Three passengers [Robert Jackson and his wife and child] were drowned when
crossing from the NE bank to the SW bank of the River Dee at Lower Ferry (now
Queen's Ferry) in the ferry boat on 20th December 1884. The ferry was free:
provided to maintain a passage that had been interrupted when the new cut of
the Dee was made. There were two ferry boats: a larger boat was used for carts
and horses and was a chain ferry and a smaller boat that was rowed across.
There were 4 ferrymen employed.
After the disaster, an inquest was held -
this was adjourned for technical advice on the state of the boat. The outcome
of the inquest was that the agent of the River Dee Company, Captain Davies,
was held responsible. He was tried at Flintshire Assizes, where it was ruled
that there was no case against him and he was acquitted. Here are reports of
the inquest from contemporary newspapers.
From Wrexham Advertiser, Saturday 17 January 1885.
THE BOATING FATALITY ON THE DEE. As we briefly announced in our last issue the
adjourned inquest was opened on the 7th inst., at the Police Station,
Connah's Quay. Mr H. Taylor, solicitor, Chester, attended on behalf of the
River Dee Company. Mr Edward Jackson, inspector and foreman of the Chester
Waterworks, and brother of the deceased, Robt. Jackson, was present to watch
the case on behalf of the relatives, and Mr Tibbits, solicitor, Chester, and
Capt. Davies, of the River Dee Company, were also present at the inquest. As
may be remembered, a fortnight ago the body of the child, William Jackson,
was recovered, and the inquest was adjourned in order to allow time for the
remaining bodies to be recovered, but up to the present no trace of either has
been discovered.
Samuel Edwards, coachman to Mr Joseph Rowley, Dee Bank,
Queen's Ferry, was first called. He said that about half-past nine o'clock on
the night of the 20th December, he went across the river Dee at Queen's
Ferry, in the rowing ferryboat. He was going to attend a lottery drawing for
fowls, beef, etc, which was to take place at Thomas Taylor's cottage, which was
situated near the Ferry House (a public house). The drawing was over when
witness got there, with the exception of "shaking off the ties," and as soon
as all was over, they came out to return home. They came out at ten minutes
past ten o'clock, and went direct from the cottage to the river, and the boat
being on the Flintshire side of the river, they hailed the boatman, and he
came across. John Jones, the ferryman, was rowing the boat. When the craft
approached the Cheshire side there were two or three persons there besides
witness. Two of the men got on board first, and the next to get in were a man
named Joseph Latham and witness himself. Latham went to the bow and witness
remained at the stern. The remainder of the persons waiting to be conveyed
across came down "all of a rush." They included a man named Jackson
and his wife and child, the latter being carried by its mother. Besides those
people there also came on board John and Robert Catherall, John Massey, Henry
Hough, and a man named Davies, making a total of twelve persons including the
child and Jones the boatman. The oars were worked by the boatman Jones, who
was sitting mid-boat, but witness did not see whether he was pulling both
oars, and could not say of his own knowledge if any other one was rowing. When
they reached mid-stream, a cry was raised in the stern of the boat "This boat
will sink. She is going down. She is filling with water." Witness rejoined,
"Yes, I have got a wet foot now." Jones pulled as hard as he could to gain the
opposite side, and when they were about three parts across the boat went down
without any further warning. All were thrown in the water, and that was all
witness could remember till he felt a man named Davies on his back with his
arms round witness's neck, and his chin on witness's head. Witness had his
stick in his hand, and as he could not touch bottom he "treaded water," and
asked Davies to get off and give him a chance. An oar floated past with Jones,
the boatman, clinging to it. Witness took hold of the blade end of it, and
putting all his weight on it was borne up till he felt his toes touching
bottom. He got ashore about forty yards below the proper landing stage. It was
ebb tide, and about two hours before flood. Just before the oar appeared,
Davies loosed his hold of witness. There was some staging at the place where
witness touched the ground, and another man who had just managed to get ashore
helped witness to land. On getting out he heard a cry for help a little lower
down, and when he got there he found two lads helping John Catherall out of
the water, and in this operation, witness also lent assistance. By this time a
fishing boat was launched, and he told them to look after Jackson and his wife
and that Catherall was safe. After leaving Catherall on the high road in
charge of two others, witness went home for a change of clothes. He returned
to the Ferry with a light and found nothing had been seen of Jackson and his
wife and child. He waited there till an hour after flood tide, and was told by
P.C. Williams and Hugh Jones that they had searched all the groyne holes in
vain. When witness (who was a teetotaller) went to the cottage for the drawing,
no one seemed the worse for drink - though they appeared to have had
liquor - except Jackson, who was drunk. He could not say whether
Jackson's wife was in the same condition. When witness first crossed the water
that night he noticed a platform in the bottom of the boat. No one in charge
of the boat made an attempt to prevent the people from crowding on board. He
took his seat in the stern, and could not when his feet got wet have had his
legs in the well of the boat. He could not say whether the water came over
the gunwale or not.
