Captain KNOX, R.N., and Captain DRAGE, into the circumstances attending the supposed loss of the British Steamship "CAERAU," of Newport, which has not been heard of since sailing from Bilbao for Newport on or about the 27th day of March 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 vessel sailed from Bilbao on the 27th March 1888, and probably foundered in a gale in the Bay of Biscay on the 29th March 1888. The Court attaches blame to the managing owner for neglecting to use reasonable means to ensure the seaworthiness of the vessel by having the position of the load line authoritatively fixed, and orders him to pay to the Solicitor to the Board of Trade the sum of 100l. towards the expenses of this inquiry.
Dated this 4th day of June 1888.
(Signed)
T. W. LEWIS, Judge.
We concur in the above report.
(Signed)
HENRY KNOX,
Captain R.N.,
Z. B. DRAGE,
Assessors.
Annex to the Report.
This case was heard at the Mayor's Court, Cardiff, on the twenty-ninth, thirtieth, and thirty-first days of May, and the first and second days of June, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-eight. Mr. Waldron appeared for the Board of Trade, Mr. Vachell for the owners of the cargo on board the vessel at the time of her supposed loss, and Mr. Robson, instructed by Messrs. Downing and Handcock, for the owners of the vessel.
Mr. Waldron called and examined several witnesses, and put in and read several depositions.
Mr. Waldron having submitted certain questions for the opinion of the Court, Mr. Vachell was heard on behalf of the owners of the cargo, and Mr. Robson on behalf of the owners of the vessel.
The "Caerau" was an iron screw steamer registered at the Port of Newport (Mon.), of 581.21 tons gross, and 360.91 registered tonnage, official number being 52,844.. She was built by Mr. James Lang, at Sunderland, in the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty-five. Her dimensions were, length 189.3 ft., breadth 27.1 ft., depth 14.95 ft. She was fitted with two inverted direct-acting engines of seventy horse power combined. She was a single-deck ship, with an open forecastle 4 ft. 6 in. high, a long bridge admidship 6 ft. 6 in. high, and a poop 3 ft. 6 in. high. Her engines were admidship, and cabin and crew space below the deck.
The bridge, which was re-built in 1882, had an iron watertight bulkhead on forepart, with a watertight door, also three others, the after one having two openings without doors. The engine room skylight and fidley grating were carried up to bridge deck. The fore-side of poop was also fitted with a watertight bulkhead, which was a continuation of the after watertight compartment dividing the cabin from after hold. Her iron bulwarks were 4 feet 6 inches high with four freeing ports on each side forward of the bridge, and three on each side aft, their dimensions being 2 feet by 1 foot 8 inches each. Her decks were of wood, with the exception of a portion under the bridge which was iron. She had four hatchways, three on forepart and one on the after part of deck with a bunker hatch on the bridge, the combings were of iron, from 15 to 18 inches above the deck. Hatches were constructed of planks three inches thick, supported by a beam and angle irons rivetted to combings, they were covered with tarpaulins secured by iron battens and cleats. The bunker hatch on bridge was secured in a similar manner. She was fitted with four watertight bulkheads, a collision bulkhead forward, one forward and aft of the engine and boiler space, and one at the after end of after hold, fitted with sluice valves, and water door from engine room into tunnel.
She had two ballast tanks, one running 20 feet forward from stoke-hole bulkhead, and the other from engine room bulkhead aft. The centre of load-line disc was marked 1 ft. 8 in. below the deck amidship. She was rigged as a schooner, carried three boats, namely, a life boat 22 ft. × 7 ft. × 1 ft, 9 in., another boat the same size, and a working boat 16 ft. × 5 ft. 6 in. × 1 ft. 4 in., the two large boats were stowed on chocks and hung in davits, the working boat was stowed on deck aft.
