WAR 
 SERyiCE 
 LIBRARy 
 
 BOOKS ARE 
 PROVIDED *BY 
 THE-PEOPLE 
 OF-THE 
 : UNITED-STATES 
 
 LIBRARY 
 ASSOCIATION 
 
 FOR 
 
 THE-USE'OF 
 
 THE- SOLDIERS 
 
 AND' SAILORS 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES 
 
 SCHOOL OF LAW 
 LIBRARY
 
 5 
 
 r v_^ r 
 
 • ^JL/oua^^
 
 A TREATISE ON 
 
 THE LAW OF. 
 
 COLLISIONS AT SEA. 
 
 BY 
 
 R. G. MARSDEN, 
 
 OK THE INNER TKMPI.E, BAURISTER-AT-I.AW. 
 
 SIXTH EDITION 
 
 BY 
 
 E. S. ROSCOE, 
 
 BAEEISTEB-AT-LAW, 
 ADMIEALTY REGISTEAE OF THE HIGH COUET, 
 
 AND 
 
 H. M. ROBERTSON, 
 
 OF Lincoln's inn, baeeistee-at-law. 
 
 " Si vdvis tiKi impacta in meam scapham danaium mihi dederit (jziasitum est 
 (juw acfiii milii annpeteret.^^ — Dig. lib. ix., tit. ii., fr. 29, § 2. 
 
 ]/)NI)ON: 
 
 STEVENS AND SONS, LIMrPKL), 
 11!) c^ 120, CHANCERY LANE, 
 
 %\\ivi giibli.'ihrrji. 
 
 1910.
 
 n 

 
 PREFACE 
 
 TO THE SIXTH EDITION. 
 
 There is little cliaiige in the form of the present 
 edition ; it has, without an increase in its size, been 
 brought up to date by the inclusion of recent cases, 
 and in a few places the text has been remodelled. 
 Extracts from tlie Merchant Shipping Act, 18!)4, 
 have been omitted, for it is found in practice that 
 mere extracts from a statute of this character are 
 apt rather to mislead than to assist. The draft 
 International Convention as to Collisions is inserted 
 as indicative of probable changes in the future in 
 English law, which will, however, have to be 
 incorporated in a statute to become binding on the 
 Courts. 
 
 E. S. R. 
 H. M. R. 
 
 Ajnil, 1910.
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Table of Cases - . _ . . - ix 
 
 ^HAP. I. Negligence - - . . . j 
 
 II. Presumption of fault - - . - 39 
 
 III. Liability - - - . _ - 62 
 
 IV. Persons entitled to recover - - - 1)7 
 V. Damages - - - . . - 100 
 
 VI. The rule as to division of loss - - - 1 1 7 
 
 VII. Limitation of Liability - - - - 1 46 
 
 VIII. Tug and tow " - - . . - 167 
 
 IX. Foreign ships— Foreign law — Foreign judg- 
 ments - - - . . -198 
 X. Compulsory pilotage - - - - 211 
 XI. Collision with reference to (1) the shipowner's 
 liability as carrier ; (2) the contract of 
 insurance — Criminal and other consequences 
 OF collision ..... 265 
 
 XII. Practice .-...- 285 
 XIIL Costs - . - - . - 305 
 
 XIV. Regulations for preventing collisions AT sea - 314 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 I. — The regulations for preventing collisions at sea - 507 
 
 II. — Local rules of navigation - - - - 5 1 9 
 
 III. — International convention for the unification of 
 certain rulks of law in regard to collisions — 
 Translation of the draft convention annexed to 
 THE PROTOCOL OF October 5, 1909 . • - 548
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 A. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 " A. M. Ball," 43 Fed. Rep. 170 184 
 
 "A. P. Cranmer," 1 Fed. Rep. 256 ; 8 ibid. 523 168, 4(i7 
 
 "A. R. Wetmore" and "Epsilon," 5 Bened. 147 189 
 
 "A. W. Thompson," 39 Fed. Eep. 115 416 
 
 Abouloff V. Oppenheiraer, 10 Q. B. D. 295 ; 52 L. J. Q. B. 1 ; 47 L. T. 
 
 325; 31 W. R. 57 212 
 
 " Abraham," 28 L. T. 775 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 34 29 
 
 "Acacia," 4 Asp. M. C. 254 78 
 
 " Acanthus," (1902) P. 1 7 ; 7 1 L. J. Ad. 14 ; 85 L. T. 696 ; 9 Asp. M. C. 
 
 276 101 
 
 " Actseon," 1 Sp. 176 290 
 
 " Active," 5 L. T. 773 298, 307 
 
 "Ada" and "Sappho," 27 L. T. 718; 1 Asp. M. C. 475; on app. 
 
 28 L. T. 825 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 4 403, 465 
 
 " Ada A. Kennedy," 33 Fed. Rep. 623 390 
 
 Adam v. British and Foreign Steamship Co., (1898) 2 Q. B. 430 ; 79 L. T. 
 
 31 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 427 210 
 
 " Adam W. Spies," 70 L. J.- Ad. 25 24, 86, 170, 192, 216, 227 
 
 Adams v. Glasgow and South Western Rail. Co., 3 Court of Sess. 
 
 4th ser. 215 98 
 
 " Addie B.," 43 Fed. Rep. 163 184, 486 
 
 " Addie Schlaefer," 37 Fed. Rep. 382 . . 479 
 
 Addison v. Overend, 6 T. R. 766 97 
 
 " Admiral Boxer," Swab. 193 234 
 
 "Admiral Schley," 115 Fed. Rep. 378 169, 391 
 
 142 Fed. Rep. 64 378 
 
 "Adriatic," 33 L. T. 102; 3 Asp. M. C. 16 58, 348 
 
 17 Otto, 512 416 
 
 African Steamship Co. v. Swanzy, 2 K. & J. 660 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 870 ; 27 
 
 L. T. 248; 4 W. R. 210 151, 163,300, 311, 312 
 
 "Agamemnon," 1 Quebec L. R. 333 0, 180 
 
 "Agnes Otto," 12 P. D. 56 ; 56 L. J. Ad. 45 ; 56 L. T. 746 ; 35 W. R. 
 
 550 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 1 19 218 
 
 " Agra " and " Elizabeth Jenkins," L. R. 1 P. C. 501 ; 36 L. J. Ad. 16 ; 
 
 IG L. T. 755; 16 W. R. 735 305, 412,414, 404, 466
 
 X 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 .. A.M-in-la." 2 W. Rob. 10 ; 7 Jur. 157 " '^H, 230, 253, 257 
 
 .' A^'ua.lillana." 00 L. T. 897 : 6 Asp. M. C. 390 384, 484, 491, 492 
 
 .< aFiI •• .-. 1- I). 84 : 50 L. J. Ad. 40 : 14 L. T. 843 ; 29 W. R. 614 ; 4 
 
 •>92 
 Asp.M.C.432 ; 
 
 "Ailsa," 70Fo<l. Rep. 808 "^^^ 
 
 - Aim.." and "Amelia," 29 L. T. 118 ; 21 W. R. 707 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 
 
 96_p. c ^' =^88, 393, 414 
 
 Aitoliins.in v. Lohrf. See Lohre v. Aitehisou. 
 
 " Alabama " (sc.roeuH), 10 Fed. Rep. 394 •542 
 
 (riding light), 2(5 Fed. Rep. 866 ;563 
 
 and " Gamecock," 2 Otto, 695 95, 127, 181, 269 
 
 •' Alaska." 33 Fed Rep. 107 '^'^ 
 
 130 U. S. Rep. 201 211 
 
 .Ubano ,: Allan Line S.S. Co., (1907) A. C. 193; 96 L. T. 335; 76 
 
 L. J. r. C. 33 ; 10 Asp. M. C. 365 400, 403, 413, 463, 465 
 
 • Alkmy," 91 Fed. Rep. 805 369 
 
 74 Fed. Rep. 314 497 
 
 " Albert Edward,'- 44 L. J. Ad. 49 ; 24 W. R. 179 29, 77 
 
 " Albert Mason," 2 Fed. Rep. 821 !52 
 
 " Albertji," 23 Fed. Rep. 807 ^76 
 
 " Albi.s," 73 L. T. 664 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 92 325 
 
 Aldrich v. Simmons, 1 Stark. 214 63 
 
 "Aleppo," 35 L. J. Ad. 9 ; 14 L. T. 228 35 
 
 " Alexander," 1 Dods. 278 76 
 
 " Alexander Folsom " and " Mary B. Mitchell," 44 Fed. Rep. 932 182 
 
 " Alexandria," L. R. 3 A. & E. 574 ; 41 L. J. Ad. 94 ; 27 L. T. 565. . 295 
 
 " Alfred," 7 Not. of Gas. 352 ; 3 W. Rob. 232 101 , 292 
 
 " Alfredo," 32 Fed. Rep. 240 341, 365, 369, 390 
 
 " Algiers " (flare), 28 Fed. Rep. 240 365 
 
 (flare), 38 Fed. Rep. 526. . ... 335 
 
 " Alhambi-a," 4 Fed. Rep. 86 342 
 
 Br. & L. 286 288 
 
 " Alice" and " Rosita," L. R. 2 P. C. 214 ; 38 L. J. Ad. 20 ; 19 L. T. 
 
 753 ; 17 W. R. 209 287 
 
 " AUcia A. Washburn," 19 Fed. Rep. 788 184 
 
 "Aline," 1 W. Rob. Ill 73, 79, 146 
 
 " Aliwal," 1 Sp. 96 ; 18 Jur. 296 40 
 
 "Allan" and "Flora," 14 L. T. 860 455, 456, 486 
 
 Allen V. Quebec Warehouse Co., 12 App. Cas. 101 ; 56 L. J. P. C. 6 ; 
 
 .56 L. T. 30 '. 481 
 
 " Allen Green," 60 Fed. Rep. 459 25 
 
 Alleson v. Marsh, 2 Ventr. 181 95 
 
 " Allianca," 39 Fed. Rep. 476 377 
 
 " Alma," (1903) P. 55 ; 72 L. J. Ad. 21 ; 88 L. T. 64 ; 51 W. R. 415 . . 300 
 •' Alne Holme" (first action), 47 L. T. 309 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 593 . .78, 79, 301 
 
 (second action), 47 L. T. 307 : 4 Asp. M. C. 591 ... . 80, 295 
 
 " Alpha," 27 Fed. Rep. 759 190 
 
 ".Utair," (1897) P. 105; 66 L. J. Ad. 42; 76 L. T. 263; 45 W. R. 
 
 622 ; 8 Asp. M. 0. 224 21, 187, 188, 189 
 
 "Altenower," 39 Fed. Rep. 118 9, 472
 
 TABLE OF CASES. xi 
 
 PAGE 
 
 " Altyre," Ad. Div. 27th Feb. 1885 541 
 
 "Aroalia" (limitation), Cail r. Papayaniii, Br. & Lush, l.il : 1 Moo. 
 
 P. C. N. S. 471 ; 2 N. R. 533 ; 32 L. J. Ad. 101 ; 9 Jiir. N. S. 1111 ; 
 
 8L. T. 805; 12 W. R. 24 81, 151. 156, 206,208, 300 
 
 (pleadings), Br. & L. 31 1 288 
 
 (damages; interest), 34 L. J. Ad. 21 ; o N. R. 164, note; 
 
 13W. R. Ill 1C3 
 
 " Ambassador," 2 P. D. 37, note y, 93 
 
 " Amboy," 36 Fed. Rep. 925 .*. . . ' 74 
 
 " America," 3 Bened. 424 ; 10 Blatchf. 155 ; 2 Otto, 432 0, 7, 323, 
 
 330, 398, 466, 475 
 
 29 Fed. Rep. 304 34I 
 
 38 Fed. Rep. 256 .179 
 
 "American" and "Syria," Union Steamship Co. r. Owners of 
 
 "Aracan," L. R. 4 A. & E. 226; 43 L. J. Ad. 24; 31 L. T. 42; 
 
 22 W. R. 845 ; on app. L. R. 6 P. C. 127 ; 43 L. J. Ad. 30 ; 22 
 
 W. R. 927 ; 31 L. T. 42 ; 22 W. R. 927 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 350 .... 161, 167, 
 
 168, 170, 171, 173, 293, 333, 335, 344, 406, 465 
 
 Amos V. Chadwick, 4 Ch. D. 869 294 
 
 " Andalusian " (launch), 2 P. D. 231 ; 46 L. J. Ad. 77 292, 498, 499 
 
 (limited liability), 3 P. D. 182 ; 47 L. J. Ad. 65 ; 39 
 
 L. T. 204 ; 27 W. R. 172 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 22 151, 159, 162 
 
 Andus V. " Saratoga," I Fed. Rep. 730 18 
 
 " Anerly," 58 Fed. Rep. 794 19, 126 
 
 Anglo-Australian St. Nav. Co. v. Cornell Steamboat Co., 32 Fed. Rep. 
 
 798 186 
 
 "Anglo-Indian," 3 Asp. M. C. 1 ; 33 L. T. 233; 23 W. R. 882— 
 
 P. C 335, 359 
 
 " Ann," Lush. 55 ... 287, 310, 397 
 
 " Ann Caroline," 2 WaU. 538 395 
 
 " Ann and Mary," 2 W. Rob. 189 ; 7 Jur. 999 289, 292, 462 
 
 "Anna and Bertha," 64 L. T. 332 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 31 298 
 
 " Anna Johnson," 2 Stuart (V. Ad. Canada), 43 199 
 
 "Annapolis" and "Golden Light," Lush. 355; 5 L. T. 37 ; 1 Mar. 
 
 Law Cas. O. S. 183 189, 233 
 
 ■ and " Johanna StoU," Lush. 295; 30 L. J. Ad. 201 ; 4 
 
 L. T. 417 198, 207, 216, 217, 253, 308 
 
 " Annie," 12 P. D. 50 ; 56 L. J. Ad. 70 ; 56 L. T. 500 ; 35 W. R. 366 ; 
 
 6 Asp. M. C. 117 75, 110, 115 
 
 (1909) P. 176 ; 100 L. T. 415 ; 78 L. J. P. 81 ; 11 Asp. M. C. 
 
 213 99, 393, 438 
 
 "Annie "Williams," 20 Fed. Rep. 860 193 
 
 " Annot Lyle," 11 P. D. 114 ; 55 L. J. Ad. 62 ; 55 L. T. 576 ; 34 W. R. 
 
 647 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 50— C. A .30, 480, 481 
 
 Anonymous Case, 1 Camp. 516, note 31 
 
 1 Keb. 44 72 
 
 or Delanoy v. Robson, 5 Taunt. 605 276 
 
 " Anselm," (1907) P. 151 ; 97 L. T. 16 ; 76 L. J. P. 54 ; 10 Asp. M. C. 
 
 438 42, 43, 56, 310, 317, 468, 469 
 
 " Ansgar," 1 15 Fed. Rep. 440 195
 
 xii TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 .. AntUope." L. R. 4 A. & E. 33 ; 42 L. J. Ad. 42 ; 28 L. T. 74 ; 21 
 
 W. R. 4G4 ; I Asp. M. C. 477, 513 ^^ 
 
 " Apollo •• Littlo V. Port Talbot Co., (1891) App. Cas. 499 ; 61 L. J. Ad. 
 
 25; 65L.T. 590; 7 Asp. M. C. 115 92-239 
 
 •• Appriulix," 2 Pritch. Ad. Dig. 1761 11^ 
 
 '• AnibiHU," 2 Stuart (V. Ad. Canada), 73 42, 396 
 
 " Arns " (1907) P. 28 ; 96 L. T. 95 ; 76 L. J. P. 37 ; 10 Asp. M. C. 
 
