KILPATRICK v. HUDDART, PARKER & CO., LTD.
Fifth Day, Monday, February 18, 1895.
Evidence for the Defendants.—(Continued.)
William Francis Deary, examined by Mr. Purves, stated: I am inspector of shipping, and nautical surveyor to the Victorian Marine Board; also shipwright surveyor. I thoroughly understand the nature of a shipwright surveyor’s work. I went to sea in 1872, and I have had experience since that time in shipping. Apart from my official standing, I am a master mariner, and I have had the command of ships since 1883, until I took up my present position about five years ago. I knew the steamshipAlertfor ten or twelve years. In my official capacity I have known her nearly five years. During that time I had opportunities of surveying her, and I have surveyed her critically. I remember a change in her equipment being made when she went to take up the running of the S. S.Despatchin the Gippsland Lakes’ trade. Generally the changes made were in the nature of life buoys and life boats. I know hermachinery was altered. Subsequently to those alterations I surveyed her on November 11, 1893, and gave a declaration upon which a certificate was issued. (Shipwright surveyor’s declaration concerning S. S.Alert, and dated November 4, 1893, was here handed in and marked as an exhibit.) I carefully examined theAlerton the date specified in my declaration, and in all respects the requirements of the Act were fulfilled. Having regard to the projected voyage, namely within the limits of the home trade, all apertures, and skylights, and places of that kind which would require protection were sufficiently protected. In my opinion theAlertwas one of the most sea-worthy ships afloat. I knew her lines, her tonnage, and her dimensions. I knew Captain Mathieson, and always considered him a competent navigator. The vessel had a good crew. There was nothing omitted in the case of theAlertwhich was done in the case of any other steamers licensed by me.
THE PANTRY WINDOW.
THE PANTRY WINDOW.
THE PANTRY WINDOW.
Cross-examined by Mr. Smyth: Exhibit No. 10 now handed in is a certificate granted by the Marine Board, based on my declaration and that of Mr. McLean. He is engineering surveyor to the Marine Board, and has the machinery and the whole of the iron-work in his department. I have the whole of the wood-work and the deck-work. In my declaration two life-boats are described as being in good order on theAlert. If it is said there was only one life-boat and a dingy, then I say it is false. One boat was slung in the starboard davits on the foreside of the bridge, and the other on top of the engine room skylight. There was a difference in their size. One was twenty feet long, and the other fourteen feet. The fourteen-foot boat was not whale-boat form, and some people might call it a dingy. There was cork padding in both boats. The top of the skylight is a very fit place for a life-boat. It would not make the vessel top heavy. In a small ship like theAlert, it is hard to find a place to carry a boat, and you have to do the best you can. She had not two life-boats when in the Bay. They were not required in the Bay traffic. She had boats then but not life-boats. I was appointed shipwright surveyor when the retrenchment business began, nearly two years ago. I am not a shipwright. I did not want the assistance of a practical shipwright surveyor in the case of theAlert.I am perfectly practical enough to carry on that work. I know there is a rule to the effect that iron gratings over stoke-holes must be protected with iron plates fitted with hinges, or otherwise, in a manner satisfactory to Lloyd’s surveyors. On theAlertthe protection consisted of canvas covers, which were kept ready on board for immediate use. They were not tarpaulins, but just ordinary canvas. I think they were brought out for me to see. There were no cleats to fasten them down, but they could easily be lashed down to ring bolts on the deck. The canvas might in time tear away from the grating—say in about three years. The wooden awning was put on a few years ago for the Bay trade.
Q.—How was the pantry window protected?A.—It could easily be protected.
Q.—That is not answering my question. How was the glass window protected?A.—The glass was the protection, and if necessary a piece of canvas could easily have been placed over it. The aperture was about sixteen inches by fourteen inches, and we did not think it was a source of danger, that is why it was not further protected. I was in the service of Huddart, Parker & Co. some years ago. I was second mate, mate and master in various of their vessels. I was appointed to the Marine Board in March, 1890, about five years after leaving Huddart, Parker & Co. I know Captain Webb. He was managing director of Huddart, Parker and Co. up to a short time ago. He is a member of the Marine Board. Mr. Ernest Parker of Huddart, Parker & Co. is also a member of the Marine Board. I never in my life designed a ship. A shipwright surveyor ought to have a knowledge of designing ships. I never had that knowledge. I knew the covers to theAlert’scoal bunkers. They were iron, kept on by their own weight. If necessity demanded it there was no trouble in putting four battens and a piece of canvas over them. When making my declaration I was perfectly satisfied that these bunker lids were quite sufficient held down by their own weight.