Cross-examined: It was a very dark night. There was a
very strong fresh on the river, but little wind. The boat in question was the
only one available for foot passengers. The large ferry boat was used only for
horses and carriages, but some times it was utilised when the foot passengers
were unusually numerous. On that night, the chain of the large boat was broken,
and the vessel was lying high and dry on the slip. He could not say whether
the chain was new or not, but he did know it was always breaking, and when he
was on one side he did not know when he should reach the other side.
(Laughter.) When he first crossed the water that night there were five in the
boat, including the ferryman, who was perfectly sober. Usually there were
two ferrymen with the boat, but on the night in question there was only one.
The other ferryman (Molyneux) was going into the house where the draw was held
when witness entered. Molyneux remained there all the time witness was
there, and came out with the others, but did not cross with them. He stayed on
the hill. On the first journey across witness noticed no water in the boat. He
did not hear Jones say there were too many in the boat. So far as he could say
he did not consider the boat over-crowded. It ought to have carried twelve
people and a child. When the alarm was given that the boat was filling,
everyone sat still, and witness noticed no one jump overboard, neither did
he observe the deceased Mrs Jackson rush to the bow. Witness had often crossed
in the same boat and had on a previous occasion noticed so great leakage in
making the passage that his feet got wet. That was a month or six weeks before
the accident. He had been across several times since but did not notice
leakage. He had often heard complaints that the boat was not fit for Queen's
Ferry. He himself had complained to all the four ferrymen (John Jones, David
Jones, Samuel Molyneux, and William Nipsal) that the craft was not safe to
carry passengers across in rough weather. He never knew of anyone refusing to
cross owing to the state of the boat. He could not tell why, but he was timid
since he got his foot wet. Though timid, he was obliged to cross that night
because there was no other means of getting over. In witness' opinion the
small boat was not sufficient to carry the two ends of the broken chain of the
large boat till they met and were spliced - which was part of the duty
the small boat had to perform.
The inquiry was again adjourned. The inquest was
resumed on Wednesday. Several witnesses were called who were crossing in the
boat on the night of the disaster, and their evidence was to the effect that
the water gradually came into the boat through the leaks until rising to their
knees and the boat was level with the water, when most of them jumped out, and
those who remained went down with the boat, the three members of the Jackson
family being drowned.
The Coroner said it was a case of great importance,
inasmuch as the ferrying of passengers across this point in the Dee was a
matter affecting the safety of the public, and he intended to request the
Board of Trade to send down an inspector to examine the boat. In order to do
that it would be necessary to take a further adjournment for a week.
From Liverpool Mercury, Thursday 22 January 1855
THE LOSS OF THREE LIVES ON THE DEE. VERDICT OF MANSLAUGHTER. The inquest in
connection with the ferryboat catastrophe on the Dee, at Queensferry, near
Hawarden, on Saturday, the 20th of December [1884], in which Robert and Mary Jackson
and their child, William Jackson, were drowned, was resumed before Mr.
Davies, coroner, at Connah's Quay, yesterday. The boat, it will be
remembered, was swamped when three-parts of the way across the river, being at the
time crowded with passengers, and having filled with water during the
journey. The ferry is a free one, maintained under an act of Parliament by
the River Dee Company. Yesterday further evidence was called.
- Joseph Latham,
one of the passengers, said he was in the bow, and when the water reached his
knees he jumped overboard, and eventually got ashore. He did not see the
Jacksons.
