The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-12-28 00:00:00

direction from which the sound of the bell came.

His HoNon: How do you account for the mistake on the
part of the pilot ?
Mr. LORD: It must have been an error of judgment.
His HONOR: What means had he of ascertaining accu-
rately his position with regard to the Bell buoy besides the
sound ?

Mr. LORD : By ascertaining whether the lights were to
the northward or the southward.

His HONOR : What lights are these ?
Mr. LORD : The floating light and the Formby light.
You cannot strike the Bell buoy unless you have these
lights in a line.

-His Horron : But I want to know what means had he of
knowing, when he altered his position, whether he had
come abreast of the Bell buoy, of had passed it, or had not
reached it ?

Mr. LORD : He could tell when he was approaching
the bar by the depth of the water.
His HONOR : Does the water begin to shoal rapidly
towards the Bell buoy ?
Mr. LORD : It does.

His HONOR : Were there any means by which a person
on board, having a competent knowledge of the navigation
of the port could tell whether he was abreast of the Bell buoy
or had passed it ?
Mr. LORD : The first error in judgment was committed
in coming rather to the southward of the Bell buoy than to
the north. If he had been to the north he would then
have opened the lights in such a way as would enable him
to tell whether he had approached the Bell buoy was abreast
of it, or had passed it.
His HONOR : Were there any indications which would
lead him to know, or any reasonable man to understand, that
he was close to the buoy, or was passing it, if he had gone
to the southward ?

Mr. LORD : There are no cross-bearings. All he could
do would be to slow the vessel and listen for the sound of
the bell.

Mr. jouN JONES was next examined, and deposed that he
had commanded a merchant ship and merchant sea-going
steamer, and was a master of a man-of-war. Had been for
fourteen years assistant marine surveyor to the Liverpool
dock estate. Went out on the day after the occurrence
to put down the duplicate bell beacon. When he arrived
out he could not find the old beacon. It was found upon
Sunday, the 17th of April, about 80 fathoms to the east
south east from her station. The bell was broken off, and
the hull was torn from the keel up to the gunwall. The only
way he could imagine the injury was done was by the anchor
hooking to it. Mr. Jones corroborated the opinions
of the former witness with regard to the Baltic having
come up at too great a rate of speed. Going at full
speed up to the buoy was necessarily attended with
great dama,,,re of running ships down, running the
bell beacon down, and running herself into the bank. A
great number of vessels were always in the Victoria channel,
particularly at that time of tide. The fact of vessels being
generally in that channel, must have been known to persons
coming to this port. Thinks five knots an hour as great a
rate of speed as would be safe in coming up that channel ;
and it was highly necessary to go slow, and make sure of the
beacon. If he were coming up there with a vessel, he would
prefer going to the northward. The engines should be
slowed, and a look-out kept for the bell beacon, bearings
taken to the northward of the lightship, and sounding taken
with the lead.

Mr. BLAIR Whose duty is it to keep the lead going ?
Mr. JONES : It is both the duty of the captain and of the
pilot. If the pilot neglects doing it, it is the duty of the
captain to see that it is done, and they do so. If the vessel
had been kept at a proper rate of speed, with a proper look-
out, is of opinion that the accident would not have happened.
Any person in the habit of coming up the river, should know
that such a rate of speed as was kept up by the Baltic on that
occasion, was dangerous.
This witness was not cross-examined.
A boatman, named Joseph Rooriquez, proved the finding
of the Baltic's chain and anchor, about 150 yards from
the station of the Bell buoy, about a week after, the 14th
of April.
Mr. Charles Cox deposed that he was a master in the navy,
and water-bailiff to the port of Liverpool. lied been some
time assisting Mr. Lord, as marine surveyor. Is of opinion
that the speed at which he has heard the Baltic was coming
up the channel was dangerous. If she had come at a proper
speed, and that the proper look-out had been kept, thinks
the accident would not have occurred. Knows Capt. Com-
stock, of the Baltic, by repute. Should think he is acquainted
with the navigation of the river.
His HONOR: I think that may be assured. Mr. Aspinall
is not likely to set up as a defence, that the captain of the
Baltic is not acquainted with his duties.
Mr. Cox stated that he had heard the evidence of Mr.
Lord and Mr. Jones, and he agreed with them generally
in the opinions they had expressed regarding the cause of
the accident.