 368.;........ ^'^'''^' 
 
 "Araxes" aud "Black Priuce," Geueral Iron Screw Co. v. Moss, 15 
 
 Moo. P. C. 122; 5 L. T. 39 323,331,399,466 
 
 " Aristocrat," (1908) P. 9 ; 97 L. T. 83s ; 77 L. J. P. 57 ; 10 Asp. M. C. 
 
 5(5- 318, 468, 469 
 
 " Arbntus",""' 2 Mfir.Law Cas. 0. S. 136 ; 11 L. T. 208 215, 248 
 
 " Ardandhu," 11 P. D. 40 ; 12 App. Cas. 256 ; 56 L. J. Ad. 49 ; 56 L. T. 
 
 345 ; 35 W. R. 783 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 124 301 
 
 " Argeutino," 14 App. Cas. 519; 59 L. J. Ad. 17 ; 61 L. T. 706 ; 6 Asp. 
 
 M.C.433-H.L 100,101,112,113 
 
 " Argo •' .infringement), 82 L. T. 602 ; 9 A.sp. M. C. 74-C. A 42 
 
 (narrow channel). Swab. 462 18, 20, 229, 230, 234, 236 
 
 " Ariadne," 2 Beued. 472 ; 13 Wall. 475 60, 475 
 
 . See Little v. Bums. 
 
 " Arklnw," Emery r. Cichero, 9 App. Cas. 136 ; 53 L. J. P. C. U ; 
 
 50 L. T. 306 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 219-P. C 43, 44 
 
 " Armonia," 67 Fed. Rep. 362 33 
 
 Armstrong r. Gaselee, 22 Q. B. D. 250 ; 58 L. J. Q. B. 149 ; 5!i L. T. 
 
 891 ; 37 W. R 462 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 353 286 
 
 c. Lancashire and Yorkshii-e Rail. Co., L. R. 10 Ex. 47 ; 
 
 44 L. J. Ex. 89 ; 33 L. T. 228 ; 23 W. R. 295 98 
 
 Amison r. Smith, 40 Ch. D. 567; 58 L. J. Ch. 335; 60 L. T. 206; 
 
 37 W. R. 405 212 
 
 " Arran," 9 Quebec L. R. 278 ; Cook, V. Ad. Rep. Quebec, 22 23, 180, 481 
 " Arratoon Apcar," Ocean Steamship Co. v. Apcar & Co., 15 App. Cas. 
 
 37 ; 59 L. J. P. C. 49 ; 62 L. T. 331 : 38 W. R. 481 ; A.-^p. M. C. 
 
 310.491-P. C 46,331,432 
 
 Arthur e. Ford, Seld. Ser. Admiralty, II. Ixxxiv 138 
 
 •' Arthur Gordon " and " Independence," Maddox v. Fisher, Lush. 270; 
 
 14 Moo. P. C. 103 ; 4 L. T. 563 ; 9 W. R. 582. . . .5, 7, 167, 397, 405, 466, 
 
 477, 489, 496, 500 
 
 " Arturo," 6 Fed. Rep. 308 84, 180, 189 
 
 "Ashbourne," 99 Fed. Rep. Ill 282 
 
 " Ashton," (1905) P. 21 ; 92 L. T. 811 ; 74 L. J. P. 28 ; 10 Asp. M. C. 
 
 88 401, 403, 412, 443 
 
 "Asia," (1891) P. 121; 60 L. J. Ad. 38; 04 L. T. 327; 7 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 25 312 
 
 "Assaye," (1905) P. 289; 94 L. T. 102; 74 L. J. P. 145; 10 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 183 254 
 
 "Assunta," (1902) P. 150: 71 L. J. Ad. 75: 86 L. T. 660; 9 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 302 286 
 
 "Assyrian," 63 L. T. 91 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 525 292 
 
 " Astrakhan," (1909) Fo. 129 ; Ship. Gaz., Nov. 4th, 1909 59, 316
 
 TABLE OF CASES. xiii 
 
 PAGE 
 
 "Atlanta,"" 41 Fed. Rep. 639 10 
 
 " Athabasca," 45 Fed. Rep. 6ol 183, 496 
 
 " Athol," 1 W. Rob. 374 ;)4 
 
 Atkinson r. Newcastle and Gateshead Waterworks Co.. 2 Ex. D. 441 ; 
 
 46 L. J. Ex. 775 ; 36 L. T. 761 ; 25 W. R. 794 502 
 
 "Atlas " (compulsory pilot), 2 "\V. Rob. 502 232, 233, 269 
 
 2 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. Dig. 1480 483 
 
 10 Blatchf. 459 ; 3 Otto, 302 17, 54, 95, 131, 182, 193. 475 
 
 " Atlee." 12 Fed. Rep. 734 IdS 
 
 '^ Attila,'" 5 Quebec L. R. 340 373, 374, 384. 392 
 
 Attorney- General v. Case, 3 Price, 302 217, 243. 253 
 
 ■ V. Norstedt, 3 Price, 97 79 
 
 Attwood V. Sellar, 5 Q. B. D. 286 ; 49 L. J. Q. B. 515 ; 42 L. T. 644 : 
 
 28 W. R. 604 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 283— C. A 283 
 
 " Augusta," 56 L. T. 58 ; 57 ibid. 326 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 58, 161 . . . .204, 218 
 
 " Aureole," 103 Fed. Rep. 699 411 
 
 " Aurora " (division of loss), Lush. 327 40 
 
 2 Stuart, V. Ad. Rep. 52 42 
 
 and '' Robert Ingram," Lush. 327 40, 124, 288, 335 
 
 Australian Direct Steam Navigation Co., In re, L. R. 20 Eq. 325 ; 
 
 44 L. J. Ch. 676 74, 79 
 
 Australian Steam Navigation Co. v. Smith ("Victoria" and "Keila- 
 
 warra "), 14 App. Cas. 318 ; 61 L. T. KU 445 
 
 " Avon," 22 Fed. Rep. 905 335, 474 
 
 and "Thomas JolifFc," (1891) P. 7 ; 63 L. T. 712 ; 39 "W. R. 
 
 176 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 605 125, 132, 179, 182, 193 
 
 B. 
 
 " B. & C," 18 Fed. Rep. 543 125 
 
 " B. C. Terry," 30 Fed. Rep. 711 489 
 
 " B. K. Washburn," 19 Fed. Rep. 788 501 
 
 " Badger State," 8 Fed. Rep. 526 34 
 
 " Bahia," Br. & L. 61, 292 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 90 270 
 
 Baker v. Corditt, Seld. Ser. Admiralt}^ II. Ixxxiii 136 
 
 V. Power, 14 Fed. Rep. 483 82 
 
 Ball V. Berwind, 29 Fed. Rep. 54 1 89 
 
 " Baltic," 2 Bened. 452 30 
 
 " Baltimore," 34 Fed. Rep. 660 422 
 
 (damages), 8 Wall. 377 107 
 
 "Banshee " (No. 1, practice), 56 L. T. 725 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 130 293 
 
 (No. 2, overtaken ship), 57 L. T. 841 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 221 — 
 
 C. A ■■<'-29. 411, 414 
 
 " Barcelona," 10 Quebec L. R. 305 371 
 
 Barclay i'. Cuculla y Gana, 3 Dougl. 389 265
 
 XIV TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Barker ,: Hi^-liley, 15 C. B. N. S. 27 ; 32 L. J. C. P. 270 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 
 
 3H 1 ; 1( L. T. 228 ; 1 1 W. R. 968 302 
 
 •' Burnstublo," 181 U. S. Rop. 464 SG 
 
 ••Bur..ii Abfnliire"im(l "Gprtrudc," 12P. D. 204; VS ibid. 105; 56 L. J. 
 Ad. IOC. ; 17 L. T. 8S;{ ; 59 ihitf. 251 ; 3G W. R. 191, 616 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 
 
 224,315 103 
 
 BiimulouKh r. Brown, 65 L. J. Q. B. 333 ; 74 L. T. 86 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 
 
 131 ; iiffd. 1897, App. Ci\a. 615 ; 76 L. T. 797 91 
 
 " Barlley," Swab. 198 294 
 
 Biirwick r. English Joint Stock Bank, L. R. 2 Ex. 259 66 
 
 '• Ba.>»s..tt Hound," 71 L. T. 12 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 467 360 
 
 Bn-stard r. Smith, 10 Ad. & Ell. 213 290 
 
 " Btttavior" (at anchor; pilot), 2 W. Rob. 407 31, 219, 477 
 
 (costs), 15 P. D. 37 ; 59 L. J. Ad. 54 ; 62 L. T. 406; 38 
 
 W. R. 522; 6 Asp. M. C. 500 ;]06, 307 
 
 (speed; swell), 1 Sp. 378; on app. nom. Netherlands 
 
 Steamboat Co. r. Styles, 9 Moo. P. C. 286 28, 230, 231, 232, 472, 
 
 496, 498 
 " Battler." 62 Fed. Rep. 612 371 
 
 Baumwoll r. Funiess, (1893) A. C. 8 ; 68 L. T. 1 ; 62 L. J. Q. B. 201 ; 
 
 7 Asp. M. C. 263 ' 157 
 
 Baxter r. International Contracting Co., 65 Fed. Rep. 250 89 
 
 "Bay Queen," 42 Fed. Rep. 271 500 
 
 " Bay State," 3 Blatchf. 48 445 
 
 Board V. General Omnibus Co., (1900) 2 Q. B. 530 65 
 
 "Beam." (1906) P. 48; 94 L. T. 265; 75 L. J. P. 9 • 10 Asp 
 
 M. C. 208 gj 
 
 " Beaver." 2 Bened. 118 .......!.... 30 
 
 Beckham v. Chapman, " Little Besty " and "Jonas," Marsd. Ad. c"a 
 
 270 • ^39 
 
 Bcde S.S. Co. f>. River Wear Commissioners, (1907) 1 K. B. 310- 96 
 
 L. T. 370; 76L. J. K.B. 434; lOAsp. M. C. 370 ..... ' 93 
 
 " Behcra," 6 Fed. Rep. 400 ^^g 
 
 Beilby r. Raper, 3 B. & Ad. 284 * [ | 2.51 
 
 r. Scott, 7 M. & W. 93 : 10 L. J. Ex. 149 . . ...'.'.". .".V.2lV, 226 243 
 
 Belden v. Chase, 43 Dav. 674 ; 150 U. S. Rep. 674 I32' 412 
 
 " Belgouland " (damages), 36 Fed. Rep. 504 " "' m 
 
 7 Dav. 355 3jg ^„ 
 
 " Belgic," 2 P. D. 57 (note) ; 46 L. J. Ad. 58 (note) j'sSL t" ' 999 -' 
 
 3 .V.sp. M. C. 348 .....25,' 178 228 239 
 
 Belitha r. Burwood, Seld. Ser. Admiralty, II. Ixxxiv ' ' " ' lo- 
 
 "BeUanoch," (1907) P. 170; 97 L. T. ;n5 ; 76 L. " J " P ' 83 ■" "on ' 
 
 app (1907) A. C. 170: 97 L. T. ;n5; 76 L. J. P, I6O ; 10 Asp 
 
 ^\,.^^^ 42, 345,364,451,466,468 469 
 
 " Bellcaim," 10 P. D. 161 ; 55L. J. Ad. 3; 53L.T. 686 34 W R 55 
 
 5 Asp. M. C. 503-C. A -* vv . it. 00 , 
 
 " Bollerophon," H.M.S. (discovery), 2 Asp.M.'c. 449 ......[[ 289 
 
 (liability), 44 L. J. Ad. 7; 33 1.' T 4'iV."q 
 
 Asp. M. C. 58 ^- -L. 41-, d 
 
 " Ben Hooley," 6 Fed. Rep. 318 ^^' ^^^' ^^^ 
 
 183
 
 TABLE OF CASES. xv 
 
 PAGE 
 
 " Benares" (lien), 7 Not. of Cas. 50, Suppl. ; 14 Jur. 581 78, 151 
 
 (infringement), 48 L. T. 127; 5 Asp. M. C. 53; on app.' 
 
 9 P. D. 16 ; 53 L. J. Ad. > ; 49 L. T. 702 ; 32 W. R. 268 ; 5 Asp. 
 
 ^- C. 171 48, 326, 336, 425, 431, 452. 462 
 
 " Benayo " (not reported) 290 
 
 " Bendo" and " Sampson," 44 Fed. Rep. 4o9 439 
 
 " Benefactor," 14 Blatchf. 254 33O 494 
 
 " Bengal," Swab. 468 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 1085 ' 296 
 
 " Benjamin F. Hunt, Jr.," 34 Fed. Rep. 816 HO 
 
 " Benmore," L. R 4 A. & E. 132 ; 43 L. J. Ad. 5 ; 22 VV. R. 190. .29, 291 
 
 Bennet v. Moita, 7 Taunt. 258 2''4 
 
 Bennett r. Lord Bmy, 5 C. P. D. 339 ; 49 L. J. C. P. 411 ; 42 L. T. 
 
 480 .^. ..... 294 
 
 " Berkshire." See "Scotia." 
 
 "Bernard Hall," 71 L. J. Ad. 72 ; 8t5 L. T. 608 ; 9 Asp. M. C. 300 . . .370, 
 
 373, 379 
 " Bercina," No. 1 (bill of lading), 12 P. D. 36: 56 L. J. Ad. 38; 56 
 
 L. T. 450 ; 35 W. R. 214 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 112 96, 100, 121, 159, 160 
 
 No. 2, Mills t'. Armstrong (overruling Thorogood i\ 
 
 Bryan), 13 App. Cas. 1 ; 57 L. J. Ad. 65 ; 58 L. T. 423 ; 36 W. R. 
 
 870; 6 Asp. M. C. 257— H. L 13, 21, 22, 27, 60, 96, 98, 121, 124, 
 
 131, 132, 228, 267 
 
 " Bemina " (damages), 55 L. T. 781 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 65 101, 108 
 
 " Berrington " and " Ostrich " (not reported) 54 1 
 
 " Beryl," 9 P. D. 4 ; 49 L. T. 748 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 193 ; 32 W. R. 648 ; 
 
 on app. 9 P. D. 137 ; 53 L. J. Ad. 75 ; 51 L. T. 554 ; 33 W. R. 191 ;' 
 
 5 Asp. M. C. 321— C. A. . .46, 292, 321, 323, 324, 399, 410, 420, 421,' 423, 
 
 426 429 430 
 "Beta," 44 Fed. Rep. 389 ' ' io3 
 
 (jurisdiction), L. R. 2 P. C. 447 ; 3t L. J. Ad 76 ; 20 L. T. 
 
 988; 17 W. R. 933 297 
 
 (costs), Br. & L. 328 ; 34 L. J. Ad. 76 ; 12 L. T. 1 246 
 
 (speed), 9 P. D. 134 ; 51 L. T. 154 ; 33 W. R. 190 ; 5 A.sp. 
 
