RECENIA M3
Official No: 119127 Port Number and Year: - in Glasgow, 1904 (GW2)
43rd in Fleetwood, 1919 (FD226)
9th in Milford, 1930.
Description: Steel side trawler; steam screw, coal burning. Ketch rigged: foresail and mizzen
Crew: 9 men
Registered at Milford: 26 Apr 1929
Built: 1904 by Alexander Hall & Co., Aberdeen. (Yard no. 410)
Tonnage: 178.44 grt 65.62 net.
Length / breadth / depth (feet): 110.2 / 21.1 / 11.3
Engine: T 3-Cyl. 55 nhp.10 kts. 1903, by builders
Owners:
AS THISTLE GW2
May 1904: John S. Boyle, Ardgowan Cottage, Shawlands, Glasgow
As THISTLE FD226
16 Jul 1919: Taylor, Ashworth & Morris Ltd, Fleetwood.
Renamed ROWLAND O??
21 Jan 1920: Soc. Anon Pêcheries a Vap., Ostend.
1927: Union des Pêcheries Mar., Ostend.
Renamed RECENIA M3
26 Apr 1929: Peter Llewellyn Hancock, 'Beachways', Picton Rd., Hakin
Manager owner
28 May 1929: W. Llewellyn Hancock )
Thomas Hughes ) 60 Charles St., Milford
Elizabeth Hughes )
4 Mar 1933: Reginald Llewellyn Hancock, 'Beachways', Picton Rd., Hakin
Manager Owner
1 Apr 1938: J. W. S. Barlow, Aberdeen
Manager: A. Buchan
1939: Parkholme Trawlers Ltd, Fleetwood
Manager: B. A. Parkes, Cleveleys.
Landed at Milford: 9 Apr 1929 - 1 Apr 1938
Skippers:
Notes: Oct 1915: Requisitioned for war service and converted for boom defence duties. 1 - 3 pdr.
1919: Returned to owners.
8 Oct 1941: Grounded on Barn Scar, Seascale, and declared constructive total loss.
Cert. Cancelled & Milford Registry Closed: 16 Jun 1942
Accidents and Incidents
From the West Wales Guardian of Friday 21st February 1930:
THREE MILFORD SKIPPERS
CHARGED WITH "CUTTING-IN"
FIRST CASES UNDER NEW RULES
Prosecutions of interest to all skippers trawling out of Milford Haven were heard before the Milford Petty Sessional Bench on Wednesday last. The defendants were three skippers who were summoned for failing to navigate their vessels in a proper and efficient manner when entering the dock. They were Walter Wales, of the s.t. Caliph; Harry Thorpes, of the the s.t. Receina [ sic ]; and Edward Day, of the s.t. John Cattling. In the first two cases the offences were alleged to have taken place on February 1st, and the latter case on February 10th.
The cases were brought forward by Capt. W. R. Marrs, the Milford Dock Master, and Mr. G. T. Kelway (Messrs. Price and Kelway, solicitors) appeared for the prosecution.
The allegations against the three defendants were that they cut into the line of vessels out of their turn when entrance signals were hoisted from the pier head. It was pointed out that these prosecutions were the first taken under a new system of regulations drawn up by the Milford Docks Company.
Walter Wales was the only skipper present in Court and he pleaded not guilty.
Mr. G. T. Kelway said those three prosecutions were taken under an entirely new system of control in respect of steam trawling vessels entering Milford Docks at tide times. In the past there had been a great deal of trouble with the skippers owing to collisions, etc., when they were attempting to take up a wrong position. The result was that a great deal of time had been given in formulating a new system whereby these constant troubles could be avoided. Several fishing parties had taken part in a conference and a definite scheme was agreed upon, in respect of which notices were issued, and a copy of the new scheme was sent to every skipper sailing out of the port of Milford Haven. This new system came into operation on December 2nd, of last year, and the skippers of the various vessels were given ample time to comprehend the directions. Mr. Kelway then proceeded to explain the new system, stating that a new red and white anchoring buoy, which was lighted at night, was placed somewhere near the entrance to the docks and instructions were given to the first vessel coming into harbour, and wishing to enter the dock was to take up a position in immediate proximity to the anchoring buoy. The next vessel was to anchor east south-east from the ship and the next a little nearer to the pier. The form of the line was from the buoy to the pier at Newton Noyes. When the signal was given from the shore the vessel at the anchor buoy was to enter the dock first, followed by the other vessels in the same line. If a vessel was not in this line she was not entitled to come into the dock until all the ships in the line were in dock. Mr. Kelway declared that if these directions were carried out it was the opinion of the dock authorities that the trouble which had taken place in the past would be entirely eliminated. They also maintained that this scheme was a good one. Referring to the s.t. Caliph, Mr. Kelway said it was out of the line of vessels but ultimately took up a position in the dock to which it was not entitled. Capt. Marrs said the skipper admitted he had a copy of the directions.
Defendant said there were two lines that day. An alternate line was permitted.
Mr. Kelway: On two or three previous occasions Wales has kept to the directions.
In answer to the Chairman, Captain Marrs said defendant came in sixth instead of eighth.
Wales said he came up and anchored about half-an-hour before the Sidmouth.
The Chairman (Mr. D. G. Jones): I suppose he should have taken up his correct position in the line?
In the box Wales said he brought his ship to anchor at 2.30 a.m. on the Saturday morning in question, and he made up a second line being first ship to do this.
Mr. Kelway (to the magistrates): The second line in every case brings up on the rear of the first line.
Mr. L. J. Meyler (a magistrate) wanted to know what happened if a boat went on to the first line when a second line had been formed.
Capt. Marrs: There was no need for a second line that morning. I have seen twenty-six boats in the first line before now.
Mr. Kelway: If there is no more room in the first line then a second line can be formed. The question doesn't arise in this case. There were only seven ships there.
With reference to the "Receina", the skipper, who was at sea, had written that a mistake had been made. Another boat had been taken as his. Another trawler coming up from westward had cut him out. The summons was the first intimation at all that he had had of the case.
Capt. Marrs said that he was on duty on the 10th, when Day was the offender. When the signal was hoisted, the John Cattling, Day's boat, cut into the middle of the line ahead of four ships. There was no question of the formation of a second line here.
Day, who was also at sea, stated in a letter that his boat was the third to arrive. He caused no confusion whatever. He submitted he committed no offence against the bye-laws. In conclusion, the letter said that only a technical breach had been committed.
Mr. Kelway said he had two further witnesses who would give the magistrates corroborative evidence, but the Justices retired without hearing them.
On their return the Chairman announced that these bye-laws had been drawn up for the safety of the vessels themselves and they must be observed. As they were the first cases to be brought under the new bye-laws they would be dismissed on payment of costs.
Back to Trawlers 1915-39