Burns

Official No. 85197: Code Letters WMJD.

This case was heard at Westminster on the 30th of April 1884, when Mr. Muir Mackenzie appeared for the Board of Trade, Mr. Botterell for the owners, and Mr. Aspinall for the master of the "Burns." Four witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. Muir Mackenzie handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. Mr. Aspinall and Mr. Botterell then addressed the Court on behalf of their respective parties, and Mr. Muir Mackenzie having been heard in reply, the Court proceeded to give judgment on the questions on which its opinion had been asked. The circumstances of the case are as follow:—

The "Burns" was an iron screw steamship, belonging to the port of London, of 2,193 tons gross, and 1,425 tons net register, and was fitted with engines of 240 horse-power. She was built at Hartlepool in the year 1882, and at the time of her loss was the property of Mr. Septimus Jonathan Glover, of No. 88, Bishopgate Street, in the city of London, and others, Mr. Glover being the managing owner. She left the Tyne in the early part of July last under charter to proceed to Bushire and Bussorah in the Persian Gulf and back again for a lump sum of 8,250l.; and there was a clause that the charterers were to have the option of ordering the vessel to deviate from any port to any port. Having discharged her outward cargo, she took in a great part of her homeward cargo at Bussorah, and left on the 19th of September following; but when off Bushire her then master, Captain Clark, died, upon which the chief officer, Captain Turner, telegraphed to the owner, and was instructed to take the command of the vessel. She left Bushire on the 24th of September, and arrived at Aden on the 2nd of October; when, having received orders to proceed to Suakim, she left on the 5th for that place, having at the time on board a crew of 26 hands, and a cargo of 2,400 to 2,500 tons of general merchandize, and drawing 20 feet 6 forward and 20 feet 9 aft. Finding in the early morning of the 7th that he was nearing the reefs off Suakim, Captain Turner waited for daylight, and then proceeded, and at noon of that day they were in latitude 19° 7' north, and longitude 37° 45' east, upon which a N.W. by W. course was steered, which brought them close to a reef called Sha'b Touell which they left on the starboard, and then hauled the ship to the north. The sea being apparently open, they continued their course at full speed, making from 8 to 9 knots, the captain being on the bridge with the chart before him, and the chief officer and an able seaman aloft to look out for Suakim. At about 3 p.m. Suakim was sighted, bearing west southerly, upon which the vessel was put upon a N.W. by W. 1/2 W. course westerly to make the entrance to the harbour, and in about 20 minutes afterwards she struck suddenly upon a small reef, some 9 miles from the Outer Buoy, which is correctly laid down on the latest Admiralty Chart as having only 3 fathoms of water on it, but which is not on the chart that the master had, and by which he was navigating the vessel. Orders were at once given to back the engines, but finding after working them for half an hour that she did not come off, the captain sent to Suakim for assistance. There the vessel remained until the 10th, when she slipped off stern foremost into deep water, but in the mean time they had succeeded in saving some 400 to 500 tons of the cargo, and a letter was produced from Mr. Wylde, the agent to the owners of the cargo, speaking in high terms of the exertions of Captain Turner and the crew.

These being the facts of the case, I propose to take the first and second questions together; they are as follow:—

"1. When the 'Burns' left Bussorah was she supplied with proper and sufficient charts and sailing directions, corrected up to date of the sailing of the ship, for a voyage from Aden to Suakim?" and "2. Was the reef on which the vessel stranded properly marked upon the Admiralty chart?" The only chart which the master had of these waters was one of Laurie's charts, dated 1882, and upon which the reef on which the vessel struck is certainly not marked; whereas on the Admiralty chart, which I have before me, and which is corrected down to March in the present year, that reef is clearly laid down. It cannot therefore be said that the charts which he had were either proper or sufficient; but whether any one, and if so who is to blame for this, will be a matter for after consideration.