 M. C. 276 3,S2 
 
 " Betsy Caines," 2 Hag. Ad. 28 109, 145 
 
 Betts V. De Vitre, L. R. 3 Ch. 429 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 325; 18 L. T. 105 ;' 
 
 16 W. R. 529 ' 66 
 
 " Bianca," 8 P. D. 91 ; 52 L. J. Ad. 56 ; 4S L. T. 440 ; 31 W. R. 954 ; 
 
 5 Asp. M. C. 60 171^ 297 
 
 "Bilbao," Lush. 149; 3L. T. 338 78,201, 216, 238,' 303 
 
 " Biola," 34 L. T. 135 ; 24 W. R. 524 ; 3 Asp. Al. C. 125 291 
 
 " Birkenhead," 3 W. Rob. 75 94^ 419 
 
 Biscell V. ' ' Alexander," 3 Fed. Rep. 671 1S6 
 
 " Bjorn," 9 P. D. 36 (n.) ; 5 Asp. M. C. 212 (n.) 295 
 
 Blaanpot v. Da Co.st«, 1 Eden, 130 276 
 
 " Black Prince," Lush. 068 111,310 
 
 " Blackheath," 195 U. S. Rep 361 77 
 
 Blaikie v. Stembridge, C. B. N. S. 894 ; 28 L. J. C. P. 329 63 
 
 " Blanche L.," 68 Fed. Rep. 939 183 
 
 " Blenheim " (damages), 1 Sp. 285 105, 390, 463
 
 Xvi TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 •• Bl.'uhoim " ^launch), 2 W. Rob. 421 ; 4 Not. of Cas. 393 499 
 
 17 Fed. Rep. 608 102 
 
 BlowiU r. nni. 13 East, 13 68 
 
 " nicWNoin," Olcott, 188 475 
 
 Blowow I'. Starlingo, Seld. Ser. Admiralty, II. Ixxxiv 137 
 
 •• lUuo Bell," (ISO.')) P. 242 ; 64 L. J. Ad. 71 ; 72 L. T. 540 ; 7 Asp. 
 
 M. C. COl 364, 442, 539 
 
 Blytlio ••. Marali, 1 McCord, 360 271 
 
 *• Boanerges," 2 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 239 456 
 
 " Bodlowell," (1907) P. 286 ; 96 L. T. 854 ; 76 L. J. P. 61 ; 10 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 479 112 
 
 "Bold Bucdeuch," Hanncr v. Bell, 3 W. Rob. 220; on app. 7 Moo. 
 
 P. C. 267 73, 74, 75, 79, 81, 84, 149, 296 
 
 1 Pritch. Ad. Dig. 2nd ed. 144 472 
 
 " Bolina," 3 Not. of Cas. 208 7, 29 
 
 •' Bolivia," 49 Fed. Rep. 169 60, 370 
 
 " Bonlentowni." 40 Fed. Rep. 682 189 
 
 " BoriKlino," 5 L. T. 291 97, 297 
 
 " Borussia," Swab. 94 ; 4 W. R. 503 180, 223, 230, 231, 486 
 
 " Bo.xkeinia Bay " and " Earl of Dumfries." See " Earl of Dumfries." 
 
 Boston Tiiwboat Co. v. Winslow, 76 Fed. Rep. 595 58 
 
 " Biithuia," Lu.sh. 52 , 29 L. J. Ad. 65 ; 2 L. T. 160 30, 45, 287 
 
 " Bottle Imp," 42 L. J. Ad. 48 ; 28 L. T. 286 30 
 
 "Boucau," (1909) P. 163; 100 L. T. 617; 78 L. J. P. 87; 11 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 240 10 
 
 Boucher r. Clyde Shipping Co., Ir. Rep. (1904) II. 129 133 
 
 Bi>iioher r. Lawson, Cas. temp. Hard-\vicke, 85 ; Cun. 241 150, 270 
 
 " B< >ugain>'ille " and " James C. Stevenson," Beal v. Marchais, L. E. 
 
 5 P. C. 316 ; 28 L. T. 822 ; 21 W. R. 653 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 1 41, 327, 
 
 328,342, 405, 414, 432, 457 
 " Boiirgogne," (1899) App. Cas. 431 ; 68 L. J. Ad. 104 ; 80 L. T. 845 ; 
 
 8 Asp. M. C. 550— H. L 285 
 
 139 Fed. Rep. 434 376 
 
 Iliiwclicr r. Noidstrom, 1 Taunt. 568 63 
 
 •• Bowden," 78 Fed. Rep. 649 496 
 
 Bower »•. Peate, 1 Q. B. D. 321 ; 45 L. J. Q. B. 446 ; 35 L. T. 321 .... 68 
 
 ■• Bowesfield," 51 L. T. 128 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 265 295 
 
 Bradlmm r. Great Western Rail. Co., L. R. 10 Ex. 1 115, 278 
 
 iJrake r. " Piper," Seld. Ser. Admii-alty, II. Ixxxiv ' 135 
 
 " Broadalbane," 7 P. D. 186 ; 46 L. T. 204 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 505 ... .44, 294, 
 
 295, 359, 361, 390, 394, 397, 435, 436 
 
 " Breeze," 2 Pr. Ad. Dig. 17^2 II3 
 
 " Bridgeport" (speed ; inevitable accident), 35 Fed. Rep. 159 33 
 
 14 Wall. 116 ; 7 Blatchf. 361 !...!! 477 
 
 6 Blatchf. 3 ..".... 488 
 
 Briggf* r. Whitehall, 68 Fed. Rep. 1022 \ 384 
 
 ' ' Brinio," 90 L. T. Journal, 249 [/ ... 157 159 
 
 Brinsmead r. Harrison, L. R. 7 C. P. 547 ; 41 L. J. C. P. 190 • 27 L t' 
 
 99 ; 20 W. R. 784— Ex. Ch ' "^ " ' 9^ 
 
 "Bristol," 11 Fed. Rep. 156 ....['....,. 39-
 
 TABLE OF CASES. XVli 
 
 PAGE 
 
 " Bristol," 29 Fed. Rep. S67 131 
 
 "Bristol City." (1902; P. 10 ; 71 L. J. Ad. 5; 8.) L. T. 694 ; Vo W. R 
 
 3S3 ; 9 Asp. M. C. 274 21.) 
 
 "Britannia," (1905) P. 98; 92 L. T. 634; 74 L. J. P. 40 ; lOAsp. ' 
 
 ^■C.eo 378, 379 
 
 IG i)avis, 130 ; 34 Fed. Rep. 546 IS, 410, 412, 413, 492 
 
 "Britannic," 39 Fed. Rep. 395 131, 376, 429 
 
 British Columbia Towing and Transport Co. i\ Sewell, 9 Duval 
 
 (Canada), 527 I59, i62, 189, 192 
 
 "British Commerce," 9 P. D. 128; 53 L. J. Ad. 72 ; 51 L. T. G04 ; .33 
 
 W. R. 200 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 335 .\ , . no 
 
 " British Empire," 24 Fed. Rep. 493 486 
 
 "British Princess" and " Sedmi Duhrovacki," Mitch. Mar. Reg. 
 
 March, 1878 f,i) 206 
 
 Brooks V. Macdonell. 1 Y. &: C. Ex. 500 276 
 
 " Broomfic^d," 91 L. T. 109 ; 10 Asp. M. C. 194 404 
 
 " Brothers," 2 Bissel, 104 126 
 
 Brown c. Gravenor, Seld. Ser. Admiralty, II. Ixxxiv 139 
 
 r. Mallet, 5 C. B. 599 ; 17 L. J. C. P. 227 ; 12 Jur. 204 26, 88 
 
 ■ r. Wilkinson, 15 M. & W. 391 ; 6 L. J. Ex. 3t ..146, 149, 151, IGl 
 
 '• Brunei," (19C0j P. 24 : 69 L. J. Ad. 8 ; 81 L. T. 500 ; 48 W. R. 243 ; 
 
 9 Asp. M. C. 10 lo7, 1,^9 
 
 Brunsden v. Humphrey, 11 Q. B. D. 712 ; 14 ibid. 141 ; 52 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 750 ; 53 ibid. 476 ; 51 L. T. 529 ; 32 W. R. 944 295 
 
 " Bruxellesville " (damage), (1908) P. 312 ; 98 L. T. 251 ; 77 L. J. P. 
 
 156 ; 11 Asp. M. C. 24 IO3, 107 
 
 (collision), (1907) Fos. 323, 329 ; Ship.Gaz., 23rd Nov. 
 
 1907 103, 413 
 
 Bryce v. Canadian Pacific Ry. Co., 13 Brit. Col. Rep. 446 441 
 
 Buchanan v. Rucker, 1 Camp. 63 ; 9 East, 192 212 
 
 " Buckhurst," 6 P. D. 152 ; 51 L. J. Ad. 10 ; 46 L. T. 108 ; 30 W. R. 
 
 232 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 484 10, 52, 306, 340, 347, 318, 494 
 
 '•Buffalo," 50 Fed. Rep. 628 337 
 
 Buller V. Fisher, 3 Esp. 67 ; 1 Peake, 183 ; 3 Taunt. 4 266, 271 
 
 Bunne c. Williamson, Seld. Ser. Admiralty, II. Ixxxiii 136 
 
 Burger r. Indemnity Mutual Insurance Co., (1900) 2 Q. B. 348; 82 
 
 L. T. 831 ; 48 W. R. 643 ; 9 Asp. M. C. 85 273 
 
 " Burlington," 72 L. T. 602; 8 Asp. M. C. 38-C. A 91, 239 
 
 " Burma" (No. 1), SO L. T. 808; 8 Asp. M. C. 547 308 
 
 Burnand v. Nerot, 1 C. & P. 578 290 
 
 V. Rodocanachi, 7 App. Cas. 333 ; 51 L. J. Q. B. 548 ; 47 L. T. 
 
 277; 31 W. R. 65 276 
 
 Burnard r. Aaron, 31 L. J. C. P. 334 69 
 
 " Burns," (1907) P. 137 ; 96 L. T. 684 ; 76 L. J. P. 41 ; 10 Asp. M. C. 
 
 4 24 296 
 
 Burrell v. Macbrayne, 18 Ct. (.f Sess. Cas. 4th ser. 1048 . .180, 225, 230, 231 
 
 r. Simpson, 4 Ct, of Sess. Cas. 4th ser. 177 156, 166 
 
 BuiTows r. Gower, 11'.) Fed. Rep. 616 345, 369 
 
 M.
 
 XVni T\m.T. OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Bury e. Gold. Sold. Sor. A.lmiraUy, II. Ixxxiv 134, 137 
 
 •• Bushiro," .VJ L. T. 740 ; ;> Asp. M. C. 416 IIG, 131 
 
 Bu.sk r. Hoyal Exchting-e Assurance Co., 2 B. & ^Vld. 73 272 
 
 BusHj r. Donaldson, 4 Dallas, 194 241 
 
 ButtoificM r. Boyd. 4 Blatehf. 3.50 498 
 
 " Byfojfod Christcnsen," and " AVilliam Frederick," 4 App. Cas. 669 ; 
 
 41 L, T. 535; 28 W. R. 233; 4 Asp. M. C. 201— H. L....3, 5, 321,386, 
 
 413, 461 
 Byrne r. Boadlo, 2 IT. .t C. 722; 33 L. J. Ex. 13; 12 W. R. 279; 9 
 
 L. T. 4.10 36 
 
 " Byron." 2 New South Wales L. R. Ad. 1 333, 392, <04 
 
 Ship. rj;i/.. Fob. 9, 1905 380 
 
 " Bjwell (.'asll.'," 4 V. D. 219; 41 L. T. 747: 2S W. R. 293; 4 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 207 3, '), 403, 446 
 
 C. 
 
 " C. M. Palmer," and " Lamax," 29 L. T. 120 ; 21 W. R. 702 ; 2 Asp 
 
 M. C. 94-P.C .'...3,4,336 
 
 " C. r. Raymond," 28 Fed. Rep. 765 109 
 
 " C. R. Stone," 49 Fed. Rep. 475 456 
 
 " C. S. Butler," L. R. 4 A. & E. 238 ; 31 L. T. 549 ; 23 W. R." lls'; 
 
 2Asp. M. C. 408 304,319,504 
 
 and " Baltic " (salvage), L. R. 4 A. & E. 178 ; 43 L. J. 
 
 Ad. 17 ; 30 L. T. 475 ; 22 W. R. 759 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 237 . . . .12, 282, 283 
 " Cachapool," 7 P. D. 217: 43L. T. 171 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 502.... 22, 31,'221, 
 
 230, 253, 500 
 
 "Cadeby,"(1909)P. 257; lOlL. T. 48; 78L. J. P. 85 29 
 
 '• Calabar," Moss v. The African Steamship Co., L. R. 2 P. C. 238 ; 
 
 19 L. T. 768 230, 233, 474 
 
 " CiUcutta" (bail), 17 W. R. 744 95 ^q^ 
 
 (disabled ship), 21 L. T. 768 ; 3 Mar. Law Cas. 0. S. 336 ' 463 
 
 " Cilia," Swab. 465 ' g^'g ^g., 
 
 " Calliope," (1891) App. Cas. 11 ; 60 L. J. Ad. 28 ; 63 L T ' 781 • 39 
 
 W. R. 461 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 585-H. L " gl 
 
 " Calyp.so." Swab. 28 991 
 
 and " Mississippi," Mitch. Mar. Reg. 1878 . . ' 44 451 
 
 " Cambria," Ad. Div. May, 1887 ". 299 
 
 " Cambridge," " Underbill," and " Chase." 4 Bened. 366 iS2 
 
 " Cambusduon," 30 Fed. Rep. 704 ^.^ 
 
 " Camellia," 9 P. D. 27 ; 53 L. J. Ad. 12 ; 50 L. T. 126 ' 3'^' W E 
 
 495 ; 5 A.sp. M. C. 197 ' " ' ' -, 
 
 " Cameo," Lush. 408 ; 5 L. T. 773 .'.....' 00"^ 
 
 " Campania," (1901) P. 289 ; 70 L. J. Ad."ioi ;" sVl. "t. 673 ; *9 Asp " 
 
 M. C. 177 ofi Q-i 0-- .,-- 
 
 r- . 1, -n , . ^ 36, 3/4, 3/.3, 377 
 
 CarapbeU r. Pennsylvania Rail. Co., 85 Fed. Rep. 462 fi^^ . -a 
 
 "Canada," Lush. 586 .. 0'5, 4<4 
 
 102
 
 TABLE OF CASES. xix 
 
 PAOE 
 
 Canada Shipping Co. r. British Shipowners' Mutual Protection Associa- 
 tion, 22 Q. B. D. 727 ; 23 ibid. 342 ; 58 L. J. Q. B. 343, 462 ; 60 
 
 L. T. 863 ; 61 ilnd. 312 : 38 W. R. 87 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 388, 422 162 
 
 " Canadian," 1 "W. Rob. 343 288 
 
 Cannan v. Meaburn, 1 Bing. 4G5 151 
 
 " Captain Weber," 89 Fed. Rep. 957 333 
 
 " Car Float " (No. 4), 89 Fed. Rep. 877 186 
 
 "Cardiff," (1909) P. 183 ; 78 L. J. P. 110 212 
 
 Cardiff Steamship Co. r. Barwick. See "Raisby." 
 
 Cargo rx Argos, L. R. 5 P. C. 134 ; 42 L. J. Ad. 49 ; 28 L. T. 77 : 21 
 
 W. R. 707 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 6 106 
 
 Cargo ex Capella, L. R. 1 A. & E. 356 ; 16 L. T. 800 2HI 
 
 Cargo ex Galam, Br. c^- Lush. 167 ; 2 Moo. P. C. N. S. 216 ; 10 Jur. 
 
 N. S. 477 ; 33 L. J. Ad. 97 : 9 L. T. 550 ; 12 W. R. 495 79 
 
 '•Carinthia." See " Servia." 
 
 "CarlJohan" (cited), 3 Hag. Ad. 186 146, 208 
 
 "Carl XV.," (1892) P. 324; 61 L. J. Ad. Ill ; 68 L. T. 149; 40 W. R. 
 