- John Jones, ferryman in charge of the boat, said he had been at the ferry close
on nine years. The present small boat had been in use about six months. When
she was sent down, he complained to Captain Davies, agent of the River Dee
Company, that she was too small, and that she was letting in water if there
were four or five persons in the stern. The night of the disaster was very
dark, and he did not know how many persons were in the boat. She went down
stern first. They were all in the water together. He succeeded in getting
out, and assisted others. Mr. and Mrs. Jackson's bodies had not yet been
recovered. If the boat had been a good strong one, he did not think the
accident would have happened. There were rents in the upper planks. Usually
these planks would not be under water, but if there were four or five persons
in the stern they were.
- Mr. William Henry Laslett, shipwright surveyor to the
Board of Trade, residing at Liverpool, said that, acting under instructions
from the Board of Trade, he had examined the boat, which was not fit to carry
more than five persons in her present condition. She was defective in the
topsides, in the bilge, and at both ends. The oakum, was slack up and down the
stern on the starboard side. Several timbers were broken in the bilge. Various
planks on the topsides were rent, and the laps were in various places slack
and open, particularly aft. He did not consider her a fit and proper boat to
carry passengers.
- Captain Davies was then called, and said during the past few months he had
spent £700 in improving this ferry. The small boat in question was simply a
temporary one, which he had placed there till he could meet with a proper
boat. With the ordinary number of passengers no accident would have happened.
- The coroner having summed up, the jury returned a verdict of "Manslaughter"
against Captain John Davies, censured the River Dee Company for not providing
a proper boat, and the ferryman for overloading and, further, recommended
that in future a boat and lights duly licensed be used.
- After the coroner had
entered the verdict committing Captain Davies to the assizes, Mr. Baird,
foreman of the jury, moved "this jury recommends Captain Davies to the greatest
leniency the court can admit of under the existing cicumstances, as personally
he was not accessory to the accident." This rider was carried unanimously, Mr.
James Reney observing that they would like to have got hold of the River Dee
Company. They were very sorry that Captain Davies was placed in that painful position,
From Chester Courant 28 January 1885.
The coroner's inquiry into the unfortunate ferry boat incident on the Dee took
an unexpected and startling turn. The expert sent down by the Board of Trade
pronounced the boat defective, and the jury thereupon returned a verdict
of manslaughter against Captain Davies, of Chester, who, as the agent of the
River Dee Company, had provided the boat in question, though it was evident
from the remarks of more than one of the jurors that it was only with the
greatest reluctance they made Captain Davies the scapegoat. The boat, it
appears, had only been provided as a temporary one until such time as a more
serviceable craft could be procured. According, however, to the evidence
given at the inquest, the immediate cause of the disaster was the crowding into
the boat of about twice the number of persons it was intended to hold, and the
boatmen were severely but justly censured for the culpable carelessness displayed
by them on the occasion in question. No doubt more than one of the party had
imbibed pretty freely in celebration of the raffle which had brought them
together, and the probability is, the night being a cold one, that they were
in a hurry to reach home, and therefore never gave a thought to the danger of
overcrowding. But despite all this Captain Davies was the only person on whom
the jury sought to fix any responsibility. Fortunately, however, for the
accused, he has not been kept long in suspense.
Committed for trial on Friday,
the case was in time for the opening of the Flintshire Assizes at Mold on
Monday, where it formed the only item on the calendar. Mr. Justice Stephen
made very short work of the charge, and the Grand Jury responded by promptly
cutting the bill. This result is what might have been expected, though it will
be none the less satisfactory on that account to Captain Davies and his
numerous friends in the city and district. The conduct of the worthy captain
has been most straightforward throughout. He did not attempt in the slightest
degree to shirk his responsibility as the representative of the River Dee
Company; but it was felt from the beginning that he could not be fairly held
responsible for the loss of life which occurred. Captain Davies, when he
became the representative of the Company, had to make the best of the
antiquated appliances which were at hand, and it was no fault of his that the
cumbrous old raft was not in a fit state to be used on the night of the
accident. This wretched appliance was out of date long before the captain's
appointment, and if blame is to be fixed anywhere, it should be upon those who
neglected to provide a more suitable machine at an earlier date.
