Messina - wreck report

"NUMIDA" (S.S.) and

"Messina" (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the Formal Investigation held at Westminster, on the 8th and 9th days of June 1885, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Vice-Admiral POWELL and Captains RONALDSON and KENNEDY, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the damage sustained by the steamship "NUMIDA," of London, through collision with the German steamship "MESSINA" in the English Channel on the 14th of May last, and which caused the "MESSINA" to founder with 10 of her crew.

Report of Court.

The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons annexed, that the said collision was due to the "Messina" not having kept out of the way of the "Numida," as it was her duty to do, and to her not having stopped and reversed her engines when there was risk of collision, as required by Seetions 16 and 18 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea.

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

Dated this 9th day of June 1885.

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

(Signed)

R. ASHMORE POWELL,

A. RONALDSON,

Assessors.

H. C. KENNEDY,

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Westminster on the 8th and 9th days of June instant, when Mr. Kenelm Digby appeared for the Board of Trade, Mr. Webster, Q.C., and Mr. Aspinall for the owners, master, and officers of the "Numida," and Sir Walter Phillimore, Q C., and Dr. Stubbs for the owners of the "Messina." Ten witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. Kenelm Digby handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. Mr. Aspinall having then produced a witness, Dr. Stubbs and Mr. Aspinall addressed the Court on behalf of their respective parties, and Mr. Kenelm Digby having replied for the Board of Trade, the Court proceeded to give judgment on the questions upon which its opinion had been asked.

The case of the "Messina" is as follows:-She was an iron screw steamship, of from 1,100 to 1,200 tons gross and 722 tons net register, with engines of 150 horsepower, and at the time of her loss was the property of Mr. Sloman, of Hamburgh. She left Lisbon on the 10th of May last, with a crew of 22 hands all told, one passenger, and a cargo of about 1,200 tons, bound to Hamburgh; and at about 9 p.m. of the 14th of the same month she was in the English Channel, St. Catherine's Point bearing N.E., distant about 20 miles, and was proceeding at full speed, making 8 1/2 knots, and heading E.N.E., the weather being fine and clear, the sea smooth, with a moderate breeze from the northward. At this time the master, who was on deck, retired into the chart-room to lie down, leaving the deck in charge of the chief officer, whose watch consisted of 3 A.B.'s and a boatswain. The vessel continued her course, and soon after 10 the light on Durlston Head was seen some 5 or 6 points on the port bow, and shortly afterwards the mast-head light of a vessel, which proved to be the "Numida," was observed about 2 1/2 points on the starboard bow. Scon afterwards, we are told, the green light came in view, bearing about 2 points on the starboard bow; then the green light disappeared and the red light appeared, upon which the mate at once ordered the helm to be ported, which brought the red light a little on his port bow. At this moment the red light, it is said, disappeared and the green light again appeared, upon which the mate ordered the helm to be put hard-a-port, and almost immediately afterwards the "Numida" came into her, and striking her about 30 feet from the stern, cut some 10 or 12 feet into her, causing her to sink in about two or three minutes afterwards. Whilst the two vessels were in collision 8 of the crew succeeded in clambering over the bows of the "Numida," whilst 5 of the others, including the master and the passenger, jumped into the sea and were subsequently rescued, but the other ten perished.

The ease of the "Numida" is as follows:-She is an iron screw steamship, belonging to the Port of London, of 2,544 tons gross, and 1,647 tons net register, and is fitted with engines of 250 horse-power. She was built at Sunderland in the year 1884, and at the time of the casualty, was the property of Mr. Gilbert Porteous, of No. 4, Great St. Helen's, in the City of London, and others, Mr. Gilbert Porteous being the managing owner. She left London at about midnight of the 13th of May last, with a crew of 25 hands all told, the captain's wife, and a cargo of about 1,800 tons, bound to New York; and at about a quarter to 8 o'clock p.m., of the 14th was off St. Catherine's Point, distant from 16 to 17 miles. The weather, we are told, was fine and clear, the sea smooth, and the wind blowing a moderate breeze from the N.W.; and the vessel was proceeding at full speed, making from 9 to 9 1/2 knots, and heading about W. by N. by compass, or W. 3/4 N. magnetic. At this time the master went to the cabin to lie down, leaving the deck in charge of the chief officer and his watch, and the vessel continued her course until about 10.20, when the mast-head light of a steamer, which afterwards proved to be the "Messina," was observed from 1 to 2 points on the port bow. In about 10 minutes afterwards the green light came in sight, apparently drawing ahead, and in about 15 minutes more it had got about half a point upon their starboard bow, upon which the mate ordered the man at the wheel to give her two or three spokes of the starboard helm to prevent the red light coming in view again. This was accordingly done, but all of a sudden the green light was shut in, and the red light appeared, upon which the mate ordered the helm to be put hard-a-port, and the engines to be reversed full speed, which was done, but too late to avoid a collision, for the "Numida" struck the "Messina" in the way already described, causing her to sink in the course of between two and three minutes. The engines of the "Numida" were then stopped, and she remained on the spot until daylight, when a great quantity of wreckage was seen, but no trace of any more of the "Messina's" crew. In the meantime it had been discovered that the "Numida's" bows had been stove in by the collision, that there was a hole in each bow, and that the fore peak was full of water: accordingly a sail having been put over the bows, she steamed towards Cowes, where she landed the survivors from the "Messina," and then proceeded to Southampton, where, we are told, she has since been undergoing repairs.