 576 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 242— C. A 225 
 
 "Carlotta," (1899) P. 223 ; G8 L. J. Ad. 87: 80 L. T. 664 : 8 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 544 318, 345, 346, 444, 504, 537, 539 
 
 Carmichael r. Liverpool Sailing-ship Owners' Mutual Indemnity 
 Association, 19 Q. B. D. 242 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. 428 ; 57 L. T. 550 ; 35 
 
 W. R. 793 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 184— C. A 162 
 
 " Carnarvon Castle," 38 L. T. 736 ; 26 W. R. 876 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 607 
 
 — C. A 295 
 
 "Caro," 23 Fed. Rep. 734 337 
 
 " Carolus Rotchers," 3 Hag. Ad. 343 (note) 5 
 
 Carr r. Fracis Times & Co., (1902) App. Cas. 176; 71 L. J. K. B. 361 ; 
 
 85 L. T. 144 204 
 
 " Carrier Dove," Br. & Lush. 113 223, 229, 231, 485 
 
 " Carroll," I Bened. 286 ; 8 Wall. 302 3, 34, 387, 406, 418 
 
 " Carron," 1 Sp. 91 29, 369 
 
 Carruthers v. Sydebotham, 4 M. & S. 77 215, 217, 243, 253 
 
 Carshore v. North Eastern Ry. Co., 29 Ch. D. 344 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 760 ; 
 
 52 L. T. 232 ; 33 W. R. 420 298 
 
 "Cartsbum," 5 P. D. 59 ; 49 L. J. Ad. 14 ; 41 L. T. 710 ; 28 W. K. 
 
 378 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 202— C. A 297 
 
 " Castle Rising " (not reported) -81 
 
 " Castlegate," (1893) App. Cas. 38 : 62 L. J. P. C. 17 : 08 L. T. 99 ; 
 
 41 W. R. 349; 7 Asp. M. C. 284— H. L 82 
 
 " Castle ven try," Ship. Caz., April 16th, 1901 380 
 
 Castrique v. Behrens, 30 L. J. Q. B. 103 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 1028 ; 4 L. T. 
 
 52 ^1:5 
 
 Ca.strique r. Imrie, L. R. 4 H. L. 414 ; 39 L. J. C. P. 350; 4 L. T. 
 
 143; 19 W. R. 1-H. L -^l-', -il'^ 
 
 " Catalina," 2 Sp. 23 ;i07 
 
 "Catalonia," 43 Fed. Rep. 396 H. 37(', 376 
 
 Catharine v. Dickinson, 1 7 How. 170 I * '"J 
 
 " Cathay " (limitation), 69 L. J. Ad. 89 ; 82 L. T. 823 ; 9 Asp. M. C. 100 . 156 
 (fog), 81 L. T. 301 ; 9 Asp. M. C. 35 383, 386, 420 
 
 02
 
 XX TAT?LE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 "Cathfurt," L. R. 1 A. & E. 314 ; 16 L. T. 211 298 
 
 " Cuihorina Maria," L. R. 1 A. & E. 53 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 380 290 
 
 " CatluTiiic," 1.-) Jur. 231 128 
 
 '• CathiTiiH' of Dover," 2 Hag. Ad. 113 2, 143 
 
 Cttton ••. Romncy, 1 3 Wend. 387 266 
 
 "Cattoriiia Chiuzzaro," 1 P. D. 368 ; 4') L. J. Ad. 105 ; 34 L. T. 588 ; 
 
 3 A.s{). M. C. 170 211 
 
 Cdttliu r. Hills, 8 C. B. 123 13, 98 
 
 Ca van » . Stewart, 1 Stark. 525 212 
 
 '• Cuyo Bonito," (1902) P. 216 ; 71 L. J. Ad. 88 ; 8G L. T. 8G7 ; 9 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 308 ; affd. (1903) P. 203 256 
 
 " Cayuga," 1 1 Wall. 270 329, 404, 436, 456 
 
 'damages), 7 Blatchf. 385 HI 
 
 .lug aud tow), 16 Wall. 177 189 
 
 Cay/er c. Carron Company. See " Margaret." 
 
 " Cella," 13 P. D. 82 ; 57 L. J. Ad. 55 ; 59 L. T. 125 ; 36 W. R. 540 • 
 
 6 Asp. M. C. 293 73, 74", 296 
 
 "Celt," 3 Hag. Ad. 321 r,7, 124, 125, 144, 307 
 
 "Celtie." Ship. Gaz., July 19, 1909 3O8 
 
 " Cepheus." 24 Fed. Rep. 507 .........[..... 110 
 
 " Cere.<»," Swab. 250 .'.'.',,.' 479 
 
 " Ceto," 14 App. Cas. 670 ; 62 L. T. 1 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 479— H. L.'.V. ," 310, 
 
 419, 420, 421, 429 
 Chadwick r. City of Dublin Steam Packet Co., 6 ED. & B. 771 • 3 Jur 
 
 >*'-^-^07 ' ■ 39(j 
 
 " Challenge," Ad. Div. 16th Dec. 1887 ! . . " * 222 
 
 "Challenge" and "Duo d'Aumale," (1905) P. 198 ; 93 L. T. 39o\' U 
 
 L. J. P. 55; 10 Asp. M. C. 105 \qj 3-g 
 
 " Chalmette," 52 Fed. Rep. 174 ".*........."..".*.. ' 494 
 
 Chamberlain c. Ward, 21 How. 548 .'.','.".'. 60 475 
 
 "Champagne," 00 Fed. Rep. 299 ' /'_ ' 33g 
 
 " Chance," Ship. Gaz., March 8, 1907 sn 
 
 " Cliancellor," 4 Bened. 153 \ \ ' 3., 
 
 Chandler r. Blogg, (1898) 1 Q. B. 32 ; 67L. J.'q. B.' 336 •' 7'7'L T 1,'h '■ 
 
 8Asp. M. C. 349 ■"'.,. 
 
 " Chanonrj-," 42 L. J. Ad. 58 ; 28 L. T. 284;' 1 Asp! M. C." 569 4"36 
 
 Chapman /•. Royal Netherlands Steam Navigation Co. (" Savernake ") 
 4^P. D. 157 : 40 L. T. 433 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 449 : 27 W. R. 551 ; 4 Asp.' 
 
 " ci^u-kiehyL; K 4r& e: V20 ; '^2 K j.'a^.';;;'S l't "i!!^ .''^ 
 
 W.R.C3;2A.p.M.C. 121 ; " \;; ^9 5 
 
 ^- R- 4 A. & E. 59; 42 L. J. Ad. 17 ; 28 L T 513 •' 
 
 1 Asp. M. C. 581 ; L. R. 8 Q. B. 197 . . , ' ' ' ' „„ 
 ' ' Cliarles Allen, " 1 1 Fed. Rep. 3 1 7 ■ ',' " 
 
 "Charles Amelia," L. R. 2 A. & E. 330;" '38 Z.' j". Ad "17 • "io L T '^' 
 429; 17 VV. R. 624 ^J ^. i-. 
 
 ■' Oiarles Chalouer," 19 Lower Canada Jur. 201 It 
 
 •• Charles E. Soper," 19 Fed. Rep. 844 
 
 "Charlotte," (1908) P. 206; 99 L. T. 38()V V/l j' P "is.; '^H 
 
 " "'"^""^ ^^^^'" ^--' ^'-^^^ ■..:.;... 393; 463; Vs j, 489
 
 i'ABLK OF CASES. xxi 
 
 " Charlotte Webb, " 43 Fed. Rep. lo 1 ''tl^, 
 
 " Charlton." 73 L. T. 49 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 29 ;' "u" R." S25-C ' A ' ' " ' ne ..o, 
 
 - Charming Nancy "' and " The Dawkin.s " (not reported . . '*^' Jog 
 
 Chartered Mercantile Bank uf London, India and China r. "Nether- 
 lands India Steam Navigation Co., 10 Q B. D. on • 5> L J Q B 
 •210 ; 48 L. T. .5.6 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 6o-C. A. . . 87, 96, ri6. V23, ISO." 13-.'. 
 
 ,,ru i. -^. , .r. 156,202,203,208,260,266,267,268,269 
 
 Chase,' otuart's Vice-Ad. Rep. Lower Canada (1875), 361 -7 
 
 Chasteauneuf r. Delange, 7 App. Cas. 127; •'j 1 L. J. P. C. 37 •* 46 L T 
 
 65 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 489— P. C ' ' ' . 
 
 " Chatham," (1907) Fo. 460 : Ad. Ct., October 26, "l908 31,, 
 
 "Chattahoochee," 173 U. S. Rep. 540 ,_ .,'.j .,g., 
 
 "ChaiinceyM. Dcpew," 59 Fed. Rep. 791... ' " ' '.,', 
 
 '^ Cherokee," 15 Fed. Rep. 119 „.', 
 
 "Cheruskia," 92 Fed. Rep. 083 ...!!........ 3-0 
 
 " Cheshire Witch," Br. & Lnsh. 362 ; 1 1 L. T. 350 oL 
 
 "Chicago," 71 Fed. Rep. 537 493 
 
 " Chickasaw," 41 Fed. Rep. 627 _ ', "r> Go 66 
 
 "Chieftain," Br. & Lush. 101 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 388-" 3*> l" J \d l7)6 •'' 
 
 8L. T. 120: 11 W. R.537 ' " -^go 
 
 -Chilian," 4 Asp. M. C. 473 : 45 L. T. 623 ■■■.■.'.;;; 44, S^sii, 451 
 
 Chima^ra (not reported), cited 8 P. D. 46, 131 • 4 Jur N S 17> • 
 
 49 L. T. 89; 31 W. R. 738 ' "■ 
 
 " China," 7 Wall. 53 '.'.'.'.'.'.'.''.'.'.'.'.'..'. -'W 
 
 China Merchants' Steam Navigation Co. r. Biguold. See "Hochun.''"' " 
 and "Lapwing." ° 
 
 " Ching Riang," (1908) A. C. 251 ; 77 L. J. P. C. 72 376, 378 
 
 "Chittagong," (1901) App. Cas. 597; 70 L. J. P. C l-'l • 85 L t' 
 
 430 ; 9 Asp. M. C. 252 ' ' ' ^^3 
 
 Christian v. Coombe, 2 Esp. 489 289 
 
 "Christiana," 2 Hag. Ad. 183; nom. Hammond r. Rogers, 7 Moo. 
 
 ^■C.IGQ 201, 206, 220, 224, 229, 2:30, 232, 233, 2:34, 480, 481 
 
 " Christian.sborg," 10 P. D. 141 ; 54 L. J. Ad. 84; 53 L. T. 612; 5 
 
 Asp. M. C. 491 ""' .,|j 
 
 "Christina," 3 W. Rob. 27 : affd. nom. Potloy v. Catto, 6 Moo. P." C. ' 
 
 '■^'^ 172, 178, 187, 188, '283 
 
 Churchward v. Palmer. See " Vivid." 
 
 "Chusan," 53L. T. 60; 5 Asp. M. C. 470 4 2, 342, 358,450 
 
 " Ciampa Emilia," 53 Fed. Rep. 155 ' . . _' ' n)o 
 
 " Cincinnati," 95 F<d. Rep. 302 378 
 
 " Circassia," 55 Fed. Rep. 113 34 1 
 
 "Circe," (1906) P. 1; 93 L. T. 640; 71 L. J. P. 106;' lOAsp. M. C. 
 
 1^^ 114, 13;?, 211, 207 
 
 " City of Alexandria," 40 Fed. Rep. 697 113 
 
 • (tug and tow), 31 Fed. Rep. 427 182,369 
 
 "City of Antwerp," and "Fricdrich," Innian v. Reck, L. R. 2 P. C. 
 
 25; 37 L. J. Ad. 25 .|, -^'J, 34, 406, 461, 471 
 
 " City of Atlanta," 26 Fed. Rep. 456 429 
 
 "City of Augusta," 30 Fed. Rep. 811 1,D
 
 XX 11 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAOE 
 
 " City of Bcrliu," (1908) V. 110; 98 L. T. 298 ; 77L. J. P. 76. .•292, ;524, 38G 
 
 " City of Bro( ktuu," 37 Fed. Kep. 897 ; aff. 42 Fed. Rep. 928 493 
 
 "City of Brooklyn," 1 T. D. 276; 34 L. T. 932; 24 W. R. 1056; 3 
 
 Asp. M. C. 230 3.59, 374, 376, 473 
 
 «' Ciry (.f Buenos Ayres," 25 L. T. 672 ; 1 A.sp. M. C. 109. . HI, 163, 311, 312 
 
 " City of Cambridgo " (costs), 35 L. T. 781 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 307 310 
 
 (pilot), L. R. 4 A. & E. 161 ; 43 L. J. Ad. 6 ; 
 
 29 L. T. 816 ; 22 W. R. 391 ; on app. L. R. 5 P. C. 451 ; 43 L. J. 
 
 Ad. 11 : 30 L. T. 439 ; 22 W. R. 578 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 193, 239. .'221, 229, 
 
 230, 253 
 
 " City of Carlisle," Br. & Ln.-h. 363 ; 11 L. T. 33 ; 2 Mar. Law Cas. 
 
 O. S. 91 341 
 
 •• City of Delhi," 58 L. T. 53 1 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 269 533 
 
 " City of Hartford," 7 Bened. 350 413 
 
 and " Unit," 7 Otto, 323 182, 269 
 
 " City of Lincoln," 15 P. D. 15 ; 59 L. J. Ad. 1 ; 62 L. T. 49 ; 38 W. R. 
 
 345; 6 Asp. M. C. 475— C. A 100, 104 
 
 "City of London," or "London," Morgans. Sim, 11 Moo. P. C. 307; 
 
 Swab. 245, 300; 5 W. R. 678 2, 29, 2S9, 33 7, 340, 348 
 
 " City of Lynn," 11 Fed. Rep. 339 , 482 
 
 " City of Macon," 92 Fed. Rep. 207 327 
 
 " City of Manchester," 5 P. D. 3 ; 48 L. J. Ad. 70 ; 40 L. T. 591 ; uu 
 app. 5 P. D. 221 ; 49 L. J. Ad. 81 ; 42 L. T. 521 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 
 
 l'»lj, 2tJl 98, 305, 307 
 
 " City of Mecca," o P. D. 28 ; 41 L. T. 444 ; 28 W. R. 260 ; 49 L. J. 
 Ad. 17 ; on app. 6 P. D. 106 ; 50 L. J. Ad. 53 ; 44 L. T. 750 ; 4 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 412 213 
 
 20 Fed. Rep. 159 491 
 
 ■ . See Smith, Jii re. 
 
 " City of New York " (speed), 35 Fed. Rep. 604 376 
 
 (master), 25 Fed. Rep. 149 99 
 
 (tug- and tow), 54 Fed. Rep. 181 180 
 
 " City of Paris," 14 Blatchf. 531 269, 485 
 
 1 Bened. 174 ; 9 Wall. (34 3, 432, 440 
 
 " City of Peking " (No. 1) (eddy tide), 14 App. Cas. 40 ; 58 L. J.' Ad.' 
 