Re-examined by Mr. Purves: According to the evidence given, theAlertwas kept away, and I say that before she was kept away all the places that required covering should have been seen to. Supposing there was a drop of water about the deck, there would have been no difficulty in making everything secure. The lids to the bunker holes would weigh about fifty to sixty pounds each.
Re-cross-examined by Mr. Smyth: The bunker lidswere about ¾ of an inch in thickness. They might not have weighed more than forty to fifty pounds, and they may have been an inch thick for all I know.
Charles William McLean, examined by Mr. Purves, stated: I am engineering surveyor to the Marine Board of Victoria, and have occupied that position since the inception of the present Board, and previously I was under the Steam Navigation Board—ten years altogether. Prior to that I was assistant resident engineer to the Melbourne Harbour Trust. I have been as engineer on steamers trading here on the coast, and hold a certificate as first class sea-going engineer. I am a member of the Institute of Civil Engineers in London. I have been engaged in supervising and designing the actual construction of vessels. I knew theAlert, and saw her very frequently. I saw her in December, 1892, when the boilers were out. A change was then being made in her machinery. I made a thorough examination of the position of the old machinery, and also of the hull from stem to stern, both internal and external. I always considered her sea-worthy. She was much fuller below the water than she appeared to be above water. The water displaced by the vessel when loaded down—without any cargo, but with everything ready for sea—would weigh about 312 tons. Comparing that with the surplus buoyancy—which is the amount the water would weigh if all the spaces above water were filled—it was very good. The surplus buoyancy was about 400 tons, being rather more than the displacement. That means that there was a very fair amount of surplus buoyancy. I actedon behalf of the Marine Board in examining theAlert, and I gave a declaration to the secretary of that Board. TheAlertwas then plying in the Bay for a short time after. I next saw her between the 2nd and 4th November, 1893, when it was proposed to send her down to the Gippsland trade in place of theDespatchwhich had to be laid up to get new engines. The owners desired a home trade certificate for theAlertto go outside the Heads. The new machinery had been placed higher up than the old, and it was thought in doing that that every provision had been made for outside work. The new machinery did not alter the main freeboard at all, but raised the ship about five inches aft. I was perfectly satisfied that the engine room protection was quite the thing, the very best that was made, and as a result of the examination I gave the certificate. I remember the pantry window referred to. It was about two feet three inches above the level of the main deck. It was fastened by two ordinary bolts running into catches, and was quite safe.
His Honour:Q.—Do you say that under those circumstances that window would be as safe as a port?A.—I think so from the way it was made. I certainly think it was not as dangerous as a port, because the ports are always below the main deck. Nothing more than broken water could reach the pantry window.
To Mr. Purves.—I recollect the stoke-hole grating, it was eight feet wide from door to door, and about three feet six inches fore and aft. Nothing more than broken water could get in through that grating. An occasional sea would perhaps pass over, but no solid water wouldget in there until the vessel would be over on her beam ends. There would be no difficulty in putting canvas covers on. The bunker lids were of a very ordinary type. I never knew of one to lift off yet. I can name numbers of vessels that have the same lids as theAlerthad. I don’t think there is anything in the suggestion that the wooden awning rendered the ship unfit to go to sea. When the awning is lying over at an angle of 45 degrees, the wind would get below it, and the vessel would be lifted up. Buoyancy would be the resulting tendency. In my opinion theAlertwas a stable ship, and her stability was added to by the alterations to the engine room. Her machinery including everything would weigh about 105 tons. In addition, she had two ballast tanks, one of these right foreward in the fore peak would hold fifteen tons of water, and would be most suitable for anyone desiring to trim the ship. She was a long vessel, but her proportions were not unusually long. The declaration given under the Marine Act meant that she was right without cargo. We have always to assume they may go out without any cargo. Of course cargo improves the vessel’s stability, but we have always to look at the worst side.
Cross-examined by Mr. Smyth. I say the vessel was sufficiently stable for ocean-going purposes without any cargo at all. Included in the one hundred and five tons I spoke of, I allowed for coal twenty tons, water fifteen tons, weight of boiler thirteen tons, weight of engines twenty-six and a half tons, shafting six tons, and additions to engine room seven and a half tons. Then there were four tons of chain cable in her bottom. If bothtanks were filled, they would hold twenty tons water ballast. I never was master of a vessel. I was at sea as engineer only, for about three years. I am accustomed to calculate the stability of ships, and that is why I am able to say this vessel was capable of going out on the ocean without any cargo. If a number of experienced men say that forty-four tons of cargo was not sufficient for theAlert, I would contradict them. Such men know nothing of stability. I gave evidence before the Marine Board enquiry, as I do to-day, that the boat was perfectly sea-worthy.
