The Sun.
London, England, 1869-12-08 00:00:00

WRECK OF THE SPINDRIFT.

.-.._.....-.....

Yesterday afternoon, Mr. Pattmon, the magis-
trate, and Captains Harris and Hight, nautical
assessors, a►ttended at the Greenwich Police-court,
for the purpose of giving judgment with re-
spect to the inquiry directe 1 by the Board of
Trade into the circtunstaucJs attending the strand-
ing and subsequent wreck of the above vessel on
Newcombe Bank, of Dungeness, on the morning of
the 21st ult.

Mr. Slield (instructed by Messrs. Green and
Allin) attended on behalf of Captain Natsford,
and Mr. Bewley, solicitor, for Mr. .Mar in, the
pilot in charge of the vessel at the time of the
wreck.

The Court having been some time in consulta-
tion, on returning the following judgment was read
by Mr. Boustred, the Chief Clerk :
" The first question which arises appears to be
the following :—ls the master to be held respon-
sible for this loss while a duly licensed Trinity-
house pilot was in charge of the vessel in compul-
sory pilotage, and within the compulsory district?
In considering this question it is expedient to state
at the outset the legal enactments, and the gene-
ral proposition of the law laid down in the text-
books applicable to such cases. By the 338th sec-
tion of the Merchant Shipping Act, 17th and 18th
Victoria, cap. 101, under which Act this Court is
constituted, it is enacted That no owner or master
of any ship shall be answerable to any person
whatever for any loss or damage occasioned by the
fault or incapacity of any qualified pilot acting in
charge of such ship, within any district where the
employment of such pilot is compulsory by law.'
By this enactment (says Mr. Abbott, in the 10th
edition of his work on Shipping,' edited by the
late Mr. Justice Shoe), the law, after mach variety
of decisions, is finally settled in conformity with
the construction put upon the compulsory section
of the former Act by Dr. Lushington in the case
of the Protector. It was decided by that learned
Judge on the 6th, 14th, and 58:11 sections of George
IV., cap. 125, that the exemption from liability
provided by the Act was limited to the case of
vessels having a pilot on board, that the owners
were protected only in those cases where the pilot
was the sole author of the injury, and that if the
misconduct of the master or crew were contributory
to it the owners continued liable.' Mr. Abbot goes
on to say, 'Cases may arise in which it is not only
the master's right but his duty to resume the autho-
rity if the. pilot should be plainly incompetent
through intoxication er other c tuses, and should
the vessel be end tngert.d by his mismanagement
the master is hound to interfere.' The attention
of this Court was directed to the decisions of
the Admiralty Court with regard to the respective ,
responsibilities of the pilot and of the master. The
principle which appears to be es'ablished by these
decisions may be expressed in the records of
Baron Parke, ic pronouncing the judgment of
the Judicial Committee or the Privy Council in the
apreal in the case of the Christian (reported in 7
Moore's Privy Council Cases). Speaking of the
special duties of the pilot, he said, ' The pilot un-
questionably has the sole dir.Ttien of the vessel
when his local kno a ledge is presumably required
—the direction, the course, the manoeavring of the
vessel when sailing.' 'These,' says Mr. Train, in
commenting on this very case—and I need scarcely
say his judgment in then: matters is entitled to the
highest respect—' these are the especial and exclu-
sive functioas of the pilot, with which the master
cannot interfere, so long as the pilot is not disabled'
from the performance of his duty by any temporary
or permanent cause of disability.' Now, from the
evidence adduced iu this case, it is impossible for
the Court to affirm that the pilot was incompetent
from intoxication. Ouly one witness, the steward
(against whom, it must be renicnib....red, a counter-
charge of drunkenness is brought by the pilot, and
corroborated by the master's statement), speaks on
this matter. He says that the pilot's manner was
odd ; and that it appeared to him that he had been
drinking. The second mate, however, who seems
to have been the most active man on dec:i., says in
his evidence, I saw much of the pilot during the
night. Ile was competent to perform his duties,
and was attentive and sober.' On the first ques-
tion, the Court is of opinion that the captain is
by law entitled to be exempted from all re-
sponsibility. The only other question for the
consideration of the Court is—does the conduct
of the master during the time the vessel was
under such compulsory pilotage show any act com-
mitted, or any duty omitted, which contributed to
the loss of the vessel? On this point the law
seems to be equally clear and decisive. If the direc-
tions givenby the pilot appear manifestly improper,
the master may no doubt, and indeed it would be
his duty to, give his advice; but beyond this in
such matters he is bound, as a rule, implicitly to
obey the pilot's commands. With regard, however,
to such matters as are connected with the ordinary
managing of the vessel, irrespective of local know-
ledge or local circumstances, the master's duty, as
commanding the vessel, and his responsibility for
any wrongful act or default causing loss still
remains. Is there any evidence to show that the
master had any reason whatever for doubting the
judgment of the pilot? It must be borne in mind
that the master had been constantly on deck till
midnight, when, according to the evidence, ha
turned in for two hours. The vessel when he went
below was, it is admitted, on her right course. The
night was clear and fine, the moon was at its full,
and the wind was off shore. Shortly after 2 a.m. of
Nov. 21 the master came on deck again. He called
the attention of the pilot to a light, asking him if it
was not the Dungeness Light. The pilot answered
it was a star above the port house. The master,
trusting to the long experience of the pilot, again
went below, and in a few minutes afterwards the
vessel ran ashore. The Court, after anxious con-
sideration of the second question, has arrived at the
conclusion that, under all the circumstances of the
case, and bearing in mind the many years' expe-
rience of the pilot, of which the master was
fully aware, the master had not sufficient reason to
justify him in interfering with the pilot, who was
then by law in sole command of the vessel. The
court, however, deems it right to notice the fact,
though it did not contribute to the loss of the vessel,
that there was considerable laxity on board. No
watches were set, and no orders whatever seem to
have been given by the master or chief mate.
Everything seems to have been left to chance. It
is true that there was at least one man on the
look-out; that the second mate was on deck for
nearly the whole time ; that a boy was placed in
the waist of the vessel to pass the word from the
man on the look-out to the pilot ; that a leadsman
was iu the main chains, and took the soundings;
and that there was a man at the wheel. But none
of these were, so far as the evidence goes, sent to
their respective positions by the orders of the mas-
ter or chief mate, and for this state of affairs the
court feel bound to express their opinion of the want
of caution on the part of the master. IVith respect
to the conduct of the pilot in this case, as this court
has no jurisdiction over him under the Merchant
Shipping Act, it is to be no further noticed than as
it is necessary to ascertain whether there was a de-
fault in the navigation of the vessel for which the
master can be held responsible. With these ob-
servations the certificate of Captain Nutsford is re-
turned to him."

The legal gentlemen on both sides severally
thanked the Con t for the manner in which the
inquiry had been conducted, and the procee:lings
terminated.