 64: ei L. T. 136; 6 Asp. M. C. 396-P. C 9, 12, 30,480, 483,492 
 
 (^'"- 2) (appeal; reference), 15 App. Cas. 438; 59 
 
 L. J. P. C. 88 ; 63 L. T. 722 ; 39 W. R. 177 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 572 .... Ill 
 
 " City of Philadelphia " v. Gavagnin, 62 Fed. Rep. 617 184, 494 
 
 •• City of Seattle," 9 Canad. Exchq. Eep. 146 ' ' .jgv 
 
 " City of Springfield," 20 Fed. Rep. 158 447 
 
 " City of Truro," 35 Fed. Rep. 317 ^4 
 
 •' City of Washington," 2 Otto, 31 '. .".'.'.'.V.'.'.*.". ".'.'. '■"eo' ' ^0^ 494 
 
 "C.vilta" and "Restless," 13 Otto, 099 107' 187' 269 
 
 "Clan Camming," (1907) P. 311; 97 L. T. 14 ; 77L.J.P.'l- lOAsn' 
 M. C. 436 ' ^ ._^ 
 
 " Clan Gordon," 7 P. D. 190 ; 46 L. T.'490 '; '30 W. R'.'eoi '; '4 Asp! M. """'"^ 
 
 ^••■'^3 216 219 •>41 
 
 " Clan Sinclair." See "Margaret." " ' '" 
 
 Clan'-y v. Harrison, 4 Victoria L. R 437 rv 
 
 Oo
 
 TABLE OF CASES. xxiii 
 
 PAGE 
 
 " Clara," 55 Fed. Eep. 1U21 jg 
 
 (cause of collision), 49 Fed. Rep. 765 " ' 303 
 
 12 Otto, 200 ..', "., 
 
 61, OS 
 
 (lien), Swab. 1 -„ 
 
 • ^y 
 
 " Clara Davidson," 24 Fed. Rep. 763 4]^ 
 
 "Clara Killam," L. R. 3 A. & E. 161 ; 39 L. J. Ad. 50 * "•>V L T ■'7 ' 
 
 19W. R. 25 ■■"'.- 
 
 / / 
 
 2 Quebec L. R. 56 .... 
 
 60 
 
 " Clarence " (damages), 1 Sp. 206 .)g9 
 
 ^ (port tauk), 3 W. Rob. 283 100, 101, 102. 111. 11*3, 114 
 
 Claridge v. Staffordshire Tramways Co., (1892) i Q. B. 422 97 
 
 "Clarion," 27 Fed. Rep. 12S "....." 4-> 
 
 " Clarita " and " Clara," 23 Wall. 1 ..86, IHl, -isi", 484 
 
 Clark r. Chambers, 3 Q. B. D. 327 ' ' ' j^ 
 
 Clarke c. Beck, Seld. Ser. Admiralty, II. l.xxxiii 13G 
 
 Clayards r. Dethick, 12 Q. B. D. 439 | ^ ] 3 
 
 " Cleadon," 14 Moo. P. C. 92 ; Lush. 158; 4 L. T. 157 -'l Mar Li'w 
 
 Cas. O. S. 41 ,..- 
 
 10/ 
 
 . See " Creadon." 
 
 " Clement," 1 Sprague, 257 ; 2 Curtis, 363 437 
 
 " Cleopatra," Swab. 135 324, 396, 397, 399 
 
 Cleveland R. R. r. Steamship Co., 208 U. S. Rep. 316 77 
 
 " Clieveden," (1894) A. C. 625 ; 64 L. J. P. C. 22 ; 71 L. T 101-7 Am,' 
 
 M.C.489-P.C 441; ,303 
 
 " Clatha," 45 L. J. Ad. 108 ; 35 L. T. 36 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 225 299 
 
 "Clutha Bout 147," (1909) P. 36 ; 100 L. T. 198 ; 78 L. J. P. 41 ".".'.*.' 364, 
 
 442, 539 
 
 " Clydach," 51 L. T. 668 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 336 44I 
 
 "Clyde," Swab. 23 '.".".".'ioi, 102 
 
 Clyde Navigation Co. r. Barclay, 1 App. Cas. 790 ; 30 L. T. 379 ; 3 
 
 Asp. M. C. 390.-H. L 222, 224, -IGl, 250,473,476 
 
 Clyde S. S. Co., In re, 134 Fed. Rep. 95 37G 
 
 " Clymene," (1897) P. 295 ; 66 L. J. Ad. 152 ; 76 L. T. 811 ; 46 W.*R. 
 
 109 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 287 243, 257 
 
 '< Cockatrice," (1908) P. 182; 98 L. T. 728 ; 77 L. J. P. 74; 11 Asp' 
 
 M.C.50 3,-,7 
 
 " CoeF. Young," 49 Fed. Rep. 167 416 
 
 Coey V. Smith, 22 Ct. of Sess. Cas. 2ud ser. 955 273 
 
 " Coleman " and ' ' Foster," Brown, Ad. 456 182 
 
 "Colgarth," Ship. Gaz., Nov. 3rd, 1906 468 
 
 " Colstrop," Ship. Gaz., Oct. 2lth, 1908 460 
 
 "Collier," L. R. 1 A. &E. 83; 12 Jur. N. S. 789 84 
 
 '• C.jllingrove," 10 P. D. 158 ; 5t L. J. Ad. 78 ; 53 L. T. 681 ; 34 AV. P. 
 
 156 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 483 og^ 
 
 "Cologne" and "Ranger," Malcolmson v. General Steam Nav. Co., 
 
 L. R. 4 P. C. 519 ; 9 Moo. P. C. N. S. 352 ; 27 L. T. 769 ; 21 \V. R. 
 
 273; 1 Asp. M. C. 484 317, 102, 111, 117 
 
 " Colonia," 3 Not. of Cas. 13, note 324 
 
 " Colorado," 1 Otto, 692 381 
 
 69 Fed. Rep. 300 104
 
 XXIV TABLE OF CASKS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Colthurst r. Saudall, Seld. Ser. Admiralty, II. Ixxxiii 136 
 
 " Columbia " (swell), 61 Fed. Hep. 220 498 
 
 (pilot boat), 27 Fed. Rep. 704 3.53 
 
 (flare), 27 Fed. Rep. 238 36.5 
 
 10 Wall. 246 397 
 
 '• Columbiau." 100 Fed. Rep. 991 391 
 
 " Columbus," 1 Pritch. Ad. Di<; 3rd ed. 239 30 
 
 (pilot), SOL. T. 203; 8 Asp. M. C. 488 2 43, 256 
 
 2 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. Dig. 730 489 
 
 (ferry), Abbot, Ad. 384 486 
 
 (damage.^), 3 W. Rob. 158 101, 102, 107, 112, 114 
 
 " Comet" and "Silver Spray," 9 Blatchf. 323 ; 22 L. T. 732 475 
 
 " Commerce," 3 W. Rob. 287 457, 461 
 
 16 AVall. 33 416 
 
 " Commodore Joues," 25 Fed. Rep. 506 401, 462, 488 
 
 " Comus," 2 Dods. 464 94 
 
 Concha r. Concha. 11 App. Cas. 541 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 257 ; 55 L. T. 522 ; 
 
 35 "W. R. 477 212 
 
 '♦Concordia.'' und "Esther," L. R. 1 A. & E. 93 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 771 ; 
 
 14 L. T. 890 317, 455, 462, 404 
 
 " Condor" and " Swansea." See " Swansea." 
 
 " Conoho," 24 Fed. Rep. 758 38 
 
 Conolly V. Ross, 1 1 Fed. Rep. 342 190 
 
 "Conqueror," 166 U. S. Rep. 110 112 
 
 Conservators of the Thames r. Hale, L. R. 3 C. P. 415; 37 L. J. C. P. 
 
 163; 18L.T.30I; 16 W. R. 971 219 
 
 " Consett " (damages), 5 P. D. 229 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 34, u 112, 3U9 
 
 (co.sts), 5 P. D. 52, 77 ; 49 L. J. Ad. 24 ; 42 L. T. 33 ; 28 
 
 W. R. 622 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 230 310 
 
 Consolidated Coal Co. v. "Admiral Schley," 115 Fed. Rep. 378 .. .169, 391 
 
 •' Con.stantia," 62 L. T. 236 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 478 ; 38 W. R. 272 371 
 
 "Constantine." 4 P. D. 156; 27 W. R. 747— C. A 31 1 
 
 " Constitulion " (end on), 2 Moo. P. C. N. S. 453 ; 10 Jur. N. S 831 • 
 
 lOL-T. 894 393^399 
 
 (foreign ship ; salvage), 4 P. D. 39 ; 48 L. J. Ad. 13 ; 
 
 40 L. T. 219 ; 27 W. R. 739 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 79 209 
 
 " Continental," 14 Wall. 345 '..'.'.'...' 60 
 
 "Coogee," Vict. L. R. xxix. 874 3i(;_ 370, 451 
 
 Coombs f. Duncan, 1 Fed. Rep. 733 I31 
 
 Cooper /■. Breeze, Seld. Ser. Admiralty, II. Ixxxiv 133 
 
 Cope r. Doherty, 4 K. & J. 367 ; 6 W. R. 537 ; 31 L. T. 173 ; on app. 
 
 2 De G. & J. 614 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 699 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 600 ; 6 W. R. 695 ; 
 
 31 L. T. 307 14(5^ 207, 208 
 
 "Cordilleras," (1904) P. 90; 89 L. T. 673 ; 73 L. J. P. 13; 9 Asp M C 
 
 506 ■ ,. , 
 
 loi 
 
 " Corennie (narrow channel), (1894) P. 338, note 441 
 
 " Corinthian," (1909) P. 260; 101 L. T, 265 ; 78 L. J.'p". V21' .'. *.'.*. " '. 470 
 
 Corn wallis r. Noden, Seld. Ser. Admiralty, 11. Ixxxiv ' 13s 
 
 " Corsica," 9 Wall. 630 328^' ;;;_" ^i;' '^go, 454 
 
 Cory & Son, Ltd. i: K< pajtic, 45 Sc. L. R. 216 315 347
 
 TABLE OF CASES. XXV 
 
 PAGE 
 
 " Cosmopolitan," 9 P. D. 35, n. ; o Asp. il. C. -JIJ, ii JOj 
 
 Coupe Co. r. Maddick, (1891) 2 Q. B. 413: GO L. J. Q. B. G7G : d.') 
 
 L. T. 489 70 
 
 " Courier" (jurisdiction). Lush. o41 199 OQO 
 
 (costs), SO L. T. 808 : 8 A.sp. M. C. o47 ' 308 
 
 Courtney r. Cole, 19 Q. B. D. 447 ; nG L. J. M. C. 141 ; .■)7 L. T. 409 ; 
 
 36 W. R. 8 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 1 69 2:).')'. •2.'i7 
 
 " Coxon." 2 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. Di^. o49 404 
 
 " Craigellachie," (1909) P. 1 ; 100 L. T. 41.) : 78 L. J. P. 81 ; 11 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 213 4(,7 
 
 Crandley c. Porteer, Seld. Ser. Admiralty, II. Ix.xxiv 138 
 
 " Crathie." (1897) P. 178 : 06 L. J. Ad. 93 ; 76 L. T. 534 ; 45 W. R. 
 
 631 : 8 A«p M. C*. 256 163, 16G 
 
 Crawford r. Granite City S.S. Co., 43 So. L. R. 732 373. 420 
 
 " Creadon," 54 L. T. 880 ; 5 A<p. M. C. 585 2G, 160, 225, 311 
 
 Creame c. Yaxley, Seld. Ser. Admiralty, II. Ixxxiv 137 
 
 "Crescent" and "Rowland Hill," Stuart's Vice- Ad. Rup. Lower 
 
 Canada (Lond. 1858), 289 495 
 
 " Cricket " and " Endeavour," 48 L. T. 535 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 53 158 
 
 " Crimdon," (1900) P. 171 ; 69 L. J. Ad. 103 ; 82 L. T. GOO ; 48 W. R. 
 
 623 ; 9 Asp. M. C. 104 •_'«»<) 
 
 Croft r. Alison, 4 B. & Aid. 590 65 
 
 Cruse c. Wj^nn, Seld. Sor. Admiralty, II. Ixxxiii 13G 
 
 'Crystal," (1831) A. C. 508 ; 63 L. J. Ad. 146 : 71 L. T. 346; 7 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 513-P. C 82, 88, 91, 108, 163, 284 
 
 Cuba t\ McMillan, 26 Sup. Ct. Canada, 651 411, 443 
 
 Culbeit.-on r. Shaw, 18 How, 584 363, 477 
 
 "Cumberlanl," 5 L. T. 496 97, 293 
 
 Stuart's Vice- Ad. Rep. Lower Canada (Lond. 1858), 
 
 75 479 
 
 Cunningham's case, Bell's C. C. 220 281 
 
 Cushing v. Owners of " John Eraser." See "James Grey." 
 
 Cuthbtrtson v. Parsons, 12 C. B. 304 ; 21 L. J. C. P. 165 7U 
 
 " Cybelo," 2 P. D. 224 ; 47 L. J. Ad. 13 . on app. 3 P. D. 8 : 47 L. J. 
 
 Ad. 86 ; 37 L. T. 773 ; 26 W. R. 345 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 352— C. A 94 
 
 5 Quebec, L. R. 262 359 
 
 " Cuitliia," 2 P D. ryl ; 46 L. J. Ad. 58 ; 36 L. T. 181 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 
 
 378 90, 230, 23 1, 23S 
 
 •' Czar," 19 Lower Canada Jurist, 197 77 
 
 D. 
 
 " D. S. Gregory," 6 Blatchf. 528 4X1, 4.sii 
 
 " D. S. Miller," 76 Ked. Rep. 877 30 
 
 "Daioz," 47 L. J. Ad. 1; 37 L. T. 137; 3 Asp. M. C. 477 — 
 
 C. A 224, 308 
 
 Dale «;. Hall, 1 Wils. 281 2G5 
 
 " Dallington," (1903) P. 77 218
 
 Xxvi TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Dalton V. Angus, G App. Caa. 740 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 689 : 44 L. T. 844 ; 
 
 30 W. B. Ittl ^^ 
 
 t: Deutou, 1 C. B. N. S. (572 ^3 
 
 Dalytll V. Tyrcr, E. B. & E. 899 ; 28 L. J. Q. B. 52 66, 175 
 
 D.miel c. Metropolitan Bail. Co., L. R. 5 H. L. 45 ; 40 L. J. C. P. 121 ; 
 
 24 L. T. 815-H. L '^9. ^7 
 
 '• Dautzie," Br. .»;: L. 102 . ;J2 L. J. Ad. 164 ; !) L. T. 2;!6 270 
 
 D.irrell r. Tibbits, 5 Q. B. D. 560 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 33 ; 42 L. T. 797 ; 
 
 29 W. R. 66 '-^'0 
 
 " Dauntless," 116 Fed. Rep. 513 107 
 
 " David Dow.--," 16 Fed. Rep. 151 131 
 
 " David Morris," Brown, Ad. 273 5 
 
 Davidson r. Burnand, L. R. 4 C. P. 117 : 38 L. J. C. P. 73; 19 L. T. 
 
 782 ; 17 ^V. II. I21-Ex. Ch 272 
 
 Davidson v. Hill, (1901) 2 K. B. 606; 70 L. J. K. B. 788 ; 85 L. T. 
 
 118; 9 Asp. M. C. 223 210 
 
 Davies r. Davios, 9 C. & P. 252 290 
 
 r. Mann, 10 M. & W. 516 16 — 20, 46 
 
 Davis V. Saunders. 2 Chit. Rep. 639 2 
 
 " Daylosford," 30 Fed. Rep. 633 17 
 
 " De Bius," Ir. Rep. Ad. 1 Eq. 72 248 
 
 De Lovio v. Boit, 2 Gall 398 73, 200 
 
 De Vaux v. Salvador, 4 Ad. & El. 420 ; 6 N. & M. 713 : 5 L. J. K. B. 
 
 134 121, 272 
 
 Djan V. Richards. See " Europa."" 
 
