The vessel afterwards behaved very badly, and nothing could be done with her. was then lying flat on her side, and there was a considerable quantity of water in her, so much so that it was deemed advisable to launch a boat. When the crew got in the boat, and when her stern was towards the vessel, witness saw a light suddenly disappear, and they pulled in the direction of the vessel, but they could not find her. Witness could not account for the loss of the vessel, unless it was owing to her striking some floating wreckage. Witness noticed the Plimsoll water-mark was fully two inches out of the water. In his (witness's) opinion the vessel was well manned for her size and for the trade in which she was engaged. The court then adjourned till tow o'clock on Wednesday." Western Mail [064] 9th December 1885.

• March 1886 - Board of Trade Inquiry at Cardiff - A Complicated Case - "At the Town-hall, Cardiff, on Tuesday a Board of Trade inquiry was held before Mr. R. O. Jones, assisted by Captains Anderson and Wilson, as nautical assessors, into the circumstances attending the foundering of the steamer Venetienne, of Cardiff, some months ago. An inquiry on the subject had previously been held on the 2nd and 9th of December last, and the court then found the vessel foundered owing to her being over laden and her cargo of coal being improperly stowed, and the court found further that the vessel was undermanned. An application was subsequently made to the Board of Trade by Mr. Vachell, on behalf of the owners, for a re-hearing of the case on the ground that it would be a gross miscarriage of justice, and the application was granted, although it was stated that it was a very unusual proceeding to do so.

On Tuesday Mr. Waldron, who again appeared for the Board of Trade, opened the case at some length, putting the whole of the shorthand writer's transcript of the evidence taken at the previous hearing. He also called two Board of Trade surveyors to support the view taken by the court at the previous inquiry that the vessel had sailed from Newport having a freeboard, when she got into salt water, of only 1ft. 3in., while, according to the rules formulated by the Loading Committee, approved by Lloyd's, and adopted by the Board of Trade, she should have had a freeboard of 1ft. 6 in. It was in acting upon this view that the court had found the owners in default and fined them £50.

Mr. Vachell, who again represented the owners, stated that he should now prove to the satisfaction of the court that an error had been made by the Board of Trade assessors by whom the court had been advised. He proceded to show that the assessors had been right in finding that the gross freeboard, according to the tables, should be 1ft. 6in., or, to be exact, 1ft. 5.46in. ; but they had omitted to make certain deductions in respect of a difference in the length of the vessel, and for excess of shear, round the beam, and deck erections. Having dealt at some length with this argument, which was of a purely technical nature, Mr. Vachell said he should call his scientific witness first, and deal with the question of under manning, to which he had a very complete answer, afterwards. He then called Mr. Denton and Mr. Seddon, naval architects ; Mr. Kendall. Lloyd's surveyor ; Mr. Hooper, manager of the vessel ; and Mr. Munroe, manager of the company by whom she had been built, all of whom bore out his argument respecting the deductions that should have been made from the gross freeboard. Each of these gentlemen proved the figures that if proper deductions allowed by the regulation had been made the gross freeboard would be reduced to about twelve inches net. which was three inches less than the vessel was loaded to when she left Newport. At this stage the inquiry was adjourned until three o'clock to-day (Wednesday)." Western Mail [064] 24th March 1886. >> click here to go to the next page in our story >>