The Times 3 March 1842
Bell & others vs WAWN

(a case involving a collision of two ships - the Anatolia and Cumberland)

NORTHERN CIRCUIT

NEWCASTLE TUESDAY MARCH 1

(Before Mr Baron ROLFE)

BELL AND OTHERS V. WAWN.

This was an action in which the plaintiffs sought to recover a compensation for damages done to a ship of theirs called the Cumberland, by her being run aboard by a ship of the defendant’s called the Anatolia, through the negligence of the captain.

Mr. Dundas, Mr. Temple, and Mr. Addison, conducted the case of the plaintiffs, and Mr. Knowles and Sir G. A. Lewin the defence.

Both ships, it appeared, were in the coal trade – the Cumberland from the port of Newcastle to London; the Anatolia, from Shields to the same place. The Cumberland is of the burden of about 960 tons,; the Anatolia about two-thirds that size.

On the 12th of October last the Cumberland left Seatonhouse on her voyage with a cargo of coals, having the captain, seven men and four boys on board. On the evening of the 12th they were off Cromer, the light on Haseborough sand bearing east-north east, the wind being south-west by south and the course south-east-by-south. About 9 o’clock at night they passed the lee of the Anatolia on the Starboard tack, and after keeping that course for half an hour, put the ship in stays, for the purposes of getting on the larboard tack. They knew the Anatolia was coming in their wake. The night was dark but not hazy. During the operation of tacking, which occupied seven or eight minutes, the captain was at the helm, and all hands on deck. Just as they were hauling the foresail-yard, and the ship was beginning to get a little way, they perceived the Anatolia within about five or six ships length and sung out to her to put up her helm and go to leeward, which, it is alleged, she might have done had she been on the lookout, as was her duty to be. She however, came right on, and struck the Cumberland just astern the main chains, with her bow right on. Six or Seven planks of the Cumberland were started, and the crew with all haste got out the boats, thinking she would fill and go down. On trying the pumps, their fears appeared to be groundless. The Anatolia’s bowsprit after running through the mainsail and staysail of the Cumberland broke short off, and she canted round to the wind, and the vessels parted without seeing more of each other that night. Next morning the Cumberland put into Yarmouth roads to repair the damage, and in the course of the day, the Anatolia, whose bow was also knocked off, did the same. On the part of the plaintiff, the captain, several of the crew, and some persons who were conversant with nautical affairs, were examined as to the facts and the propriety of the measures taken by the captain in tacking when and as he did. Most of the witnesses underwent a long cross-examination, and it was elicited from the captain, that though he knew it was the practice when a ship had sustained damage by the misconduct of another, for the captain of the damaged vessel to make protest at the first port at which he landed, he neither at Yarmouth nor London, nor even on return to his own port, made any protest at all until required by the plaintiffs to do so.

Mr. KNOWLES, in addressing the jury for the defendant, laid down the position that it was not sufficient for the plaintiff to prove negligence on the part of the Anatolia (although he was far from admitting that there was any), but it must also be shown that the ship of the plaintiffs was clear of all blame in the matter. The learned counsel commented strongly on the impropriety of the captain of the Cumberland putting his ship in stays in a dark night only a little in advance of a ship whom he knew was in his wake, and by passing of whom he had given reason to believe that he was pursuing his course till he got clear out of her way, before he attempted to perform an operation which left his ship for seven or eight minutes in a helpless condition dead on the water, and that, on the mere chance that the Anatolia would in a dark night see him in time to alter her course and go clear. He pressed also the conduct of the captain in not making a protest at London as evidence that he knew and felt his conduct to be such as precluded him for all right to recover.

The learned JUDGE, in summing up the case, admitted the rule of law as laid down by the defendant’s counsel, but seemed to intimate that it must not merely be negligence, but negligence arising from gross misconduct in the captain of the Cumberland, to prevent the plaintiff recovering.

The Jury retired for a short time, and returned a verdict for the plaintiff – damages 125/., the amount of damages having been agreed upon between the parties.

There was a cross-action, in which the situation of the parties, as plaintiff and defendant, was reveres, for the recovery of the compensation for the damage done by the Cumberland to the Anatolia by the collision. After the verdict in the above case, the record in this was withdrawn.

Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN was engaged in the Crown Court, trying civil cases, in aid of Mr. Baron ROLFE, who proceeds to York to-morrow, leaving two or three minor felonies for Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN to dispose of to-morrow.

Nothing of interest occurred before him to-day.