 Delanoy v. Robson (or Anon.), 5 Tauut. 605 276 
 
 " Delaware," 54 Davis, 459 413 
 
 " Delta " and " Erniinia Fosoolo " 1 P. D. 393 ; 45 L. J. Ad. HI ; 35 
 
 L. T. 376 ; 25 W. H. 46 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 256 211,212 
 
 " Demetrius" L. R. 3 A. & E. 523 ; 41 L. J. Ad. 69 ; 26 L. T. 324 ; 20 
 
 W. R. 761 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 250 116. 290, 294, 29G 
 
 Denison r. Seymour, 9 Wendel, 9 62, 270 
 
 Dennis v. Tovell, L. R. 8 Q. B. 10 ; 42 L. J. M. C. 33 ; 27 L. T. 482 ; 
 
 21 W. R. 170 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 402 G9 
 
 " Desdemona," Swab. 158 7S 
 
 "Despatch," Lush. 98 ; 14 Moo. P. C. 83 ; 3 L. T. 219 7, 104, 
 
 288, 481, 482, 485 
 
 (.speed), Swab. 138 37(j 
 
 " Devonian," (1901) P. 221 ; 70 L. J. Ad. 66 ; 84 L. T. 675 ; 49 W. R. 
 
 GGo; 9 A.sp. M. C. 179 45, 54, 174, 3)0, 344, 362 
 
 (narrow channel), 110 Fed. Rep. 688 495 
 
 " De.xter," 23 Wall. 6 t ' ■^..(i 
 
 " Diana " (.salvage), 31 L. T. 203 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 366 12, 110, 472 
 
 (pilot), 1 AV. Rob. 131 ; nom. Stuart v. I.-emouger, 4 Moo. 
 
 !*• C. 11 81, 223, 224, 232, 472 
 
 (jurisdiction), Lush. 539 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 2G ; 32 L. J. Ad. 57 ; 
 
 7L. T. 397; 11 W. R. 189 .199, 200 
 
 and " Clievcden." See " Clieveden." 
 
 " Dictator " (No. 1) (amendoient of -writ), (1892) P. 64; 61 L J Ad 
 72 ; CG L. T. 8G3 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 175 '. 296
 
 TABLE OF CASES. xxvii 
 
 "Dictator" (bail), ;iS92) T. 301 ; (51 L. J. Ad. 73 ; 67 L T oG3 • 7^'^"'' 
 
 ^P-^-C.2^l 80,81, 20G 
 
 " Digby Grand '" (not reported) j .,- jgjj 
 
 Dimes v. Petley. If) Q. B. 276 ; U Jur. 113 ; 19 L. J. Q. B. 449 .".". .'.' 88 
 
 "Dimitri Doiiskoi," GO Fed. Rep. Ill ' ^^;, 
 
 " Dione," 52 L. T. 61 : ,5 Asp. M. C. 347 . ' . . ' ........[., ] 5g 
 
 Di.xou V. Sadler, ,) M. & W. 40.-, : on app. 8 M. & W. 89 > • 1 1 L J Ex' 
 
 435 ■ ■ .,_., 
 
 Dobree v. Schroeder. 2 My. & Cr. 4 89 j /^T 
 
 Dock Company of Hull v. Browne, 2 B. & Ad. 43 •>,-, y 
 
 Dodds r. Embleton, 9 Dow. & Ry. 27 .> I - 
 
 " Dolphin " and " Barbados Merchant," Martin c. Green, 1 Kcb. 7yo. . 199 
 
 Dou V. Lippmaun, 5 CI. & Fin. 1 j.ji^ 
 
 Donnell v. Boston Towboat Co., 89 Fed. Rep. 757 4 29, 442 
 
 Doolan v. Midlaud Riil. Co., 2 A^jp. Cas. 792 ; 37 L. T 317 • •>5 AV R 
 
 882; 3Asp. M. C. 485 .' HH, 270 
 
 " Durdog-ne," 10 P. D. G ; 54 L. J. Ad. 29 ; 51 L. T. 650 ; 33 W. R.' 
 
 360; 5 Asp. M. C. 328 323, 371, 376, 378, 381, 382. 420,' 421, 
 
 424, 4.'9, 431 
 
 " Doris Eckhoft," 50 Fed. Rep. 134 jS3 
 
 4 1 Fed. Rep. 15G 1 ■; 1 
 
 Dormont r. Furaess Rail. Co., 1 1 Q. B. D. 496 ; 52 L. J. Q. B. 331 ; 49 
 
 L. T. 134 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 127 ' ;)l\ ;j;5,-, 
 
 Dorriugton's Case, Sir Fr. Moore, 916 Hig 
 
 Dorvill c. Tresaur, Seld. Ser. Admiralty, II. Ixx.xiv i;jS 
 
 "Douglas," 4 Asp. M. C. 510; 46 L. T. 488; 51 L. J. Ad. do; 30 
 W. R. 692 ; on app. 7 P. D. 151 ; 51 L. J. Ad. 89 ; 47 L. T. 502 ; o 
 
 Asp. M. C. 15 26, 53, 88, 91, 160, 335 
 
 " Douglass," Brown, Ad. 105 47.-, 
 
 Do well c. General Steam Navigation Co., 5 E. & B. 195 ; 26 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 59 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 800 ; 3 W. R. 492 19, 59, 431 
 
 " Diuid," 1 W. R'jb. 391 V."."C5,' 72,' 83*, 179 
 
 Duane r. Steam tug " Emma J. Kennedy," 5 Fed. Rep. 206 491 
 
 Dublin Port and Docks Board r. Shaunon, Ir. Rep. 7 C. L. 1 16 214 249 
 
 Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Rail. Co. r. Slattery, 3 Ai)p. Cas. 
 
 1155 ; 39 L. T. 365; 27 VV. R. 191 21, 32 
 
 " Due d'Aumale," (1903) P. 18 285 
 
 " Duchesse de Brabant," Swab. 264 ; 6 W. R. 329 80 
 
 Duckham c. Gibbs, (1900) 1 Q. B. 394 ; 69 L. J. Q. B. 127 ; 48 W. R. 
 
 ^^53 ^11 
 
 Dudgeon r. Pembroke, L. R. 9 Q. B. 581 ; 2 App. Cas. 281 ; 46 L. J. 
 
 Q. B. 409; 36 L. T. 382 ; 25 VV. R. 499; 3 Asp. M. C. 393-11. L... 272 
 Dudmau and Brown c. Dublin Port ;nid Docks Boai<l, Ir. Rep. 7 C. L. 
 
 518 24 93 192 ''''' 
 
 " Due Checchi," L. R. 4 A. & E. 35, u. ; 26 L. T. 593 ; 20 W. R. 686 ; 
 
 1 Asp. M. C. 294 289 
 
 "Duke of Buccleugh" (rcirulations), (1891) App. Cas. 310; 65 L. T. 
 
 422; 7 Asp. M. C. C8-II. L 42, 43, 341, 342, 343 
 
 (substituting plaintiff), (1892) P. 201 ; 61 L. J. 
 
 Ad. 57 ; 40 W. R. 45 ) ; 7 Asp. M. C. 294— C. A 294
 
 188, 2;^7 
 
 Xxviii 'lAHLE OF CASKS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 " Duke of Cornwall," 1 Pr. A.l. Dig., ^rd ed. 201 485, 498 
 
 '•Di.ko of Manchcbter," 10 Jur. HV,>, ; 2 W. Rob, 470; 4 Not. of Gas. 
 575 ; on app. iiom. Shcrsby r. Hibbcrt, 6 Moo. P. C. 90 ; 5 Not. of 
 Gas. -170 
 
 " Duko of Siis.>.ex" (pilot; tuir), 1 Not. of Gas. IGl ; 1 W. Rob. 
 270 172, 177, 178, 187, 2;j5 
 
 (navigation), 1 W. Rob. 274 ; 1 Not. of Gas. 165. . 314, 
 
 324, 440, 447 
 
 • • Diikc of Sutherl lud." See " Magnet." 
 
 •' Dumfriof," Swab. 63 ; on app. ibid. 125 ; 10 Moo. 1". G. 461 201 , 
 
 205, 324 
 
 "Duna," 5L. T. 217 '^ 
 
 •■ nnndce" (limitation; year), I Hag. Ad. 109 2, 68, 75, 86, 146, 150, 
 
 151, 202, 297 
 
 (interebt ; costs), 2 Hag. Ad. 137 163 
 
 •• Dunchn." 9 r. D. 164 ; 32 W. R. 970; 53 L. J. Ad. 81 ; 51 L. T. 
 
 214; 5 Asp. M. G 304 320, 343, 358, 363, 4-0 
 
 •' Duidossit," Gnrric r. M'Knigbt, (1897) App. Gas. 97 ; 66 L. J. P. C. 
 
 19 ; 75 L. T. 457 ; 8 A.sp. M. C. 193— H. L 65, 74, 75, 77, 82 
 
 Dunn V. Buckuall Bros., (1902) 2 K. B. 614 ; 87 L. T. 497 ; 71 L. J. 
 
 K. B. 963 ; 9 Asp. M. G. 336 ; 8 Gom. Gas. 33 114 
 
 •• Dunstauborougb," (1892) P. 363, n 14, 22, 122, 124, 474, 476, 533 
 
 '• Dura," 1 Prituh. A. Dig. 174 477 
 
 " Duti'hcss," 6 Bened. 48 : 482 
 
 '■ Dwiua," 1892) P. 58 ; 61 L. J. Ad. 71 ; 66 L. T. 862 ; 7 Asp. M. G. 
 
 173 282 
 
 E. 
 
 " E. A. Packer," 49 Fed. Rep. 92 174, 190 
 
 " E. E. Simpson," 60 Fed. Rep. 452 189 
 
 " Eail of Auckland," Lush. 164 ; 30 L. .J. Ad. 121 ; 3 L. T. 786 ; ou 
 
 app. Lush. 387 ; 15 Moo. P. G. 3U4 ; 5 L. T. 558 ; 10 W. R. 124. . .. 215, 
 
 244, 246, 247, 254, 256, 257 
 '•Earl of Dumfries," " Bo.skemia Bay" and (fog), 5 Asp. M. G. 
 
 329, n 373, 383 
 
 "Earl Grey," 1 Sp. 180 312 
 
 '• Earl Spencer," L. R. 4 A. & E. 431 ; 32 L. T. 370 ; 23 W. R. 661 ; 
 
 2 Asp. M. G. 523 ; affd. 33 L. T. 235 ; 3 Asp. M. G. 4. .292, 359, 473, 480 
 
 " Earl Wemy.ss," 61 L. T. 2^9 ; 6 Asp M. G. 407— C. A 332, 386, 387, 
 
 388, 390, 414 
 
 " East Lothian," Lush. 241 ; 14 Moo. P. C. 177 ; 4 L. T. 487 288 
 
 " Ebenezer," 2 W. Rob. 206 287, 382 
 
 "Ebor," 11 P. D. 25; .54 L. T. 200; 31 W. R. 448; 5 Asp. M. C.' 
 
 560— C. A 3(6, 323, 37C, 410, 429 
 
 " Echo," 7 Bened. 70 189
 
 TABLE OF CASES. XXIX 
 
 PAGE 
 
 "Echo," igFcd. Rep. 453 \\)[ 
 
 "Eclipse " and " Saxonia." See " Saxunia." 
 
 ' ' Economy," 1 Pritch. Ad. Dig. (3rd ed.) 28G 2:58 
 
 " E^o.ssaise," Ship. Gaz., Dec. loth, 1885 4H 
 
 " Eden," 2 W. Roh. 442 : 10 Jur. 296 214, 217, 243, 244, 250, 262 
 
 '• Edgwater," 65 Fed. Rep. 527 18 
 
 " Edith," Ir. Rep. 10 Eq. 345 358 
 
 Edwards, Robertsfin t Co. r. Falmouth Harbour Couitnissiontrs. See 
 " Rhosina." 
 
 " Edwin Hawley," 41 Fed. Rep. 606 11, 90, I'.IO 
 
 ♦•Effort," 5 Not. of Cas. 279 495 
 
 " Egerateia," 38 L. J. Ad. 40 ; 2u T. T. 961 29S 
 
 Eglington, Earl r. Norman, 46 L. J. Ex. 557 ; 36 L. T. 888 ; 25 W. R. 
 
 656; 3 Asp. M. C. 471— C. A 82, 88, 276 
 
 " Egyptian," 1 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 36S ; on app. 1 Moo. P. C. N. S. 
 
 373; 9 Jur. N. S. 1159 ; 8 L. T. 776 479, 480 
 
 (damages), 2 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 55 ; 10 L. T. 910 108 
 
 " Eleanor" and " Alma," 2 Mar. Lnv Ca-*. O. S. 210. .30, 390, 391, 43S, 487 
 
 " Electra," 1 Bened. 282 369 
 
 G Bened. 189 II 
 
 "Eleonora." 17 Blatchf. 8.^ 269, 334 
 
 "Eleonore," Br. .S: L. 185; 33 L. J. Ad. 19 ; 9 L. T. 397; 12 W. R. 
 218 312 
 
 " Elin," 8 P. D. 39 ; 51 L. J. Ad. 77 ; on app. 8 P. D. 129 ; 52 L. J. 
 
 Ad. 55; 43 L. T. 87; 31 W. R. 736; 5 Asp. M. C. 120— C. A 78 
 
 " Elina," 5 P. D. 237, n 106 
 
 " Eliza," and "Orinoco," Holt, 98 58, 455 
 
 "Eliza Jane," 3 Hag. 335 200 
 
 "Elizi Keith" and " Langshaw," 3 Quebec L. R. 143 42, 231 
 
 " Elizibeth," 3 L. T. 159 205 
 
 and " Adalia," 22 L. T. 74 ; 3 Mar. Law Cas. 0. S. 345. . 4 
 
 " Elizabeth Jones," 5 Dav. 514 5, 414 
 
 " Ellen S. Terry," 7 Bened. 401 495 
 
 Elmore v. Hunter, 3 C. P. D. 116 ; 4 7 L. J. M. C. 8 ; 38 L. T. 179 ; 3 
 
 Asp. M. C. 555 514 
 
 El will c. Wiggett (not roporled) 1 99 
 
 " Ely.sia," 4G L. T. 840 ; 4 Asp. M. C." 510 37 I, 382 
 
 Emery v. Huntington, 12 Anier. Rep. 7-5 279 
 
 " Emily M. Maxwell," 96 Fed. Rep. '. 99 388 
 
 " E.i.ma," 2 W. Rob 315 289 
 
 " Emm-i Kate Rqss," 50 Fed. Rep. S 15 Ill 
 
 " Emmy Haase." 9 P. D. 81 ; 5 5 L. J. Ad. 43 ; 50 L. T. 372 : 32 \V. H. 
 
 880 , 5 Asp. M. C. 2IG 40, 54, 58, 429, 430 
 
 "Emptrar," 46 Fed. Rep. 143 36 
 
 and " Lady of the Lake," Holt, 37, 202 341, 342 
 
 • and ' ' Zephyr," 12 W. R. 890 290 
 
 " Empire State," Whitney v. " Empire Stite," 1 Bened. 57. .387, 416, 488, 
 
 489 
 
 "Empress Eugenie," Lush. 138 , 107, HO 
 
 " Empu.sa,' 5 P. D. G ; 4 8 L. J. Ad. 36 ; 41 L. T. 383 ; 28 W. R. 2G3 ; 
 4 Asp. M. C. 185 158, ICG, 30O, 311. 312
 
 XXX TABLE OF CASKS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 " Endoavour." See "Cricket." 
 
