Dee Ferry - 3 persons drowned 1884

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.