The next question which we are asked is, "If the vessel was not supplied with proper and sufficient charts and sailing directions for the voyage aforesaid; (a) was the owner under the circumstances justified in permitting the vessel to proceed on her voyage under the charter party without taking steps to have her properly supplied with sufficient charts and sailing directions corrected up to the date of the sailing of the ship; (b) was the master under the circumstances justified in proceeding from Aden to Suakim without having succeeded in obtaining further charts in addition to those with which he was already supplied." Now our attention has been called to a notice issued by the Board of Trade, and which we are told is printed on all the official log books, to the effect that owners and their servants or agents are to see that the vessel is supplied with proper charts corrected down to the time of sailing; and it may be well therefore to see what steps were taken by Mr. Glover to insure her having proper charts corrected down to the time of sailing. He has told us that it is their practice to inform the captain of the nature of the voyage on which the vessel is bound, and then to leave it to him to order what charts he thinks proper, sending the bill in to them to be paid; and it appears to us that this is a very proper and a very reasonable way of securing that the ship shall be supplied with the best charts, for there is a good deal in what was said by Mr. Botterell, that if the captain was a fit person to be entrusted with the navigation of so large a ship, he might safely be trusted to select the charts necessary for the voyage. But it is quite clear that the chart which Captain Clark had when he left this country in July last was not a proper chart, and that it had not the latest corrections down to the time of his sailing. The chart which he had was one of Laurie's charts, which the assessors tell me are much used in the merchant service, and are ordinarily very correct. As a fact, however, this chart, which bore date 1882, does not shew the small reef on which the vessel struck, whereas the last Admiralty chart does; but then the Admiralty chart is corrected down to March in the present year, and non constat that the laying down of this reef may have been one of the corrections which were made at that time; at all events there is nothing to shew that it was not, and if so, the chart which Captain Clark had may have contained the latest corrections to that time, and even if he had provided himself with the latest Admiralty chart of these waters when he left this country it might not any more than his own chart have indicated the presence of this reef. But be this as it may, it appears to us that the owner, by leaving to the master the selection of the proper charts for the voyage without any restriction, and by paying for whatever the master orders, takes all reasonable precautions to insure her being supplied with the best possible charts. As to Captain Turner, he had nothing to do with the selection of the charts when the vessel left this country, being then only chief officer; and when on the death of Captain Clark he assumed the command, he could only have the charts which were then on board. He told us that when he received orders from the charterers to go to Suakim, he applied to the masters of two or three ships which were lying at Aden to know if they could supply him with a chart of that port on an enlarged scale, but he could not get one. By the terms of the charter party the charterers had "the option of ordering the vessel to deviate from any port to any port," the master therefore, when ordered by the charterers to go to Suakim, had the choice either of waiting at Aden until he could get a chart on an enlarged scale, which might have involved the owners in enormous expenses, and possibly have been attended with great inconvenience and loss to the charterers, or of going on with the chart he had. He had no reason to doubt the accuracy of the chart he had, and we think therefore that he was fully justified in going on to Suakim.

The fourth question which we are asked is, "Having regard to the circumstance that the vessel was not sufficiently supplied with charts, was she, when she left Aden bound for Suakim, seaworthy?" The vessel was built in the year 1882, and was to all appearance a first class vessel, being classed 100 A 1 at Lloyd's, and we have no reason to think that she was not perfectly seaworthy. The fact that she had not the latest corrected Admiralty, chart of the Suakim waters would not in the ordinary acceptation of the term make her an unseaworthy ship; we might say that she was not sufficiently equipped in this respect, but not that she was unseaworthy.

The fifth question that we are asked is, "What was the position of the vessel at noon on the 7th of October?" The captain has told us that she was then in latitude 19° 7' north and longitude 37° 45' east, and we have no reason to think that that was not her position at that time.

The sixth question which we are asked is, "Was a save and proper course steered from the position in which the vessel was at noon on the 7th of October?" The course steered from there was N.W. by W., which took her very near to but quite clear of the Sha'b Touell, which was a very proper course for her to take in order to enter Suakim.