 (No. •_>, damages;, 62 L. T. 8iO : G Asp. M. C. 511 101 
 
 " Eiiergia," oG Fed. R>p. 121 417 
 
 06 Fed. Rop. 601 113 
 
 "Enernry," -12 Fed. Rep. 301 44, 370 
 
 L. R. 3 A. & K. 48 ; 39 L. J. Ad. 25 ; 23 L. T. 601 ; 18 
 
 W. R. 100<J....24, 27, 125, 175, 189, 190, 192, 193, 197, 222, 227,231,234 
 " En^'ineer," Tatham r. Burr, (1898) App. Cas. 3S2 ; 67 L. J. Ad. 61 ; 
 
 78 L. T. 473; 8 A.sp. M. C. 401 -H.L 108, 273 
 
 '• Eii^'land," 5 Not. of Cas. 170 287, 288 
 
 En^rloliait r. Farrani, (1897) 1 Q. B. 210 15 
 
 " Fiiirlisliiiiaii ■' (lights), 3 P. D. 18; 47 L. J. Al. 9 ; 37 L. T. 412 ; 3 A.sp. 
 
 M. C. 506 .^9, 206, 358 
 
 and ••Australia" ;N<). 1, tug a:.d tow), (1894) P. 239: 
 
 63 L. J. Ad. 133 ; 7(» L. T. 846; 43 W. R 62 ; 6 R. 743 ; 7 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 603 126, 132, 161, 170, 176, 179, 182, 193 
 
 (No. 2, as.signment of judgment), 
 
 (189.5) P. 212 ; 64 L. J. Ad. 74 ; 72 L. T. 203 ; 43 W. R. 670 ; 7 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 605 132, 176 
 
 " Enrique, Stockton," V. Ad. Dig. Canada, 157 115 
 
 '• Enlide-s," 3 Hag. Ad. 367 106 
 
 ♦' Erandio," 163 Fed. R-p. 435 1 1 
 
 " Erastus Corning," 25 Fed. Rep. 572 472 
 
 " Erastus Wimau," 20 Fed. Rep. 215 ;34 
 
 " Ericsson," Swab. 38 394 
 
 " Esk"and "Gitana," L. K. 2 A. & E. 350; 3S L. J. Ad. 33; 20 
 
 L. T. 587; 17 W. R. lOGl 340, 362, 363 
 
 and " Niord," L. R. 3 C. P. 436 ; 7 Moo. P. C. N. S. 276 ; 
 
 24L. T. 167; 1 Asp. M. C. 1 327, 402, 411, 446,447 
 
 " Esscquibo," 13 P. D. 51 ; 57 L. J. Ad. 29; 58 L. T. 596 ; 6 Asp. 
 
 '^^■C.-llG 35^,^ 350 
 
 " Etna," (1908) P. 269 ; 98 L. T. 424 ; 77 L. J. P. 138 ; 11 Asp. M. C. 
 
 3^ 458, 459, 460 
 
 '• Etruria," 88 Fed. Rep. 555 5OI 
 
 •' Ettriek," Prehn r. B.iiley, 6 P. D. 127 ; 41 L. T. 817 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 
 
 4G5 ; on app. 45 L. T. 399 ; affirming, 50 L. J. Ad. 65 151, 163, 279, 
 
 281, 281, 281 
 
 " Europa " (fog), 1 1 Jur. 627 G, 374, 477 
 
 (evidence), 13 Jur. 85 i 290 
 
 (lien). Dean v. Richards, Br. .& Lush. 89 ; 2 .VIoo. P.C. N. S. 
 
 1 ; 3i L. J. Ad. 188 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 699 ; 8 L. T. 368 13, 74 
 
 (marshal's charges), Br. >t L. 210 ; 9 L. T. 78 1 '7:5 
 
 (bill of lading), (1908) P. 84; 9S L. T. 246; 77 L J P 
 
 26; 11 A*.p. M. C. 19 .................. ' .^.q- 
 
 " European," 10 P. D. 99 ; 54 L. J. Ad. 61 ; 52 L. T. 868 '; 33 AV R 
 
 937; 5 Asp. M. G. 417 ' ' .,_- 
 
 — (practice), Williams & Bruce, Adm. Pr. (3rd ed.) 354. .. . 288 
 
 European and Australian Rcjyal Mail Co. v. Peninsular and Oriental " 
 
 Steam Nav. Co., 12 Jur. N. S. 909 ; 1 1 L. T. 704 ; 14 W. R. 843. . . 3ij 
 " Evangeli.smos," Xenos r. Aldersley, Swab. 378; 12 Moo. F. C. " 
 '^^"" 298, 307
 
 TABLE OF CASES. XXXI 
 
 PAOE 
 
 '• Evangelistria,"" 46 L. J. Ad. 1 ; n:> L. T. 410 ; 2.'> W. R. 2.55 ; 3 Asp. 
 
 M. C. -264 199 
 
 Evorard r. Kendall, L. R. 5 C. P. 42S ; 39 L. J. C. P. 234 : 22 L. T. 
 
 408; IS "SV. R. 892 303 
 
 Esver r. Ambrose, 4 B. & C. 2o 2f 
 
 " Excel-ior," L. R. 2 A. & E. 268 ; 37 L. J. Ad. .54 ; 19 L. T. 87 .... 77. 
 
 9-), 238, 476. 480, 481 
 
 39 Fed. Rep. 393 330 
 
 E.Kcelsior Co. i\ Smith, 2 L. T. 90 273 
 
 " Exchinge," 10 Blatcbf. 168 384, 4S» 
 
 " Explorer," L. R. 3 A. & E. 289 ; 40 L J. Ad. 41 ; 23 L. T. 604 ; 19 
 
 "\V. R. 166 210, 211 
 
 20 Fed. Rep. 13.') 132 
 
 ' ' E.xpre.ss " (lights), 48 Fed. Rep. 323 3G3, ; GO 
 
 52 Fed. Rep. 890 12G, IS."., 193 
 
 F. 
 
 " F. & r. M." (No. 1), 4.i Fed. Rep. 703 .30, 493 
 
 (No. 2), 44 Fed. Rep. C98 447 
 
 " F. W. Wheeler," 78 Fed. Rep. 824 18.) 
 
 Fabre v. Cunard Steamship Co., 53 Fed. Rep. 2SS 429 
 
 " Faedrekndet," (1895) P. 205; 61 L. J. Ad. 122: 72 L. T. 6.50; 
 
 8 Asp. M. C. 1 340. 347, 3G2, 363 
 
 Fairless v. Thorsen. • See " Good Intent " 200 
 
 " Fairport," 8 P. D. 48 ; .52 L. J. Ad. 21 ; 48 L. T. 536; 31 W. R. 
 
 616 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 62 74 
 
 "Fairy," 1 Sp. 298 •!•• 
 
 " Falcon," 19 Wall. 75 3, 40G 
 
 "Falk," 47 L. T. 308; 4 Asp. M. C. 592 80. 293 
 
 "Falkland" and "Navigator," Br. & Lu.sh. 201 ; 1 Moo. V. C. N. S. 
 
 379; 9.Jur. N. S. 1113 ; 9 L. T. 1 292.439, 487 
 
 "Fama," 2 W. Rob. 184 217. 216 
 
 " Fannie," 1 1 Wall. 238 ; -176 
 
 " Fannie Tathill," 17 Fed. Rjp. 87 11(> 
 
 "Fanny M. Carvill," L. R. 4 A. & E. 417, 422 ; 44 L. J. Ad. 1 ; 
 
 23 W. R. 598 ; ou app. 13 App. Cas. 455, n. ; 44 L. J. Ad. 34 ; 32 
 
 L. T. 646 ; 24 W. R. 62 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 565 41, .59, 311 
 
 Fantley v. Kiug, " John " and ' • .Merry Ro.se " 139 
 
 "Farewell," 8 Quebec L. R. 87 1''7, 106, 415, 440 
 
 Farr r. " Farnley," 1 Fed. Rep. 631 34 
 
 "Farragut," 10 Wall. 334 51, 60, 472 
 
 " Favorita," 18 Wall. 598 3, 490 
 
 Faye ^ Graham, "Three Relations" and "Britannia." Marsil. ,\<1. Ca. 
 
 331 1'^ 
 
 "Feuham," L. R. 3 P. C. 212 ; 6 Moo. P. C. N. S. 501 ; 23 L. T. 329. . 16. 
 
 29. 11. II, :;;;(i
 
 XXXll TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGK 
 
 Ftnton r. Dublin Steam Tacket Co., S Ad. & El. 835 ; 1 P. & D. 103 ; 
 
 S L. J. g. B. 28 66, 175 
 
 Finwick c. Bill, 1 C. & K. 31-.' 292 
 
 Ferguson t'. Malion, 1 1 Ad. c\: i:i. 179 212 
 
 and Ilutcliinson, 7i.c j,(nir, L. R. 6 Q. B. 280 ; 40 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 105; 21 L. T. 96; 19 W. R. 740 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 8 CS, 59, 304, 319 
 
 ' ' Fidelity." 16 Blatcbf . 569 94 
 
 " Fijflia Maggiore," L. R. 2 A. .V: E. 100 ; 37 L. J. Ad. 52 ; 18 L. T. 
 
 532 271 
 
 " Fire Queen," 12 P. D. 147 ; 56 L. J. Ad. 90 ; 57 L. T. 312 ; 36 W. R. 
 
 15 ; 6 A.sp M. C. 146 51, 55, 359 
 
 Fick /•. City of New York, 119 Fed. Rep. 256 112 
 
 Flaniiyen r. Washington Insunmce Co., 7 Barr. 300 24 1 
 
 Fletcher r. Braddick, 2 Bos. & P. N. R. 182 67, 270 
 
 " Fletcher " and " Graposhot," 42 Fed. Rep. 504 110 
 
 ••Fliut," 6 Not. of Cas. 271 404, 492, 493 
 
 " F.r.ra," Ad. Ct. 2Sth June, 1815 14.5 
 
 (arrest of cargo), L. R. 1 A. & E. 15; 35 L. J. Ad. 15; 14 
 
 L. T. 192 7,5, SO 
 
 "Florence P. Hall," 14 Fed. Rep. 408 7, 32, 34 
 
 Flower r. Bradley, 41 L. .J. Ex. 1; 31 I;. T. 702; 23 \V. R. 74; 2 
 
 Asp. M. C. 489 295 
 
 " FMng Fish, H.M.S.," Br. & Lush. 436 ; 3 Moo. P. C. N. S. 77 ; 3i 
 
 L. J. Ad. 113 ; 2 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 221 io5, 108 
 
 " Fontana." 1 19 Fed. Rep. 853 102 
 
 Forbes v. Lee Conservancy Board, 4 Ex. D. 116 ; 48 L. J. Q. B. 402 • 
 
 27 W. R. 688 " ' 90 
 
 "Fork, H.M.S.," 2Pr. Ad. Dig. 3rd ed. 1761 .....'"'..."..'.'." 113 
 
 " Fort Lee," 31 Fed. Rep. 670 ' " ] 33 
 
 Forward r. Pittard, 1 T. R. 27 ' 265 
 
 Foscolino, 52 L. T. 866 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 420 "....." 299 
 
 "Foyle," Lush. 10 990 
 
 France f. Gaudet, L. R. 6 Q. B. 199 II4 
 
 " Francis," 44 Fed. Rep. 510 .....* 18 . 
 
 " Francis King," 7 Beued. 11 ^89 
 
 Franckes r. Dingslach (not reported) 1 3q 
 
 " Frjnconia " (damages), 16 Fed. Rep. 149 107 1113 
 
 Harris v. Hamburg, &c. Gesellsclu.ft. Owners of the F.' 
 
 (service of writ), 2 C. P. D. 1 73 ; 46 L. J. C. P. 303 20I 
 
 (overtaking ship), 2 P. D. 8 ; 35 L. T. 721 ; 25 W. R. 197'- 
 
 3 Asp. M. C. 295-C. A 03, 328, 397, 414, 431, 43.5, 437, 497 
 
 (.jurisdiction ; loss of life), 2 P. D. 163 ; 46 L J Ad 71 • 
 
 35 L. T. 040 ; 25 W. R. 796 ; 3 A>p. M. C. 435-C. A .' -97 
 
 (limitation), Hamburg, &c. Gcsellschaft r. Burrell 
 
 L. T. 719; 26 W. R. 743 ; (,n app. 3 P. D. 161 ; c9 L. T 57 
 
 W. R. 218; 4 Asp. M. C. 1 
 
 (criminal jurisdiction). See Reg. v. Keyn. 
 
 38 
 27 
 .. 156 
 
 4 Bened. 181 
 
 ' ' Frank,' ' 2 Quebec L. R. 295 .... 
 " Frank P. Lee," 34 Ftd. Rep. 480 
 
 381 
 382 
 
 365
 
 TABLE OF CASES. XXXlll 
 
 PAOE 
 
 " Frankland," L. R. 3 A. & E. oil ; 41 L. J. Ad. 3 ; 25 L. T. 889 ; 20 
 
 W. R. 592 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 207 286 
 
 and " Kestrel," 9 Moo. P. C. N. S. 365 ; L. R. 4 P. C. 
 
 529 ; 27 L. T. 633 : 1 Asp. M. C. 489 124, 378, 429, 432 
 
 (1901) P. 161 ; 84 L. T. 395 ; 70 L. J. Ad. 42 ; 9 A.Kp. 
 
 M. C. 196 95. 121, 131, 132 
 
 " Franz Si<,'el," 14 Blatchf. 480 ; 6 Bened. 550 492 
 
 Frayes v. Worms, 10 C. B. N. S. 149 212 
 
 Frazer v. Cuthbertson, 6 Q. B. D. 93 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 277 ; 29 W. R. 396 64 
 
 " Fred," 72 L. T. 523 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 550 292 
 
 " Fred. Jansen," 49 Fed. Rep. 254 492 
 
 " Fred. W. Chase," 31 Fed. Rep. 91 167 
 
 "Free State," Brown, Ad. 251 ; 1 Otto, 200 320, 327, 431. 449 
 
 " Freedom," L. R. 3 A. & E. 495 ; 41 L. J. Ad. 1 ; 25 L. T. 392 ; 1 
 
 Asp. M. C. 136 80, 271, 297 
 
 Fretz V. Bull, 12 How. 466 498 
 
 " Friedeberg," 10 P. D. 112 ; 54 L. J. Ad. 75 ; 52 L. T. 837 ; 33 W. R. 
 
 687 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 426 309 
 
 "Friends," 4 Moo. P. C. 314 ; aff. 1 W. Rob. 478 ..16, 123, 314, 447, 455 
 " Friends Goodwill" and " Peggy," Stoker e. Hutton, Marsd. Ad. Cas. 
 
 328 141, 145, 293 
 
 " Frostburg," 25 Fed. Rep. 451 107 
 
 "Fulda," 31 Fed. Rep. 351 322, 491 
 
 " Fyenoord," Swab. 374 205, 317, 445, 504 
 
 G. 
 
 Gadney r. Rough, 40 L. T. 258 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 73 534 
 
 " Gfetano" and "Maria," 7 P. D. 1 ; 51 L. J. Ad. 7 : 45 L. T. 510 ; 
 
 30 W. U. 108 ; on app. 7 P. D. 137 ; 51 L. J. Ad. 67 ; 46 L. T. 835 ; 
 
 30 W. R. 766 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 535— C. A 146 
 
 GafiFner v. Pigott, 116 Fed. Rep. 486 28, 437 
 
 "Gala" and " Zenobia," Holt, 112 405 
 
 " Galatea," 2 Otto, 439 182, 490 
 
 Gale I-. Laurie, 5 B. & C. 156 ; 7 D. & R. 711 146, 150, 151 
 
 "Gamma," 103 Fed. Rep. 703 23, 497 
 
 Gannet, (I'JOOj App. Cas. 234 ; 69 L. J. Ad. 49 ; 82 L. T. 329 ; 9 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 43 43, 52, 292, 336, 363 
 
 Gardiner c. Bright, Seld. Ser. Admiralty, II. Ixxxiii 136 
 
 Garnett i\ Bradley, L. R. 3 App. Cas. 944 312 
 
 " Garston " Sailing Ship Co. v. Hickie, 18 Q. B. D. 17 ; 5() L. J. Q. B. 
 