Mr. GEORGE EVANS deposed that he was a captain in the
navy, and is acting conservator of the river Mersey. Has a
thorough and exact knowledge of the port of Liverpool, and
the channels leading to it. Sailed the first steam-ship in
the royfvl navy. Took the first steam vessel out to the West
Indies in 1833. Has heard the statement of the pilot read
with regard to the speed at which the Baltic was coming up
the river upon the occasion of the accident. Considers that
rate of speed to have been highly imprudent, and the im-
prudence was made much more so by the fact of its being in
the night. In approaching the Bell buoy there could be no
doubt that the speed should be reduced—no man in his
senses would have attempted to run for the bar, at the full
speed, without getting hold of the buoy first. That was
evident to any man, even of the meanest capacity, in a ship.
The speed should not have been increased until they got free
of the bar; and at night, he should not have gone at more
than six miles an hour in that place, where she was likely
to meet the whole trade of Liverpool coming out of the
docks. Any one acquainted with the navigation of the port
would, no doubt, have been aware that the speed which was
described was dangerous. He could hardly conceive a man
coming on at twelve miles an hour at such a time.
.The
steamers generally advertise to sail within two hours of high
water, which would bring them to the bar just at the time
that the Baltic was there.
His HONOR asked, whether having taken the course
which she did, there could be any indication obtained by
the Baltic of her being close upon the Bell buoy, except
from the Bell buoy itself ?
Mr. EvAsts : No, there is not ; and, therefore, there is
the more necessity why she should have come slowly up to
it. That is one of the principal reasons why she should
have gone slowly up to it.
Mr. THOMAS HODSON deposed that he had been for some
years harbour-master of Liverpool, and had previously
commanded a sailing vessel. Has an intimate knowledge
of the navigation of the port of Liverpool. In Lhis
opinion, the general rate of a vessel's speed should be regu-
lated according to the extent of vision from her deck.
Agrees with the previous witnesses in the evidence they
gave, and the opinions expressed by them.
Mr. WILLIAM WILLIAMS stated that he is captain of the
Windsor steamer, belonging to the City of Dublin Steam
Packet Company, and has traded here for twenty-two years.
Has heard the evidence given, and agrees with the opinions
which have been expressed generally. Decidedly would not
pass the Bell buoy himself without stopping the engines to
look for it. Does not think a vessel is ever safe in running
on without knowing where that buoy is. Would slow the
engines, of course, when approaching that buoy, and keep
the lead going. It is not very prudent in such a time as has
been described, to come up at such a rate of speed, as the
Baltic did. Should think that any vessel accustomed to the
port would know that it was dangerous. His vessel takes
no pilots.

To the Court : When coming up at night always slows
his engines, and listens for the bell. Never runs into the
channel, under any circumstances, without making the buoy.
Would have slowed a mile, or a half mile from the buoy.
This closed the plaintiffs' case.
Mr. ASPINALL then addressed the court on behalf of the
defendants. He submitted that it was not a case upon
which the court could act. It was not a case which could be
sent to a jury, and taking his Honor as a jury, and suppos-
ingit to go to him in that capacity, there was nothing in it
upon which he could properly act. It was a question which
had often arisen in that court. It might be stated broadly
that having a pilot on board, unless a fault was distinctly
proved to have been committed by the captain or some of
the crew, who were the servants of the owners, the owners
were exempt from liability. He now contended that there
was nothing whatever in the case to show that there was
any fault or any neglect of duty upon the part of the captain
or the crew of the Baltic, which could have the effect of ren-
dering the owners liable. What had caused the accident
was distinctly stated. All the witnesses agreed that
it arose from a mistake in judgment of the pilot in the
the first instance, regarding her position, and next
from the velocity at which the vessel was going.
Now it was quite clear that the owners could not in any way
be held responsible for a mistake upon the part of the
pilot. From that they were perfectly exempt, and they had
nothing whatever to do with it, it being just precisely one
of the cases where the Pilot Act made them exempt. Then
the velocity was one of these things which was under the
control of the pilot, indeed exclusively, and not under that
of the mate, nor had the mate the slightest right to interfere,
unless in the case of gross misconduct or incapacity upon
the part of the pilot. There appeared to be a fallacious
opinion upon the other side that because Captain Comstock
was a gentleman who knew the port he therefore had some
special duty and right to interfere with the control and
directions of the pilot. Now the duty of the pilot was
exactly the same whether he was bringing in such a ship
as the Baltic to Liverpool, or such a ship as the Golden
Age, which had never been here before, and was never
likely to come here again. The pilot's duties were well
defined. The right of the master to interfere with him
was well defined, and there was a fixed law regulating the
conduct of the pilot and the control he had over the ship,
which was quite irrespective of the familiarity which the
captain or the sailors possessed with the port which they
were entering. If they allowed any other rule to be
established, it might be said that if there happened to be
any one of the servants of the company on board the ship,
from the captain down to the very lowest seaman, who
knew the channel, that fact would have more or less influence
upon the position and authority of the pilot. The owners
were clearly not bound to have any one on board who
knew anything of that particular port, for which they