She had two compasses, one on the bridge and one on the quarter deck, made by Wolley and Company, and it was stated that she was swung for compass adjustment at Newport before leaving on her last voyage. She was owned by Messieurs Mawson and Goss, and others of Newport, Mr. Mawson being the managing owner since the year 1882. At the time of her purchase by them she was named the "Hartlepool" and was owned by Messieurs Short and Company, of Cardiff, the circumstances attending her sale being as follows:-
On the 18th of April 1882, at 8 p.m., she left the Alexandra Dock, Newport, but had not proceeded far when it was found that there was a defect in the main injection valve spindle. She accordingly put back and was moored on the east side of the river Usk, where she took the ground. When the tide left her she parted amidships. She was subsequently put up for sale by auction, and was purchased by Messieurs Mawson and Goss for 1,550l. as she lay. She was then raised and placed in Messieurs Mordey and Carney's dry dock, where she "underwent," or in the words of Mr. Mordey, "restoration," "very extensive repairs," under the supervision of the surveyor to Liverpool Lloyds, the sum of 5,000l. being spent upon her. The following repairs were carried out, viz.:-The midship section of plates and frames were taken out and renewed. New floors were put in, also new boiler and engine seating, ballast tank tops renewed, beams renewed, including the beams in the run of the hatchways. New decks throughout. Engines and boiler reseated and thoroughly overhauled. Large portion of the engine-room bulkheads renewed. Bunker sides renewed, and a new saddle back supplied. An entirely new bridge was constructed, adding, in the shipbuilders' opinion, considerably to the vessel's safety. Her bottom was cemented throughout, and she was doubled fore and aft. The rigging was overhauled, a new funnel and new fidley grating supplied. She was surveyed by Mr. Sedden, marine surveyor, of Cardiff, on behalf of the underwriters, and was classed at Liverpool Lloyds. In the opinion of Mr. Mordey the vessel's safety had been so much improved that the load line could have been raised to within 18 inches of the deck, in which opinion he avers he was supported by the Board of Trade officials; but Mr. Mawson, the managing owner, refused to have it altered. From the time these repairs were completed until the time of her sailing on her last voyage, the sum of 3,965l. 11s. 5d. has been spent upon her in repairs at. various times as they were needed, the most important repairs having been executed in 1884 after the vessel stranded at Port Talbot.
The stranding happened in the month of February of that year, the vessel sustaining considerable damage amidships, a considerable portion of her keel and bottom amidships underneath the boiler and in the way of the fore-hold having been started upwards considerably, portion of the keelson being broken, and many plates and girders fractured and bent.
The vessel was surveyed by Mr. Aisbitt, Marine Surveyor, of Cardiff, who made a full report, which was handed in to the Court.
The repairs were executed under the superintendence of Lloyd's surveyors by Messrs. Mordey, Carney, and Company, at Newport, and, according to the surveyor, the vessel was then put in a thoroughly seaworthy condition.
The repairs were completed at the end of March, and cost about 1,900l. She appears to have gone into dry dock on an average, "and to have been surveyed repeatedly after damage sustained," about three times a year, either in consequence of bad weather or accidents. In 1886 she was laid up at Newport for four or five months, her bottom having been previously examined, but no examination was made when she was again put into service before proceeding to sea. It appeared from the evidence that all necessary repairs were executed from time to time, from the time her last owners purchased her, up to the time of her loss, and, in the opinion of Mr. Mordey, she was quite seaworthy, and, considering her age, was in very good condition.
She seems to have traded regularly between the Bristol Channel ports and the French and Spanish Bay ports, principally between Newport and Bilbao, her cargoes generally being coal outwards and iron ore inwards, with a pitwood cargo occasionally. Her cargoes were usually of about 900 tons dead weight, the weight of her iron ore cargo exceeding those of coal. She took on board sufficient bunker coal at Newport to last her for the outward and inward voyages, the amount being from 90 to 95 tons, and on an ordinary voyage to Bilbao she would consume about 35 tons. The cargoes carried by her on her earlier voyages, since she has been owned by Messieurs Mawson and others, were considerably lighter than on her later voyages, being generally from 750 to 800 tons outwards, and between 800 and 850 tons homewards, while the later cargoes have frequently exceeded 900 tons homewards. Mr. Mawson's explanation of this was, that when the vessel first traded to Bilbao there was considerably less water over the bar at that port than there is now, and and that there has been a gradual deeping of the water over the bar in consequence of improvements carried out by the port authorities there. With regard to the difference in weight between the inward and outward cargoes the owners stated that that was caused by the homeward cargoes being heavier, bulk for bulk, than the outward cargoes.