Fuller account of the disaster: from Chester Courant, Wednesday 28 January 1885
THE FERRY BOAT DISASTER ON THE DEE. VERDICT OF MANSLAUGHTER AGAINST CAPTAIN DAVIES.
Mr. Wm. Davies, county coroner for Flint, opened the adjourned inquiry on Wednesday at
Connah's Quay Police station into the cause of the ferry-boat accident at Queen's
Ferry on the 20th December, resulting in the drowning of a family, Robert and
Mrs Jackson, and their son William. Mr R. Taylor, solicitor, Chester, was again
present to represent the River Dee Company, Captain Davies, manager for the
River Dee Company also attended. Mr Edward Jackson, inspector, Chester
Waterworks, a brother of the deceased Robert Jackson, was present to
watch the proceedings on behalf of the relatives. The inquest, it may be
remembered, was adjourned for a week to allow the coroner to communicate
with the Board of Trade, and on Wednesday Mr William Laslett, of the Board of
Trade was present at the adjourned inquiry.
Joseph Latham, labourer, Queen's
Ferry, the first witness. On the night of the accident, he said, he crossed
the ferry at half-past nine o'clock, there being six on board the boat, which was
worked by the ferryman, John Jones. They went to the public-house and returned
to the ferry about twenty minutes past ten o'clock. They got on board the boat
which appeared to be full of passengers. When about three quarters across, the
boat began to fill aft, and John Catherall called out that the vessel was
sinking. As the boat was going down, and as the water on board was up to his
knees, witness jumped off the bow and swam to the side to save his own life.
He landed and went home.
Cross-examined: On the first trip that night witness
felt no water in the boat. The reason why he crossed the water was to the
raffling. John Davies and he were the only two in the bow. He was satisfied
the water came in at the stern. The night was very dark and there were no
lights on either side of the river.
The next witness to be examined was John
Jones, the ferryman who had charge of the boat at the time of the accident,
but the CORONER said he did not call him. He did not know what view the jury
would take of the matter; but there was no doubt there had been culpable
neglect somewhere, and it was for them to say where that neglect was, whether
it would rest on John Jones or his superior.
Mr John Reney suggested
the advisability of enquiring whether John Jones had made any complaints
respecting the boat, and the question would arise whether or not he was
responsible.
John Jones: I did make complaints when the boat first came down.
Mr James Reney pointed out that if Jones elected to be examined there would be
a great many questions put to him.
The Coroner intimated that if any questions were
put likely to incriminate the witness, he should put a stop to them.
John Jones was then sworn. He said he had been working at the Ferry for nearly nine
years. On the night of the 20th December he was using a small boat (the craft
at present lying in the adjoining yard). It had been there for the last six
months. When it first came to the Ferry, he told Captain Davies it was too
small for a ferry-boat, and that it made water if there were four or five
persons in her stern. That was the only occasion on which he had complained
about the condition of the vessel.
Cross-examined: There were generally in that
boat seven, eight, or nine passengers besides the two ferrymen taken across at a
time during daylight, and these were conveyed in safety. It was an old boat
when it first came to the Ferry. There were not so many passengers after dark,
unless there was some "do" on. On one occasion there were as many 200
passengers waiting to be taken across. He did not know how many were in the
boat that night. Witness had the charge of it, his mate (Molyneux) being
away. They started to cross, and when about three-parts across they began
singing out that the boat was making water. One jumped off the bow, and the
boat sank stern first. They were all thrown into the water and witness walked
out. He touched the ground, the water reaching only to his chin. He had an oar
in his band, but it was no use. If the boat had sunk in mid-stream they would
have been all drowned. There were three "thwarts" (seats across the boat). Mrs
Jackson was sitting on after "thwart." The other man was pulling on the fore
"thwart," and witness on the middle one. There were no holes in the boat before
the accident. On the Sunday after the disaster, a plank amidships seemed to
have been dented. On that night the chain of the large boat was broken, but
unless there was large number it was not used for passengers. The chain
had been in use for fifteen or sixteen months. During that time it had broken
several times. Supposing any one had objected to go in the small boat, witness
would have conveyed them in the large boat, which, however, was chiefly used
for horses and carts. Though the chain had been unbroken that night, witness
would not have used it unless the people had objected to the small boat. He
had never heard any complaints about the boat before it came to Queen's Ferry.
