Board of Trade Inquiry at Cardiff - The Loss of the " Penwith " - 'The adjourned inquiry into the supposed loss of the ship Penwith took place on Monday at the grand jury room, Town-hall, Cardiff, (before Mr. R. 0. Jones, stipendiary magistrate, Rear-Admiral Pickard, and Captain Comyn). Mr. Waldron again appeared for the Board of Trade.
Wm. Groom, a berthing officer at Penarth Dock, said the ship was in good trim. Repaying to the question whether the master and mate were sober, he said: I should not like to say they were drunk. I should not like to swear they were sober. They were sober for all I know. The vessel's batches were open in the dock, but I cannot say whether they were open when she passed into the basin.
Mr. E. Kempthoriie, first class pilot, of Cardiff, deposed to taking the Penwith out in May last. She was a splendid vessel. He only took her out to the roads. The captain appeared to be sober enough, for be did everything he was told. All appeared to be right, and it was fine weather that night, and for two or three days afterwards. Witness was only engaged on the quay just as the vessel was starting, and was only on board about 25 minutes, so he could give no description of the vessel with regard to ventilation, &c.
This concluded the evidence, and Mr. Waldron submitted to the court the following questions:-
1. Whether, when the Penwith left Penarth, she was in good and seaworthy condition, and her cargo properly stowed and trimmed.
2. Whether she was over laden, and whether as laden the vessel had sufficient stability.
3. Whether she had sufficient freeboard.
4. Whether her hold was properly ventilated, i.e., so as to ensure a "system of surface ventilation which would be effective in all circumstances of the weather.
5. Whether all the deck openings were efficiently protected, so that heavy seas breaking on board could not find their way below.
6. Whether the master and officers and crew were sober and competent to undertake the navigation of the vessel when she left Penarth and, finally, what in the opinion of the court is the cause of this vessel not having been heard of since she proceeded from Penarth to sea on the 11th of May last.
Having submitted these questions, Mr. Waldron remarked that he thought it bad been shown in evidence that there was no ventilation, and if the court considered that it was the duty of the managing owner to have seen to that, he would ask them to deal with the costs accordingly.
After a short consultation the court delivered the following written judgment:—
" We are of opinion that the vessel was in a good and seaworthy condition, but we are of opinion that the cargo was not properly stowed and trimmed, inasmuch as space was left amidships sufficient to hold a large quantity of coal, giving rise to a probability of the cargo shifting.
2. We are of opinion that the ship as not overladen, and that as laden she had sufficient stability.
3. We think she had sufficient freeboard.
4. There was no ventilation what-ever, except by means of the hatchway.
5. It would appeal that the only deck openings she had were the hatchways, and that those were sufficiently protected
6. We think that the master and officers and crew were sober and competent to undertake the navigation of the vessel when she left Penarth, in so far as there is any evidence upon this point before us.
7. Upon this question we offer no opinion.
It is necessary to add that the imperfect stowing of the cargo laid the ship open to the risk of an explosion of gas and cargo-shifting. We add that in the opinion of the court the owner was to blame in not seeing that the vessel was provided with a proper system of ventilation previous to taking in a cargo of so explosive a character as the South Wales steam coal is so well known to be." There was no order made as to costs.' - South Wales Echo [163] [361] 22nd January 1881.
|