It is said, and with truth, that both these stories cannot be true; for if the course of the "Messina" was E.N.E., and that of the "Numida" W. 3/4 N., and the "Messina" first sighted the "Numida" 2 1/2 points on her starboard bow, whilst the "Numida" first sighted the "Messina" between 1 and 2 points on her port bow, and they both continued their respective courses until the coloured lights came in view, it is impossible that the green light of the "Numida" could have been seen from the "Messina," until after the latter vessel had passed the point of intersection of their courses, and thus got upon the "Numida's" starboard bow. Again, if, as the mate of the "Messina" says, he first saw the "Numida's" green light, then shortly afterwards her red light, and shortly afterwards her green light again, the "Numida" must first have starboarded so as to bring the green light in view, then ported and brought the red light in view, and then starboarded again and brought the green light in view, whereas she says that she never starboarded until the green light of the "Messina" was on her starboard bow, and then only slightly and merely to prevent her red light shewing, and that she never ported at all, until after the "Messina" had done so, and had brought her red light in view on their starboard bow. The two stories are therefore quite inconsistent with one another, and what we have to do is to see which of them is the more worthy of credit.

Now, I think that there can be no doubt that, when the two vessels first sighted one another, the "Messina," which was coming from the southward, was on an E.N.E. course, trying to make St. Catherine's Point, and that she first sighted the "Numida's" light about 2 1/2 points on her starboard bow. On the other hand, the "Numida," which was bound down Channel to the westward, was no doubt steering the usual course W. 3/4 N., and first sighted the "Messina" light about 1 to 2 points on her port bow. They were, in fact, crossing vessels the "Messina" having the "Numida" on her own starboard side, and shewing her green light to the "Numida's" red light; and it was, therefore, the duty of the "Messina," under the 16th Article of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, to keep out of the way of the "Numida." Now the reason which she gives for not doing so, is that, when she had got on to the "Numida's" starboard bow, and was going clear, green light to green light, the "Numida" suddenly ported her helm, and brought her red light into view, thus bringing about a collision. It should be observed, however, that the case of the "Messina" rests solely on the evidence of the mate that he first saw the "Numida's" green light and then her red light, and that it was then and then only that he ported his helm; whereas we were told by the boatswain from the "Messina" that, when the order was given by the mate to port the "Messina's" helm, the green light of the "Numida" was 2 points on their starboard bow, and if he did so, that would clearly be wrong. But it will perhaps be asked, how is it likely that the "Messina" could have done so improper an act as to port for a green light on her starboard bow, and the explanation is, I think, not far to seek. The mate of the "Messina" told us that, according to his view of the 16th Article of the Regulations, it would be his duty to port his helm if he saw a red light anywhere within 6 points of his starboard bow. It is also clear from his evidence that there was no great time from his seeing the green light until he saw first the red light, and then the green light again. There is then but one way in which the collision can be explained. The two vessels were, as I have said, approaching one another, the "Messina" being on an E.N.E. course, the "Numida" on a W. 3/4 N. course; the "Messina" had the "Numida" 2 1/2 points on her starboard bow, whilst the "Numida" had the "Messina" between 1 and 2 points on her port bow; they were consequently crossing vessels, the "Messina" having the "Numida" on her own starboard side. Now we were told that at about the time when they first saw the "Numida's" masthead light, the light on Durlstone Head was observed, bearing some 5 or 6 points on the "Messina's" port bow; and as the mate had orders to call the master when that light came in view, it is probable that his attention was at the time more directed towards that light than to making out the lights of the "Numida." What then probably happened was this; the "Messina" continued her course until she had nearly reached the point of intersection of the courses, when the mate observed the red light of the "Numida," and being under the impression that it was his duty to port his helm to a red light on his starboard bow, if it was within 6 points of the bow, he ported his helm; but before the vessel had had time to come round, he had passed the point of intersection of the courses, and brought the "Numida's" green light into view; at the same time the porting of the "Messina's" helm had brought her red light in view of the "Numida," and although the latter immediately ported her helm and stopped and reversed full speed, the vessels were too close to one another to allow them to go clear. The evidence from the "Numida" is entirely consistent with this view of the case, for they tell us that they kept their course, as they were bound to do, until the green light of the "Messina" was on their starboard bow, when the mate of the "Numida" ordered the man at the helm to give her two or three spokes of the wheel to starboard so as to prevent the red light from again coming in view, and that it was not until after the "Messina" had ported and brought her red light into view that the helm of the "Numida" was ported in the hope of clearing her. An attempt was made to discredit the evidence of the look-out man and the man at the helm of the "Numida" by a reference to the depositions which they had made before the Receiver of Wrecks at Southampton very shortly after the collision. Svensson the look-out man, told us that he saw the mast-head light of the "Messina" on their port bow, and that it drew ahead until it got on to their starboard bow, and that then he saw the red light crossing from their starboard to their port bow, and that the collision took place immediately afterwards. In his deposition before the Receiver he said that, after seeing the mast head light, he saw the red light on the port bow, and that he thought she was going to pass them to starboard, but that she suddenly ported her helm and brought about the collision; the statement as it stands is utterly unintelligible. Again Stjemman, the man at the wheel, told us that the mate had given him an order to starboard the helm, when the "Messina's" light had got on their starboard bow, and that he had starboarded a couple of spokes, when he got the order to hard-a-port. In his deposition before the Receiver he said that, after seeing the "Messina's" light on his port bow, he got an order from the mate to starboard a bit, and then, when the light had got on the starboard bow, he got the order to starboard a little more. The statements undoubtedly are not quite consistent, but then it must be observed that both these men were Swedes or Norwegians, and that the evidence at Southampton was taken down by the Receiver through the interpretation of a Danish gentleman from Elsinore. It may well be therefore that what they intended to say may not have been correctly taken down; for the way in which they gave their evidence before us satisfies us that they were telling us the truth.