Witness was on the large boat the day that Evans' horse was drowned. Many
passengers had complained to witness of the smallness of the boat. He did not
consider there were too many passengers on the night of the accident. If she
had been a good strong boat he did not think the accident would have happened.
She was not a good one in her upper works. He always baled the boat
himself, but there was no water in her when they started that night, and he
heard no complaints of any. The large boat had been laid up since about one or
two o'clock that Saturday afternoon. There was a bad link in the chain. The
old boat, when Powell worked the ferry, was twice the size of the present one.
He never heard any one refuse to cross in that boat. There were rents in her upper
planks. He had taken as many as twenty-three persons in the old boat, and one
night they took about 200 across altogether. He once heard of a man Marshall
jumping off the boat. He did not see the water coming over the gunwale. The top
plank was not usually in the water. Witness had a lifetime's experience of boats.
In case the chain of the large boat were broken it would be necessary to use
the small boat to fish up the two ends of the chain to splice them, but witness
would not risk going in the small boat to perform that duty.
The witness at
this stage was asked to go to the adjoining yard and examine the boat in
question, and on returning he said he saw no difference in her since the
Saturday of the accident.
Before further evidence was given a juryman (Mr
Edward Parry) said the Act of Parliament provided that there should be two
boats, one for the upper and one for the lower ferry. Were they to understand
that the Act pointed out there should be only one for each ferry.
Mr John Reney: From my long experience there were always two boats at each ferry, and
I am almost the oldest man in the room.
Mr Taylor supplied the Coroner with
the Act of Parliament relating to the management of the ferries, and he read
the later Act, which stated that the previous Act appointing Nathaniel
Hinderley, his heirs and nominees to furnish two ferryboats for persons to
pass and re-pass over the new channel when it was not fordable on horseback,
had been by experience found ineffectual for the purposes intended, and many
disputes had arisen between persons passing over the channel and the
attendants at the boats as to whether the channel was or was not fordable, and
whether the passengers in question should or should not be ferried over. For
the prevention of all such disputes and inconvenience in future it was
enacted that two ferry boats should be at all times, after the 24th of May,
1844, constantly kept by the company and their successors at their proper cost
and charges at such parts of the new channel as the ferry-boat already
appointed had worked since the making of the navigation; and that proper and
sufficient attendance and all good substantial and effectual ropes, tackle,
and necessaries proper thereunto for the public use and benefit of all His
Majesty's subjects passing and repassing in those parts, and that the person
or persons attending such boats shall ferry over all such passengers in the
said boats at all times when required thereto without being paid anything for
the same.
Mr W. Henry Laslett, shipwright, surveyor to the Board of Trade,
residing at Liverpool, was the next witness. In consequence of instructions
received from the Board of Trade he said he examined the boat lying in the
yard of the Police Station. First of all he would say as a ship's boat of
those dimensions and in good condition it would be entitled to carry eight
persons. In its present condition, it was defective in the top sides in the bilge,
and in both ends. The oakum was slack up and down the stern on the starboard
side. Several timbers were broken in the bilge. Various planks in the top
sided were rent, and the "lands" or "laps" in various places were slack and
open, particularly aft.
Cross-examined: He had never been to Queen's Ferry,
but he did not consider the boat a fit and proper one to take passengers across the
Dee, except a limited number. That limit, he should say, ought to be five
persons. In the flat of the bottom there was no serious leak. On the starboard
side he thought the plank had been damaged for some time. The wood
was discoloured. The fact of the vessel's lying in that yard exposed to the
weather for nearly a month would not improve its condition.
This being all the evidence the Coroner adjorned.