Q.—Do you remember that the Marine Court found, after you gave your evidence, that she was not sufficiently stable?A.—No, I do not remember that. (Mr. Purves here objected the Marine Court did not find that theAlerthad not sufficient stability.)
Mr. Smythto witness: This is what the court found. “In view of the vessel’s construction and the manner in which laden on her last voyage, having only about forty-four tons of cargo, theAlert, in the opinion of the court, had not sufficient stability.”
Q.—Will you now say that after you gave your evidence the Marine Court did not find she had insufficient stability?A.—I don’t know what they meant, but that was their finding I believe. Their finding may have been due to the cargo; if it was not of the kind to add stability, the vessel would be still more unstable with cargo than without. For all I know the cargo may have been built too high, or been all on one side. I am not prepared to say that the cargo was the cause of making the vessel unstable on this occasion. Thealterations to the engines made her more stable than before. Portions of the new machinery did come higher above the deck than before the alterations, three feet perhaps. The difference in weight between the old machinery and the new would be about six tons. An iron plate outside the window would have made it strong as the bulk-head. I do not think it was one of my duties to see about the pantry window. It was not considered dangerous. I knew it was there, and took it into consideration when the vessel was getting overhauled in February, 1893. The certificate I gave then was for the Bay trade. When giving the certificate to go outside, in November, 1893, I don’t think I did consider on that particular occasion whether the window was safe or not. From memory I fix its height above the main deck at two feet six inches. It was like the window in theExcelsior.I have not passed theExcelsioras a sea-going vessel. She is a Bay trade boat, and will require a lot of alterations before I pass her for the sea. TheAlertwas thoroughly overhauled in February, 1893, and in November of the same year I simply surveyed her for giving a certificate to go outside.
Q.—How long were you over this November survey?A.—I don’t remember the time; I will say two hours.
Q.—Mr. Johnson signed the certificate with you. Was he with you at this survey?A.—No, he was not, but I knew what he did. He examined the vessel concerning her steam.
Q.—He was there to make this examination and to give that certificate, but he was not with you?A.—That is so; he was there at other times.
Q.—We have evidence that the water went down the gratings, and that in consequence the fires got low, and the men connected with the engines came up from below to put on their life-belts. Was that not on account of the water going down the stoke-hole?A.—The water was going somewhere. The doors must have been left open. It did not go down the gratings that I know of.
Q.—Assuming that the water went down the gratings, would that be an element of danger.A.—Yes, it would.
Q.—And there being no protection, you gave a certificate to go outside the Heads?A.—Yes; the grating of the S. S.Dawnis the same.
Q.—Has not theDawna very much larger freeboard?A.—I don’t know.
Q.—Do you know the dimensions of theDawn?A.—Yes, she is one hundred and fifty-four feet long, twenty-four feet beam, and eighteen feet in depth. She is not the same class of vessel as theAlert.
Q.—Then why did you compare the two vessels?A.—I only referred to the gratings.
Re-examined by Mr. Mitchell: The new engines and boilers of theAlertwere six or seven tons lighter than the previous ones, but the difference was made up to be nearly equal by additions to the vessel’s hull.
Q.—It was suggested that by the way you slummed this survey, you were responsible for the loss of the men at sea?A.—The survey was not slummed, and no blame was attached to me at all.
Q.—Your opinion is that the water must have got inthrough the doors and skylights being neglected?A.—Yes.
His Honour:Q.—Assume that before the ship was kept away, and all her gratings, skylights, doors, and pantry window covered and protected, do you think there would be any danger in putting the vessel away on her course for the Heads when she had a south-east sea and a south-west wind?A.—No; if all openings had been closed, she was comparatively safe.
His Honour:Q.—A number of the witnesses described the boat as being rather skittish and tender?A.—Boats like her require to be specially handled; but with everything properly fastened, I would have had no hesitation in going for the Heads, although I think it would have been better to have kept out to sea. She would have weathered it.
William Watson, examined by Mr. Purves, stated: I am a surveyor for Lloyd’s Registry of Shipping. The British Lloyd’s is an institution that has grown during the last sixty years. It is the biggest thing in the world. A vessel that is “A1” at Lloyd’s has a character that any man, who is interested in running risks, takes as a standard. The document now shown me is a certificate stating that theAlertwas classed when first built “ninetyA1,” fit to carry dry and perishable cargo to all parts of the world. Below is a maltese cross which indicates that she was built under special survey. (Mr. Box here objected that the certificate given when the vessel was built had nothing to do with the present case, and his Honour decided to admit the evidence subject to the objection). Witnesscontinuing said, “ninetyA1” is simply a distinction to show that it is not “one hundredA1” nor “eightyA1,” but still an “A1” ship. The meaning of “A1” is that the hull of vessel so classed is fit to carry dry and perishable cargo. I knew theAlertmentioned in Lloyd’s certificate, and remember the alterations made in her. I did not see her officially between July, 1893, and the date when she was lost (December, 1893). My opinion of her was that she was a good little ship. She was sea-worthy in every sense of the word, and was a very nice vessel.