The heaviest cargo carried by the vessel was in May 1885, when she carried a cargo of 944 tons of iron ore from Decido to Newport, which, with bunkers, would give her a dead weight of about 980 tons on board when she sailed from Decido. Such cargoes were undoubtedly much too heavy for such a vessel, her net register ton-age being but 360 tons, and there is very little doubt that on every voyage made by her, except when carrying pitwood, she was too deeply laden, although the centre of her disc, as placed, may not have been submerged.
With regard to the cargo put on board at Bilbao for the voyage upon which the vessel was lost, there was a conflict of evidence; the declaration of the manager of the company which shipped the cargo, stating that the cargo consisted of 873 tons of iron ore; while the quantity stated in the bill of lading was 911 tons. Whichever is the correct quantity, the vessel was loaded down to the centre of her disc.
A considerable amount of evidence was adduced as the depth to which the vessel was laden when she arrived on various occasions at Newport, several Board of Trade officers having been called who had seen her arrive from Bilbao laden with iron ore. They all spoke to having seen the centre of the disc awash, but neither of them considered her overladen, nor made any report concerning her. The dockmaster of Newport also gave evidence as to her trim on arrival, and he stated that he never saw her loaded below the centre of the disc, and that he saw nothing wrong with her, but she always looked deep.
The centre of the disc was placed at a distance from her main deck of 1 ft. 8 ins. It was given in evidence that it was in the same position before she was purchased by Messieurs Mawson and others. Mr. Mawson appears never to have had the vessel measured and her proper freeboard calculated; but to have taken it for granted that the position in which he found the low line was correct. It was, however, stated by Mr. Mordey that the position of the load line was discussed in 1882, and that he advised its being placed 2 inches nearer the deck. From that time no one seems to have troubled himself about the position of the load line, although she was being repeatedly surveyed for damage on and for behalf of insurance clubs, and noticed by the Board of Trade officials.
From evidence given before the Court, there can be no doubt that the load line was improperly placed, and that the vessel had not sufficient freeboard by several inches. There was a difference of opinion among the marine surveyors called as to the allowances to be made for the deck erections; but they were all agreed that the minimum freeboard for the vessel in winter in salt water should have been 2 ft. 1 1/2 ins., and in summer 2 ft., the Board of Trade alleging that the winter freeboard should have been 2 ft. 5 ins.
The calculations were made from plans of the vessel which the owner alleged might not have been accurate, and would not enable an exact calculation being made as to the round of beam, shear, &c., but Mr. Aisbitt stated that the plans were substantially accurate, but from the evidence it is clear that the load line was improperly placed, and that the vessel should have had a freeboard when she last left Bilbao of at least 2 ft. 1 1/2 in. The owner may not have been aware that the vessel had too little freeboard, but it was his duty to have had the freeboard authoritatively fixed before allowing the vessel to go to sea, instead of relying upon Mr. Mordey's opinion as to the position of the load line.
The vessel was constantly under the eye of the Board of Trade officials at Newport, and in their opinion, although down to the centre of the disc, the vessel was not overladen.' The dockmaster never saw her below the centre of the disc, and the evidence of those who saw the vessel leave Bilbao on her last voyage proves that she was not loaded below the centre of the disc. A former captain of the vessel was called to prove that he had made complaints to the owners that the vessel was overladen, but his evidence was so contradictory and of such an unreliable character that the Court was unable to place any reliance upon his statements.
On her last voyage from Newport to Bilbao the vessel took out 817 tons of coal, and 95 tons of bunker coal.