Captain Davies, ship
chandler, the Crane, Chester, and local agent for the River Dee Company, was
examined by Mr TAYLOR, and said he had been engaged by the company two years
last December. During his term of office, the company had spent fully £700 upon the
Queen's Ferry. Twelve months last December he got a new chain - the best he
could get - for the large boat, purchasing it from Messrs Henry Wood and Co.,
the celebrated chainmakers, for £61. He had it tested and certified "best best
short link chain," bearing a tension of 5 tons 5 cwt., or 10 per cent above
the Admiralty scale of test. Notwithstanding that, he got considerable trouble
from the chain, and on the day in question one of the links broke. He had done
different things to the large boat for the safety and comfort of the
passengers, including the furnishing of new wings. He bought the small boat from
a man named John Crimes, at Chester, as a temporary one, until he got another,
in order to save the men working the cart boat too much. It was quite
sufficient for the
ordinary passenger traffic along the road, as there were rarely more than four
persons wishing to get across at the the same time. When he bought the boat it
was in very fair condition. If the ordinary number of passengers had been
taken across on the night in question this accident would not have happened.
When the chain required piecing he sent a boat down from Chester, and hired
another one down the river for that purpose, and he never used the small boat
for that duty. He never heard any complaints about the condition of the
boat.
Cross-examined: Mr Baird's bill for rebuilding the large boat was nearly
£400, and the new wings cost about £25. These repairs were executed in
November, 1883. Since then he had three or four men working on both sides of
the ferry repairing the slips and rebuilding the steps, etc. The company had
done everything possible to work the ferry properly, and if people would only
wait a bit the flood chain would be working all right. He was not aware the
men were working the large boat with the ebb chain at flood tide. Everything
could not be done at once, and when the company were doing their best it was
unfair to complain because everything was not done at once.
A Juryman : You have heard of that accident when Jos. Evans's horse got
drowned? Witness: That was the fault of the driver.
Mr John Reney : You are bound to do a certain
work, and you are under an obligation to do it.
Witness: The big boat is as
good as ever she was. I never heard of anyone undoing the gearing of horses on
the way across ready for a swim, but incidents will happen in the best
regulated families. The boat is perfectly tight, and I have heard no
complaint about it. I never heard complaints that the boat will scarcely swim
across the river.
Mr James Reney : But I can give you the names of persons who
refused to go across in the little boat and jumped out of it too.
In answer to
further examination, the witness said he never told the ferrymen the number of
passengers that they were to take in the small boat, they were to use their
discretion.
The Coroner then said they had now arrived at the end of the
inquiry. He must ask the jury to disregard anything and everything that they
had heard outside the inquest. They were assembled to inquire into the cause of
the death of William Jackson, and he desired to call their attention to the
first principle on which they ought to proceed. This accident happened at
Queen's Ferry in connection with a public ferryboat. The Ferry, to all
intents and purposes, was a highway, and in pursuance of an Act of
Parliament, the control and the charge of the ferry was given to certain
parties, and under that Act they were bound to do everything that that Act
required for the accommodation of the public, and they were to carry
passengers over free of charge. They undertook that duty, and they were bound
according to the law and according to their undertaking to provide everything
necessary for the safe carriage of the passengers that wanted to go from one
side to the other. It mattered not whether they wanted to go to a raffle
(which might be illegal) or whether they wished to go for some other purpose.
They had a right to go along the public highway, and therefore he would ask
them to disregard entirely the fact that those people crossed the Ferry for
their own amusement to a drawing. The fact was they did go, and the River Dee
Company was bound to carry them and to take every possible care in conveying them
across. If the River Dee Company, who had the charge and had entered into a
contract for that purpose, did not do what they were called upon to do, of
course they would be guilty of negligence, and being guilty of negligence of
course they would be responsible for the loss of life that occurred through
their negligence. There was another point which had arisen in the course of
the examination. The question twice or thrice cropped up whether Jackson and
his wife were drunk or sober. At present they had to inquire only as to the
death of the child, and of course there was no question as to the child's
sobriety. But what he wished to impress on the minds of the jury was that
supposing there was a contributory negligence on the part of Jackson, so as
to cause his death, that had nothing whatever to do with what they were at
present concerned. If it were a question of damages, supposing that Jackson
had left a family and that they could come against the River Dee Company for
damages in consequence of their negligence, then the River Dee Company would
be perfectly justified in turning round and saying "Jackson himself contributed
to the accident. It was not all our fault. There was some part of it your
fault, and therefore we are not liable." That would be a perfectly justifiable