The seventh question which we are asked is, "Was a safe and proper alteration made in the course upon approaching Suakim; and was a good and proper look out kept?" If this little reef on which the vessel struck had not been there (and the master could have no reason to think that it was), the course steered would have been a very proper one to make the entrance to Suakim; and there can be no doubt that a good and proper look out was kept, the chief officer being on the cross trees and a man on the topsail yard.

The eighth question which we are asked is, "What was the cause of the stranding of the vessel" The cause of the casualty was that the master, who had never before been to Suakim, was ignorant of the existence of this rock, and that it was not laid down on the chart which he had.

The ninth question which we are asked is, "Was the vessel navigated with proper and seamanlike care?" In our opinion she was. The master, on finding that he was nearing the reefs off Suakim, very properly waited till daylight, and from that time he has told us that he remained on the upper bridge with the chart before him; and when he got nearer in the chief officer and an able seaman were sent aloft to keep a look out. He was midway between the two long reefs which guard the entrance to the harbour, and had it not been for this little rock in the centre, and of which he could have no knowledge, he would in all probability have gone in quite safely. There is no reason to think that the vessel was not navigated with the greatest care and skill.

The tenth question which we are asked is, "Does any blame attach to the master in respect of the casualty?" in our opinion no blame attaches to Captain Turner; if blame attaches to anybody, it could only be to the late master for not supplying himself with the latest corrected chart of the place previous to his departure from this country. At the same time we are not satisfied that the chart with which he did supply himself had not at that time the latest corrections. I should add that Suakim, as Mr. Muir Mackenzie very justly observed, could hardly have been within the reasonable contemplation of the owners when the vessel left this country in July last. It is a small place, which has derived its importance mainly from the military operations that have been recently undertaken from it as a base, but which were not in contemplation when the vessel sailed and until long after. Neither the owners nor the captain could therefore anticipate that the vessel would be ordered there by the charterers, so that there was no pressing necessity to supply her with charts of that place on an enlarged scale. In our opinion no blame attaches even to Captain Clark.

The last question which we are asked is, "Whether any blame attaches to the owners in respect of the casualty?" In our opinion no blame attaches to them; they took all reasonable precautions to insure that the vessel should be supplied with all proper charts by giving the master carte blanche to buy what he required and to charge them to the owners. I would only further observe that Mr. Glover has to our very great regret declined, under the advice of his solicitor, to answer the questions which were put to him by the learned counsel for the Board of Trade as to what the vessel had cost him and for what amount she was insured. It was said by Mr. Botterell that the questions were not relevant to this inquiry, although he admitted that there might be cases in which they would be. I ruled however, as I have done in other cases, that the questions were very proper ones, and that Mr. Glover was bound to answer them, for it was impossible for the Court to say in any case whether the questions are or are not relevant until it has heard the answers. Counsel for the Board of Trade however did not press the matter and the questions were therefore not answered. I can only say that I am sorry, not only on Mr. Glover's account, but also on general grounds, that they were not. I venture to think that he was ill advised.

The Court was not asked to deal with the certificates of the master or the officers, or to make any order as to costs.

The three Glover Brothers became ship owners in 1865 when they purchased the barque W. E. Gladstone. S.J. Glover purchased his first steamer in 1872 and registered it and another four in West Hartlepool. He also had shares in other ships. Septimus joined his brothers and the company became Glover Brothers and Co. The business was transferred to London and continued until 1936 when their last two ships were sold.

Family History:

Septimus Jonathan Glover was born on 21 February 1834 at South Shields. He married Elizabeth Ann Briggs in April 1858 at Stockton-on-Tees.  By 1861 the couple were living at Seaton Carew with their two daughters. Septimus was listed in the census as a bookkeeper to a coal company.  By 1871 they were living at Stranton with their three daughters and four sons. By 1881 the family had moved to Aberdeen Park, Highbury, Middlesex with Septimus now a shipbroker. He died on 2 August 1908 at Aberdeen Park aged 74 leaving effects of £118,630.