This being the view, which we take of this case, we shall now have no difficulty in answering the questions, which have been submitted to us by the Board of Trade.

The first question then which we are asked is, "Whether the 'Messina' duly complied with Article 16 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea?" And our answer to this question is that the two vessels being crossing vessels, and the "Messina" having the "Numida" on her own starboard side, the onus was upon her to keep out of the way, that she did not do so, and that she has not shewn to our satisfaction that she was justified in not complying with this Article of the Regulations.

The second question which we are asked is, "Whether " the 'Messina' duly complied with Article 18 of the " said Regulations?" That Article provides that " every steamship, when approaching another ship " so as to involve risk of collision, shall slacken her " speed, or stop and reverse if necessary?" it is admitted that from first to last the engines of the "Messina" were never eased at all, but that she continued going at full speed until the collision. It is clear from the directions in which these two vessels were approaching one another, that there was risk of collision, and it was consequently the duty of the "Messina," in accordance with the provision of the 18th Article, to stop and reverse, if necessary; and that she did not do.

The third question which we are asked is, "Whether " the 'Numida' complied with the said Articles 16 " and 18?" In our opinion she did. She kept her course, as it was her duty to do, until the "Messina" suddenly ported her helm, crossing her bows from starboard to port, and thus rendering a collision imminent, upon which the "Numida" at once ported her helm, and stopped and reversed full speed. The assessors are also of opinion that the two or three spokes of starboard helm, which the mate of the "Numida" gave her as soon as the "Messina's green light was brought upon his starboard bow, was a very proper precaution to prevent her again shewing her red light, and was not a departure from the Rules.

The fourth question which we are asked is, "Whether " a good and proper look out was kept on board both " or either of the vessels?" In our opinion a good and proper look out was kept on board the "Numida;" as regards the "Messina," although the mast-head light of the "Numida" was reported in sufficient time, we are disposed to think that the mate of the "Messina" could not have been paying that attention to her which he should have done, otherwise he would probably have taken measures at an earlier period to have kept out of the way, as it was his duty to have done.

The fifth question which we are asked is, "Whether, " and in what respects, both or either of the said " vessels was in default?" in our opinion the "Messina" was alone to blame for not having kept out of the way, and for not having stopped and reversed her engines, as it was her duty to do.

The sixth question which we are asked is, "Whether " every possible effort was made by the master and " crew of the 'Numida' to save life?" It is not denied that every possible effort was made by those on board the "Numida" to save life.

The seventh question which we are asked is, "Whe- " ther the master and chief officer of the 'Numida' " are, or either of them is, in default in respect of the " said collision?" In our opinion neither the master nor the chief officer of the "Numida" are in any way to blame for the casualty.

The eighth question which we are asked is, "What " was the cause of the casualty?" The casualty was, no doubt, due to the "Messina" having continued her course when it was her duty to give way, until she had crossed the course of the "Numida" and got on to her starboard bow, and to her having then improperly ported her helm, and thus brought about the collision.

Lastly, it is asked "That the certificate of the chief " officer of the 'Numida' should be dealt with." The application is made rather as a matter of form than otherwise; and as, in our opinion, the "Numida" was not in any way to blame for this casualty, we shall certainly not deal with the chief officer's certificate.

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

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.


(Signed)

R. ASHMORE POWELL,

A. RONALDSON,

Assessors.

H. C. KENNEDY,

Related items :