plea for the River Dee Company to raise on a question of that sort, but so far
as the jury were that day concerned that did not enter into their consideration
at all. But, as he had said, the River Dee Company were bound to provide every
accommodation that they possibly could for the safety of the public in
crossing that river. Then the question was - Did they do it? Captain Davies,
in his evidence, had said this boat was simply a temporary one; still, they had
it in evidence that it was there six months or more. Captain Davies had also
said the company had recently spent £700 on the ferry. If it were necessary to
spend £7,000, the company were bound to do it. It was not a question of money,
or of the amount of money that the company had expended although Captain
Davies had put that forward to show that they had not been neglectful of their
duty. It would be for the jury to say whether the company had done as much as
they possibly could for the purpose of carrying the public over in safety. If
the jury were of opinion that really the company did as much as they could
reasonably be expected (it must be looked at reasonably, they could not expect
anything unreasonable) for carrying passengers safely over the ferry, and if
they did, and if any accident happened through the neglect of their officials
or their workmen or ferrymen, of course the company would not be responsible
for their neglect. Similarly any railway company provided everything possible for
the safety of passengers, but if a pointsman by mistake or from neglect of
duty turned a train out of its proper course, the company would not be
criminally responsible for the act, but the pointsman would be responsible for
the act himself; because he did not carry out his instructions. In this case
then, if the company provided sufficient boats, and if the accident happened
through the neglect of any of their ferrymen, of course their ferrymen would
be responsible. But before finding that, the jury would have to come to the
conclusion that the company did provide good and sufficient boats; and if they
found that on the night in question this accident happened through the neglect
of the ferrymen, and not the neglect of the company, they could not visit the
sins of the workmen upon the proprietors; because the latter had done all
that they possibly could (if the jury came to that conclusion), and the
workmen had not carried out the instructions. That was one point for the
jury's consideration, and he thought it would be the most important
point - whether they thought that the boat used on the night in question was a
fit and proper one to carry passengers over the ferry. From what transpired at
the last adjourned inquest, he thought it his duty to report the case, as far
as it went, to the Board of Trade, and the Board of Trade had now sent over Mr
Laslett to examine the boat, and they had heard his evidence. In short, it was
simply that he had looked at the boat and did not think that it was a good and
sufficient one except to carry eight passengers. It was evident the boat was
not in that state of repair that it should be, particularly when Mr Laslett
stated that five persons was as much as could be properly accommodated in the
boat in its then state. On the occasion in question there were twelve on
board, so that at that time it must have been overloaded. Then came the
question - Whose fault was it? That was the only boat on the river, and the
ferryman, John Jones, said he did not know how many were on board. He had seen
as many as eight go over before, and on this occasion, it appeared, there were
twelve. Whether the water came in from the bottom, from the stern, or from the
bow, it mattered not and should not enter into their consideration, though all
the witnesses had sworn it did not come over the gunwale, and it must have
come through the sides. From the description they had got of the boat from Mr
Laslett naturally such a load would draw more water, till the water reached
those portions of the vessel that were found deficient, and there being no
serious leak in the bottom according to his evidence, the water must therefore
have come through the sides. That being so, they came now to what took place
on that particular night. All the witnesses agreed pretty well, and in an
accident of that sort they could not expect agreement to a nicety. It had been
suggested that one man put his foot on the bow and then jumped, and in
consequence of that the boot went over. Supposing that to be so, it did not
show that if that had not been done the boat would have got safely to land.
The majority of the witnesses said the boat sank stern first, and they must
bear in mind that there were twelve on board, and Latham said the water was up
to his knees before he leapt overboard, and that weight of water of course
added to the load of the boat. It therefore struck him that whether the boat
did turn over or not was not of much consequence, and the man who jumped
overboard did not know what happened to the boat immediately afterwards. The
question at issue was whether the accident was brought about by the neglect of
anybody, and if so, by whom. There could be only two parties to blame. Did the
River Dee Company do all that they reasonably could to protect the lives of
the people; and if they did, then did those ferrymen do what was reasonably
to be expected, or was there any neglect on their part? If the jury came to
the conclusion that there was neglect on the part of either of those parties
it would be for them to say so. He did not think it necessary to detain them
with any further remarks. They all knew the locality, the ferry, and the boat,
and he must leave the matter entirely in their hands to consider the pros and
cons, and come to the most just verdict, so as to satisfy their consciences.
