ERNEST M141

Official No:    87275     Port Number and Year:    -   in Leith, 1884 (LH1088)

                                                                                 -   in Aberdeen, ? , (A615)

                                                                                5th in Milford, 1898

Description:   Wooden hull; steam screw - coal burner. Liner.  Dandy rigged.

Crew: 5 men, 1 boy 

Registered at Milford: 12 Jul 1898

Built: 1884 by A.G. Gifford, Leith

Tonnage: 37.12 gross 22.03 net 

Length / breadth / depth (feet):  62.2 / 17.5 / 6.65 

Engine: 2 Cyl; 10 kts., built 1884 by John Cran & Co., Leith

Owners:

 

1884: A. Cook, Edinburgh.  (Fish salesman)

 

5 Jul 1898:  William Robert Saunders, Pill Rd., Milford.  (64/64)  (Ship's captain)

 

28 Sep 1899: Percy William Alford, 69 Charles St., Milford  (64/64)  (Cashier)

 

27 Oct 1915:  Edward James Hellings,  5 Hamilton Tce., Milford (64/64) (Fish salesman)

 

Landed at Milford:  28 Jan 1889 - 24 Sep 1916 [Previous landings probably at Neyland.]

Skippers: George Taylor, cert. ?; age 54, born Essex; signed on 1 Jan 1907; 1 Jan 1909

Notes:  30 Sep 1916:  Foundered off Rockabill Island, Dublin.

Cert. Cancelled & Milford Registry Closed: 12 Oct 1916.

 Accidents and Incidents:

From the West Wales Guardian of Friday 18th May 1917:

 

HAVERFORDWEST COUNTY COURT

CLAIM AGAINST A MILFORD LINER OWNER

CUSTOM OF THE PORT

 

    The Haverfordwest County Court was held on Monday, before His Honour Judge Lloyd Morgan, K.C., when Charles Hole, provision merchant, Milford Haven, brought an action against P. L. Alford, owner of the steam liner Ernest, to recover the sum of £23 12s. 1d., balance due for goods supplied.  Mr. Marlay Samson (instructed by Messrs. Williams and Williams) was for the plaintiff, and Mr. R. T. P. Williams for the defendant.

    Mr. Samson said that in 1911, the steam liner Ernest was run out of Milford Haven, the crew consisting of the master, Mr. George Taylor, two engineers, a cook, and four hands.  The catch was divided into 10¼ shares, the skipper to receive 2¼ shares, one share to each of the four members of the crew, and the remaining five shares to the owner, who was under an obligation to pay a weekly wage to the two engineers and the cook.  When the vessel went to sea the cook went to the plaintiff and ordered the necessary provisions.  He contended that the owner was responsible for the payment of provisions for the two engineers and the cook.  But on occasions there was not sufficient catch to pay the food bill, and Mr. Samson argued that the owner, either expressly or inferentially, had pledged his credit to the tradesmen for provisions.  This practice continued until November 8th, 1913, when the matter at issue became acute.  On November 8th the plaintiff intimated that he would not go on supplying more provisions until the debt already incurred was wiped off.  The master interviewed the owner, and the latter ratified the action of the former, and accepted liability.  When the plaintiff asked for payment the defendant did not deny liability, but said he would see to it, and that in future he would pay cash.

    It was mentioned that the claim had been referred to the Registrar, and His Honour remarked that Mr. Price had found that the money was due to the plaintiff from somebody.

    Mr. Samson submitted that ratification of the captain's act by the owner constituted express authority.  Continuing, he said that goods were supplied by the plaintiff for cash until 1915, when the Ernest was sold.

    ...................

    George Taylor, a breezy retired mariner, vigorously repudiated the description of "retired" because he still had to do something to get a living.  Mr. R. T. P. Williams suggested that he had found a better job, but the witness hesitated to admit that.  He said that for many years he was engaged by Mr. Alford as skipper.  Mr. Alford always paid him in respect of the food for the two engineers, and his daughter took the money to plaintiff.  The trouble was all due to some poor catches which they had.  For 45 years he had been running out of Milford and the custom of the port was that the expense of providing food for the boat fell on the owner in the event of a poor catch.

    Re-examined:  He paid the men their shares, and deducted the amount of their food.

    Evidence was given as to the custom of the port by Mr. Rees, clerk to Mr. Farrow, Mr. Ramster, manager for Messrs. Hellings and Cornwell, and Mr. Hutchings, manager for Messrs. Eastmans. They all stated that it was customary for the owners of vessels to be responsible for the payment of provisions supplied to ships.

    His Honour non-suited the plaintiff.

 

[ Note: A nonsuit terminates the trial at that point, and results in a dismissal of the plaintiff's case and judgment for the defendant. ]

 

 

 

Back to Trawlers 1888-1914