|Total Records: 1|
|Rose||British||Mutton Island Quilty Co Clare||1890|
|Flag||British||Builder||Built at Plymouth|
|Official No||8889||Material||Oak & Elm|
|Ship type||Sail Vessel||Dimensions||65.5 | 17.7 | 10.7|
|Ships Role||Coaster||Rigging Style||Schooner|
|Wreck Location||Mutton Island Quilty Co Clare|
|Date Lost||13/12/1890||Captain||J. Anderson|
|Cause||Ran Aground||Crew Lost|
|Google Map Location|
The Rose ,bound for Bowling on the Clyde with 160 tons of kelp from Seafield Harbour from Messers M.Donagh Brothers Miltown Malbay has become a total wreck during the night at the mouth of Miltown Malbay Harbour . The Crew were saved
Glasgow Herald Friday, December 19, 1890
CLAIM FOR A LOST CARGO
Yesterday the Courts of Appeal consisting of the Master of the Rolls and Lords Justices Fry and Lopes had before them the appeal of the plaintiffs in the case of Young and Another v. Hall from a judgemant of Mr. Justice Wright at trial without a jury at Liverpool.
The action was brought by the plaintiffs trading as the Milnquarter Chemical Company and Michael McDonough to recover the value of a cargo of kelp worth £718.15s. which had been loaded under a charterparty dated 8th August 1890 on board the defendants' sailing ship the Rose of Liverpool at Seafield Pier Miltown Malbay on the west coast of Ireland for delivery on the Clyde.
The charterparty was between Mr. J. Anderson on behalf of the plaintiffs and Richard Foulkes the master of the Rose who was then in the position of the tenant of the vessel.
The vessel left Seafield Pier on the 1st August 1890 for Bowling on the Clyde but the weather became very rough with strong gales blowing and in consequence the vessel came to anchor under an island known as Mutton Island. Next morning in order to save the lives of the crew and the cargo the master of the vessel put back to seafield slipping his anchors. It was when the vessel returned to pick up her anchors that she ran on the rocks at Mutton Island with the result that her cargo was lost thus giving rise to the present claim of the plaintiffs.
The defence was that Mr. Hall the owner of the vessel had not entered into the contract with the agent of the plaintiffs and was therefore not liable. Mr. Joseph Walton and Mr. A.D. Bateson appeared for the appellants and Mr. Carver for the respondent. The Master of the Rolls in giving judgement said no neglligence had been made out of the part of the master of the ship and the loss of cargo was owing to accidental circumstances and no negligence had been brought home to the owners of the Rose. There was no evidence to show that the vessel was unseaworthy. The appeal was dismissed with costs Lords Justices Fry and Lopes concurring.
Liverpool Mercury Thursday February 25, 1892
|Record Created on 14/12/2008|
|«« New Search|