After discharging that cargo at Bilbao, she loaded at the stages of the Franco-Belge Company in the Bilbao river a cargo of 873 tons of iron ore, according to the certificate of the manager of the Franco-Belge Company, but according to the bill of lading which was put in evidence, and the invoice of the shippers of the cargo, the quantity was 911 tons. Upon the latter quantity the underwriters have paid the owners of the cargo for its loss. Her draught was 15 ft. 5 in. aft and 14 ft. 4 in. forward, and the centre of her disc was awash. She finished loading on the 26th day of March.
It is not certain what amount of bunker coal she had on board. It was, however, given in evidence that upon her leaving Newport for Bilbao she had 95 tons of bunkers on board, and allowing for a consumption of 35 tons on her outward voyage, there would have been 60 tons on board her when she left Bilbao.
She proceeded down the river at 1.30 p.m. on the 27th March in charge of a duly licensed pilot of the Port of Bilbao, named Zarandona. She was in command of Captain William Berry, who held a certificate of competency as master, No. 81,436. She had two mates, steward, two engineers, donkeyman, three firemen, and five seamen.
There were no passengers on board. The bar was crossed at 2.15 p.m. the same day. The pilot left her opposite Santurce, and the vessel proceeded to sea, the water being smooth with a southerly wind. The pilot did not observe the Plimsoll mark, but he says that the vessel was not overladen, and that she had the same draught as on a previous occasion when he took her to sea in 1885. In his opinion the cargo was perfectly well trimmed, the vessel had a good general appearance and was in good navigable condition at the time of her leaving port.
The only other evidence as to the trim of the vessel when she left Bilbao was that of J. W. T. Stephens, at that time third engineer of the s.s. "Advance."
He says that he was standing on the deck of his vessel and saw the "Caerau" going down the river, proceeding to sea. The master was on the bridge and the crew at work, and all appeared to be perfectly sober. He noticed that the disc was awash with the water. He considers that the vessel was in fair trim and was of good general appearance. At the time she left Bilbao she was insured as follows:-
Her hull and machinery for 3,000l., her freight for 300l., and her premium and disbursements for 650l., the latter sum diminishing at the rate of 1/12th every month. The total amount of the insurances being 3,950l., a sum, in the opinion of the managing owner, considerably below her value. Nothing certain is known of the vessel since the pilot left on the 27th of March, but a vessel said to answer her description was seen in the Bay of Biscay on the 28th and 29th from the steamship "Moliere." It appears that the "Moliere" left Decido for Newport on the afternoon of the 28th, the sea being then rough and blowing hard. From that time there was an increasing gale with heavy sea. At 9 o'clock, the second mate, A. A. Elliott, observed a steamer's light right astern, about 6 or 7 miles. At 10 o'clock it was blowing so hard, with such very heavy seas, that the "Moliere" rounded to the wind. At 12 the other steamer had also rounded to. At 8 on the morning of the 29th the other steamer was seen to suddenly fall off before a heavy sea, but came round again with head to wind. At 8.30 there was a tremendous sea with heavy squalls, at which time the chief mate came on deck and relieved Elliott. The other steamer was pointed out to the chief mate by Elliott, and was labouring very heavily, but was showing no signals of distress. She appeared to have fallen off into the trough of the sea, and in a heavy squall was lost sight of and seen no more. The position of the "Moliere" was then about 60 to 70 miles north by west of Decido. The steamer is described by Elliott as being schooner-rigged, painted black, and having a dark funnel.
Her forefoot appeared to have been newly painted, but the marks on her funnel could not be made out, as they were hidden by the spray. In the opinion of chief and second officer of the "Moliere" this steamer was the "Caerau."
A break down in her machinery, which the engineer's log shows was not an unusual event, would account for her not being further off the land at 9 p.m. on the 28th, when first sighted from the "Moliere," and considering the bad weather, and the fact that the "Caerau" was overladen, it is quite possible the steamer sighted by the "Moliere" labouring in the trough of the sea and eventually disappearing was the "Caerau."