Mr John Haney, before the retirement of the jury, said he had omitted to ask one
question of Capt. Davies, namely the cost of the small boat?
Capt. Davies replied that he paid £2 15s. for it, and the total cast, including repairs, was
£4 15s.
After a lengthened deliberation, the jury returned the following
verdict "We, the jury, come to the conclusion that the River Dee Company were
to blame in not providing a good and proper boat, and that John Peter Davies,
the agent of the company, is guilty of manslaughter; and we censure the men for
overloading the boat. We also recommend the company to have a new boat, and
recommend them to have lights placed thereon and licensed by the Board of
Trade."
The Coroner, having read the verdict, addressing the ferrymen, John
Jones and Molyneux, said the jury were of opinion that they, as boatmen on
the night in question, were very much to be blamed indeed. The jury understood
there were two men appointed to take charge of the ferry-boat, but one of them
(Jones) thought that he could do the work himself, and the other one
(Molyneux) went away to attend, not to his proper duties, but went to a
public-house to have something to do with a drawing that was going on. They
ought to have known very well that the lives of the public were dependent upon
the performance of their duty, and on that night they did not perform their
duty. Molyneux was away and he ought to have been there, and Jones ought not
to have gone without his assistant; because if one man was sufficient to do
the work, it was not likely that the River Dee Company would pay two men. The
company thought it necessary that there should be two ferrymen with the boat
always, and when one of them did not attend to his duty it of course a great
neglect on his part. On the night in question there was no doubt whatever that
there was a good deal of neglect. Molyneux was not at his work, and Jones
ought not to have undertaken the duties alone when he knew that the company
entrusted the work to two of them. In his (the Coroner's) opinion the two of
them had escaped very well indeed, and the jury had taken a very lenient view
of their case; because there was certainly a good deal of fault to be found, and not
only on that occasion, but, the jury understood, on other occasions. They
ought to be more careful with the lives of the public, and should do their
duty and not attend to other things during the hours in which they were in the
employment of the company. In view of all that the jury had asked him to
express their sense of disapprobation at the way matters were carried on by
them that night.
The foreman of the jury (Mr James Baird) at this stage of
the proceedings, moved "That this jury recommend Captain Davies to the greatest
leniency that the Court can admit of under the existing circumstances,
believing him not to be personally accessory to the accident."
Mr Edward Parry seconded the motion, and
Mr James Reney, in supporting it, said he felt sure
every one of the jury was very sorry at the position of Captain Davies, but
they had no other one to fall upon, and they were only sorry they had not the
River Dee Company to deal with itself. But as they could not have the company
they were forced to proceed against its agent, Captain Davies.
Mr TAYLOR than
applied that Capt. Davies be admitted to bail, and the Coroner replied that
most decidedly he should. Capt. Davies was then admitted to bail, himself in
£1000, and one surety (the foreman of the jury, Mr James Baird) of £1000.
After the delivery of verdict, Police-Inspector Minshull formally charged Capt
Davies with the manslaughter of the child William Jackson, and Capt. Davies
having been taken before Mr Charles Davison, one of the magistrates of the
Northop division, was remanded on bail till Friday.
At the close of the
inquiry a juryman (Mr James Reney), addressing the coroner, said the jury
would take it a favour if he would recommend to the authorities that a proper
room be erected at Connah's Quay for the purpose of holding inquests at any
time that might be required, the present room being very small and crowded,
and very inconvenient for the witnesses. The jury also suggested that a room
be erected for the purpose named over the present cells. - Mr Taylor, in
supporting the recommendation, said he understood that at a trifling cost of
some £20 a very suitable room could be erected over the police cells for the
holding of inquests and similar business. He thought it ought to go forth to
the public; that an important inquiry like the present had been held in the
kitchen of the police station, there being no less than from 25 to 30 persons
in that small apartment, much to the discomfort not only of those who had to
attend, but to Inspector Minshull (although he had been civility itself),
still he ventured to think that was not a place to hold an important inquiry
like that - Mr John also supported the recommendation, adding that it would
be a better place to have petty sessions there than at Northop.