Q.—What is a nice vessel—a plum cake is very nice but I would not like to go to sea on one.—?A.—A very smart craft I would call her. I have been to sea, but I am not a sailor.
Cross-examined by Mr. Box: I was in the employment of Lloyd’s in England, but not as surveyor. I was appointed surveyor, but did not continue in it. I am no authority as to what risks insurance companies will take. It is not a mere matter of premium. A risk is taken on the recommendation of surveyors. I am not in receipt of an annual salary from Lloyd’s, but I make surveys for them in Melbourne, and I get paid for my services by the owners of the ships in Melbourne whose vessels I recommend. I re-classified theAlertin July, 1893. She was then in the Bay trade. I don’t know how she came out to Victoria. I don’t remember when she was built. I never formed an opinion as to whether she was built for the Bay trade only. She was, in 1893 when I surveyed her, fit to go all over the world. I did not go to sea in her, but I would not have been afraid to doso. She was fit according to Lloyd’s rules, and that was enough for me. It is not a rule of Lloyd’s that the grating over the engine room and stoke-hole should be covered.
Q.—Is this a rule of Lloyd’s: “The engine room skylights are to be in all cases securely protected, the gratings over stoke-hole must also be protected with iron plates?”A.—That rule does not refer to the grating openings on top. There is no occasion to have any cover whatever to those gratings. There was no necessity to have any protection to the pantry window; I did not look upon it as dangerous. I don’t think there would be any special liability on the part of that window to burst in when the vessel was on her beam ends. It would not be a serious matter if it did burst in. I could put a cushion in and stop it. There was no danger in the grating, and none in the pantry window.
Re-examined by Mr. Purves: Apart from my position at Lloyd’s, I have built many thousands of tons of ships. My business was a shipbuilder, and when busy, I have built over 20,000 tons a year. The reclassification of theAlertbrought her to her original status equal to a new ship just built. I am trusted with Lloyd’s business in Melbourne, and have a free hand. The amount of freeboard a ship has is no proof of her sea-worthiness.
Thomas Houston, examined by Mr. Mitchell, stated: I am a marine surveyor for this port. I have had over thirty years’ experience as ship master, mostly in sailing vessels. I have been in steamships, but not in command. I have been in Melbourne about nine years. Iknew theAlertwell, and have been frequently on board. I have been under her twice while she was in dock, not in a professional way, but as a contractor for painting. I have no reason to suppose for a moment that the vessel would be unsea-worthy. I have been a passenger in theAlertup and down to Geelong, and in a convivial sort of way I recollect the pantry window. I could not say its height above the main deck, but I think it was about half way up the front of the poop, and the latter was between three and four feet high. I don’t know how it was fastened. There was nothing about the window to make the ship unsea-worthy. Any practical man could make the window tight without bolts or anything else, so that it would not take a gallon of water in an hour. I have no knowledge of the height of the grating, but I am told it was seven feet above the main deck. I don’t see any necessity for cleats; it could be secured in various ways, so that no water would go down, and the bunker lids also could have been easily protected by placing a piece of canvas over them. I think the wooden awning would have assisted to bring the ship to the wind and keep her there. If the vessel was on her beam ends, the awning would in all probability tend to throw her over, but by that time she would be too far gone to recover herself, and hence it would make very little difference. The fact of having the wooden awning where it was would not make the ship unsea-worthy.
Cross-examined by Mr. Smyth: I have had a vessel pretty well over with her yard arms in the water. She came up again by throwing cargo overboard. There isnothing extraordinary in a vessel rolling over 45 degrees. There is nothing to prevent a ship from righting herself if she is sea-worthy. I have not the faintest idea what prevented theAlertfrom righting herself. I don’t think thirty or forty tons of water on board of her ought to affect her although she was low aft. Perhaps the pantry window would have been better if made in some other way than with glass; but I consider it of no importance. Anybody could have stopped it splendidly with a cushion. If there was a lot of water in the stoke-hole as well as the saloon, she might founder. I do not believe that water came through the grating. In sending a ship to sea extreme contingencies should be provided against. An open grating was not unsafe, but still it would be better covered. I am a contractor for painting ships for Huddart, Parker, and others.
In reply to His Honour the witness said: Cutting a small window would not weaken the bulk-head. I think it most likely I would have had an outside shutter to protect the window.