It was suggested by the defence that the "Caerau" damaged her stem by running into the stern of the "Nentwater" on a previous voyage, and that this damage might have opened out in the bad weather of the 29th, and been the cause of her foundering-either case must remain conjectural, but the Court is of opinion that the first is the more probable solution of question 12 put by the Board of Trade solicitor for their opinion.
The following questions were submitted to the Court:-
1. Whether, when the vessel last left the United Kingdom, her hull, engines, boilers, and machinery were in good condition, and whether the hatchways, engine room openings, fidley gratings, ventilators, and all the deck openings, were properly covered and could be effectually secured in heavy weather?
2. Whether the boats and life-saving apparatus were sufficient and in good condition?
3. What was the cost of the vessel to her owner?
4. What was her value when she last left the United Kingdom; what were the insurances effected, and how were they apportioned?
5. What was the position of the disc, and in what circumstances was it allowed to remain in that position?
6. Whether the vessel carried bunker coal for out and home voyages, and what quantity?
7. Whether she imported heavier cargoes than she took outwards, and if so, the cause thereof?
8. Whether, looking at the particulars of the weights of cargoes furnished, the Court is of opinion that at the time of the loss of the vessel, and for a considerable period of time previously, it was the practice to overload her on her homeward voyages to England from Spain laden with iron ore?
9. Whether, having regard to the age of the vessel and the strength of her engine power, she was sufficiently strong to encounter the severe weather she was likely to meet in the Bay of Biscay on a winter voyage, and whether the engines were sufficient for the size of the vessel?
10. Whether the owner was aware of overloading, and whether he took any measures to prevent it?
11. Whether, when the vessel left Bilbao on the 27th March last she was overladen?
12. What is the cause of the vessel not having been heard of since she left that port?
13. Whether blame attaches to the owner?
The following answers were given to the foregoing questions:-
1. There is no evidence to show that when the vessel last left the United Kingdom her hull, engines, boilers, and machinery were not in good condition, and the hatchways, engine-room openings, fidley gratings, ventilators, and all the deck openings not properly covered, and could not be effectually secured in heavy weather.
2. The boats were sufficient, and it was stated that they were in good condition, but there was no evidence to show whether the ship was provided with any further life-saving apparatus.
3. The actual costs to the owner when she was ready to proceed to sea after her repair in 1882 was 6,550l., and an additional sum of 4,000l. has since been spent on her in repairs.
4. There is no evidence to show the value of the vessel when she last left the United Kingdom, but the owners stated that she was worth more than the sum for which she was insured. The hull and machinery were insured for 3,000l., the freight for 300l., and the insurance premiums and disbursements for 650l.
5. The disc was placed upon the side of the vessel, giving her a freeboard of 1 ft. 8 in., and there is no evidence to show that its position was altered.
6. The capacity of the bunkers was 95 tons, and it appears to have been customary to fill them at Newport for the outward and homeward voyages.
7. She systematically imported heavier cargoes than she took outwards, her homeward cargo being generally iron ore, and her outward cargo coal.
8. The Court is of opinion that at the time of the loss of the vessel, and for a considerable time previously, it was the practice to overload her with iron ore on her homeward voyages from Spain to England.
9. There is no evidence to show that the age of the vessel, or the strength of her engine power were not sufficient for a cargo vessel of her size fairly loaded and properly handled to safely encounter severe weather.
10. The Court is of opinion that the evidence adduced does not justify the conclusion that the owner was aware of the overloading.
11. Yes.
12. The vessel probably foundered at sea.
13. The managing owner, Mr. Mawson, in neglecting to use reasonable means to ensure the seaworthiness of the vessel by having the position of the load line authoritatively fixed, was guilty of a breach of duty, which, in the opinion of the Court is highly culpable, and for which breach the Court condemns him in the sum of one hundred pounds towards the costs of this inquiry.
(Signed)
T. W. LEWIS, Judge.
We concur.
(Signed)
HENRY KNOX,
Captain R.N.,
Z. B. DRAGE,
Assessors.
54010-47. 180.-6/88. Wt. 23. E. & S.