 38 ; 55 L. T. 879 ; 35 W. R. 33 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 71— C. A 267 
 
 " Gazelle " (customary track), 1 W. Rob. 471 '■^■'2, 447 
 
 (damages), 2 W. Rob. 279 101 
 
 " Geelong," Ship. Gaz., March 5th, 1908 379 
 
 "Gemma," (1899) P. 285; 68 L. J. Ad. 110; 81 L. T. 379; 8 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 585-C. A «0. -'->« 
 
 M. <•
 
 XX XIV TABLK OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 " Oeiieral," 8'2 Fed. Rep. 830 472 
 
 " Geuonil Birch." (I Quebec L. R. 300 51 
 
 ' ' General De Cnen," Swab. 9 226, 228 
 
 ' General Gordon " (costs), 63 L. T. 117; 6 Asp. M. C. ';33 ; on app. 
 
 68 L. T. 469 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 317 306, 391, 477 
 
 (sufficiency of crew), 68 L. T. 469 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 
 
 317 391 
 
 General Iron Screw Collier Co. t\ Moss. See " Araxes." 
 
 r. Schurmanns, 1 J. & H. 180; 29 L. J. 
 
 Ch. 877 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 883 ; 4 L. T. 138 ; 8 W. R. 732 .... 163, 207, 208 
 
 " General Lee," 32 Fed. Rep. 830 457 
 
 19 L. T. 750 ; 3 Mar. Law Cas O. S. 204 . . . .409, 414, 432 
 
 General Mutual Insurance Co. v. Sherwood, 14 How. 351 272 
 
 " General Parkill " ami "Centurion," 1 Pritch. Ad. Dig. 1410 232 
 
 General Steam Navigation Co. r. British and Colonial Steam Navigation 
 Co., L. R. 3 E.x. 330 ; 37 L. J. Ex. 194 ; 19 L. T. 357 ; 17 W. R 615 ; 
 on app. L. R. 4 Ex. 238 ; 38 L. J. Ex. 97 ; 20 L. T. 581 ; 17 W. R. 
 
 741 — Ex. Ch 210, 220, 244, 257 
 
 '- V. Gillou, 11 M. & W. 877; 13 L. J. 
 
 Ex. 168 203, 212 
 
 r. London and Edinburgh Shipping Co., 
 
 2 Ex. Div. 467 ; 47 L. J. Q B. D. 77 : 36 L. T. 743 ; 25 W. R. 694 ; 
 
 3 Asp. M. C. 454 307, 308 
 
 V. Mann, 14 C. B. 127 .S24 
 
 V. Morrison. See Morrison v. &c. 
 
 V. Tonkin. See " Friends." 
 
 •' General U. S. Grant," 6 Bened. 465 324, 416 
 
 " General Wm. McCandlass," 6 Bened. 223 493 
 
 "George" (pilot), 2 W. Rob. 386 ; 4 Not. of Cas. Ibl ; 9 Jur. 670. .230, 384 
 
 and " Lidskjalf," Swab. 117 479 
 
 " George and Richard," L. R. 3 A. & E. 466 ; 24 L. T. 717 ; 20 W. R. 
 
 245 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 50 ' y^^ jq^ 
 
 " George Arkle," Lush. 382 -P. C ' ' 34O 
 
 "George Gordon," 9 P. D. 46; 53 L. J. Ad. 28; 50 L. T. 371-32 
 
 W. R. 596; 5 Asp. M. C. 216 ' 312 
 
 " George Law," 3 Bened. 396 493 
 
 " George Murray," 22 Fed. Rep. 117 [[ ........ 472 
 
 " George Roper," 8 P. D. 119 ; 52 L. J. Ad. 69 ; 49 L. T. 185 31 W R 
 
 953 ; 5 A.sp. M. C.134 ' 3 22 499 
 
 " George W. Roby," 111 Fed. Rep. 601 ' '112 
 
 Georgian Bay Transportation Co. r. Fisher, 5 Tupper (Ontario) ,' 383 ! ! ' ' 155 
 " Georgiana " and "Anglican," 21 W. R. 280 . . m 
 
 "Gere," (1909) P. 287; 100 L. T. 620 ; 78 L. J." P." 130 4,4 
 
 '• Germania," 37 L. J. Ad. 59 ; 19 L. T. 20 ; 21 L T. 44 ; 3 Mar Law 
 
 ^""^•«-269^ 206,472 
 
 1 Maude & Pollock on Sh. 4th el. 606 n. (i) 317 31s 
 
 "Germanic," (1896) P 84; 65 L. J. Ad 53; 73 L T 730- 44 W r' 
 
 394; 8 Asp. M. C. 116-C. A ' "'295 
 
 Ad. Ct. Feb. 1896 375 
 
 " Germany," 2 Smart (V Ad. Canada), loS .'....'.'.'.'.]'. [ 4.,
 
 TABLE OF CASES. XXXV 
 
 PAQS 
 
 80 
 
 " Gertor," 70 L. T. 703 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 472 14 '5 114 18 
 
 •' Gertrude," 12 P. D. 204 ; 13 ibid. 105 ; 56 L. J. Ad. 106 ; 57 l! T 883 •' 
 
 59 ibid. 251 ; 36 W. R. 191, 616 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 224, 315 . . ' 103 
 
 " Gettysburg," 52 L. T. 60 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 347 ' 75 
 
 '< Gevalia," 39 Fed. Rep. 47 ieo.o^ 
 
 f^.,. , ^ ^ 46J, 4bo 
 
 O-iIbert V. Corporation of Trinity House, 17 Q B D 795 • 56 L J 
 
 Q. B. 85 ; 35 W. R. 30 ' ' ' ' gg 
 
 " Gilson," 35 Fed. Rep. 333 ,09 ,.,g 
 
 "Gipsy," 19 How. 56 ' 363 
 
 " Gipsy King," 2 W. Rob. 537 ; 5 Not. of Cas. 282 '.".'l 4,' 178,' 196' '230' 480 
 
 " Giraffe," 1 Pritch. Ad. Dig. 3rd ed. 234, 235 54 
 
 " Girolamo," 3 Hag. Ad. 1 69 82, 206, 208, 230, 231, 236, 380 
 
 " Gjessing," and " Hansa." See " Hansa." 
 
 " Gladiator," 79 Fed. Rep. 415 IgQ jg,, 
 
 Gladholm v. Barker, L. R. 1 Ch. 223 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 259 • 13 L T 653 ' 
 
 14 W. R 296 ■ ' jgj 
 
 " Gladys," (1910) P. 13 ; 79 L. J. P. 5 " ....'.'.'.".'.". ... .'.'.''.'.".404", 407, 451 
 "Glamorganshire," 13 App. Cas. 454; 59 L. T. 572- 6 Asp M c' 
 
 344— P. C ■ ■ .., 
 
 " Glannibanta," 1 P. D. 283; 46 L. J. Ad. 75; 34 L. T. 934 • 24 
 
 W. R. 1033; 3 Asp. M. C. 233-C. A 311 472 
 
 " Glannystwyth," (1899) P. 118; 68 L. J. Ad. 37; 80 L."t.*'>04' 
 
 8 Asp. M. C. 513 25l', 257 
 
 "Glasgow," Swab. 145; 12 Moo. P. C. 355 n. ; 2 Jur N S 1147- 
 
 5 W. R. 10 ' ._,9g 
 
 " Gleaner," 38 L. T. 650 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 582 ',\\ 113 
 
 " Glengaber," L. R. 3 A. & E. 534 ; 41 L. J. Ad. 84 ; 27 L. T. 386 "; 
 
 21 W. R. 168 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 401 281, 282 
 
 " Glengariff," (1905) P. 106 ; 93 L. T. 281 ; 74 L. J.'p.'qO "; lo'lsp ' 
 
 M. C. 103 4J2 
 
 "Glengarry," 2 P. D. 235 (note); 43 L. J. Ad. 37; 30 L. T. 34l"; 
 
 23 W. R. 110 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 230 499 500 
 
 "Globe," 6 Not. of Cas. 275 '..............' 493 
 
 Godard v. Gray, L. R. 6 Q. B. 139 ; 40 L. J. Q. B. 62 ; 24 L. T. 89 • 
 
 19 W. R. 348 '212 
 
 " Godiva," 11 P. D. 20 ; 55 L. J. Ad. 13 ; 54 L. T. 55 ; 34 W. R. 551 ; 
 
 5 Asp. M. C. 524 ' 287 
 
 Goldsmith V. Slattery, 63 L. T. 273 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 561 544 
 
 Good V. London Steamship Owners' Mutual Protecting Association, 
 
 L. R. 6 C. P. 563 ; 20 W. R. 33 ' i62 
 
 " Good Intent" and "Prince Christian," Fairless v. Thorsen, Marsd. 
 
 Ad. Ca. 130 .jOo 
 
 Goody ne c. Tompkins 199 
 
 " Gordon," 11 Lower Canada Jurist, 109 232 
 
 " Governor," Abbot, Ad. 108 404, 436 
 
 "Govino," Quebec L. R. 57 60, 103 
 
 Grainger v. Martin, 4 B. & S. 9 ; 8 L. T. 796 ; 11 "W. R. 758, aftirming 
 
 2 B. & S. 456 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 995 ; 31 L. J. Q. B. 186 161 
 
 " Granite State," 3 Wall. 310 303, 477 
 
 " Gray Eagle," 9 Wall. 505 '.'....' (Jq 
 
 6-2
 
 XXXVl TABLE OP" CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 " Gray Eajyle," 1 Bissel, 476 ; 2 ibid. 25 335 
 
 " Great Eastern," Holt, 169 . . 290 
 
 :; Moo. P. C. N. S. 31 ; 11 L. T. 5 ; 2 Mar. Law Gas. 
 
 0. S. 97 327, 386, il4, 418, 4n3 
 
 Green r. New River Co . 4 T. R. 589 68 
 
 Greenland r. Chaplin, 5 Ex. 243 ; 19 L. J. Ex. 293 ; 15 L. T. 185. . 13, 15, 28 
 
 Greenock Towage Co. v. Hardie, 4 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (Eraser) 215 236 
 
 "Greenpoint," 31 Fed. Rep. 231 23, 485 
 
 18 Fed. Rep. 186 238, 484 
 
 Greer r. Toole, 5 Q. B. D. 272 ; 49 L. J. Q. B. 463 ; 42 L. T. 687 ; 28 
 
 W. R. 582 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 300 283 
 
 Gregory r. Jone.s, 90 L. T. 42 245, 246 
 
 "Grenadier," and " August KorfF," 74 Fed. Rep. 974 46, 383 
 
 "Greta Holme," "Emerald," (1896) P. 192 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 138; re- 
 versed (1897) App. Cas. 596 ; 66 L. J. Ad. 166 ; 77 L. T. 231 ; 8 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 317— H. L Ill 
 
 "(rriefswald," Swab. 430 199, 212, 213, 293 
 
 Grill V. General Iron Screw Collier Co., L. R. 3 C. P. 476; 37 
 
 L. J. C. P. 205 ; 18 L. T. 485 ; 16 W. R. 796— Ex. Ch 66, 108, 267, 
 
 268, 269, 272, 280 
 
 " Grube " c. Stagg, Seld. Ser. Admiralty, II. Ixxxiv 137 
 
 " Guldfaxe," L. R. 2 A. & E. 325 ; 38 L. J. Ad. 12 ; 19 L. T. 748 ; 
 
 17 W. R. 578 211, 297 
 
 " Guildhall," (1908) P. 29 ; 98 L. T. 7 ; 77 L. J. P. 52 ; 10 Asp. M. C. 
 
 585; on app., (1908) A. C. 159; 98 L. T. .763 ; 77 L. J. P. 113 541 
 
 Gull V. Carswell, Marsd. Ad. Cas. 295 95 140 
 
 " Gustaf," Lush. 506 ; 31 L. J. Ad. 207 ; 6 L. T. 660 ' 78 
 
 . See "New Ed." 
 
 " Gustafsberg," (1905) P. 10 ; 92 L. T. 630 ; 74 L. J. P. 42 • 10 Asp 
 
 M.C.61 ' 449 
 
 " Guyandotte," 39 Fed. Rep. 575 472 
 
 " Guy Mannering," 7 P. D. 52; 51 L. J. Ad. 17 ; 46 L. T. 110; 30 
 
 W. R. 523; on app. 7 P. D. 132; 51 L. J. Ad. 57; 30 W. R. 835; 
 
 4 Asp. M. C. 558— C. A 204, 218, 24l', 528 
 
 "Gypsum Prince," 67 Fed. Rep. 612 ' ' '34 
 
 H. 
 
 " H. F. Dimock," 77 Fed. Rep. 226 07^, ^-o 
 
 " H. M. Whitney." 86 Fed. Rep. 697 . .. '^ 
 
 " H. P. Baldwin," Brown, Ad. 300 . . ' ' 'l^o X 
 
 " H. S. Nichols," 53 Fed. Rep. 665 ' '^ 
 
 "H. W. Hills," 2IFed.Rep. 727 '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 337 
 
 Haberdyne c. Reeve, Seld. Ser. Admiralty, II. L^xxiv iqq 
 
 " Hackensack," 32 Fed. Rep. 800 '" 
 
 -■ 5Fed.Rep.121 ,„„ 
 
 ■ ' • 49/
 
 TABLE OF CASES. XXXVli 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Hadgraft r. Hewith, L. R. 10 Q. B. 350; 44 L. J. M. C. 140; 32 
 
 L. T. 720 ; 23 W. R. 91 1 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 573 251, 253, 254 
 
 "Hagen," (1908) P. 189 : 98 L. T. ^91 ; 77 L. J. P. 124 ; 11 Asp' 
 
 M. C. 6*? 285 
 
 Haigh V. Royal Mail Steam Packet Co., 52 L. J. Q. B. 395, 640; 48 
 
 L. T. 267 ; 49 ibid. 802 ; o A.sp. M. C. 47, 189 209 
 
 Haight V. Bird, 26 Fed. Rep. 539 488 
 
 '• Halfdau," Ship. Gaz.. 22nd Feb. 1908 524 
 
 Hall e-. Cardiff PUotage Board, C. P. D. 18th Nov. 1879 248 
 
 c. Hill. Seld Ser. Admiralty, II. Ix.xxiv 138 
 
 " HaUett," Ad. Div. 0th Aug. 1887 473 
 
 "Halley," L. R. 2 A. & E. 3 ; 17 L. T. 329: 37 L. J. Ad. 1 ; 16 
 
 W. R. 284 ; on app. 5 Moo. P. C. N. S. 262 ; L. H. 2 P. C. 193 ; 37 
 
 L. J. Ad. 33 ; 18 L. T. 879 : 16 W. R. 998 : . . . . 72, 81, 101, 201, 204, 207. 
 
 216, 217, 226, 246 
 Halliday r. Harris, L. R. 9 C. P. 668 : 43 L. J. C. P. 350 ; 30 L. T. 
 
 680 ; 22 W. R. 756 79 
 
 Hamburg Americanishe Packetfahrt Actien Gesellschaft r. Burrell. 
 
 See " Franconia." 
 
 "Hamilton," 95 Fed. Rep. 844 102 
 
 Hamilton r. Baker. See "Sara." 
 
 Hammond r. Rogers. See "Christiana." 
 
 Hancock v. York, Newcastle, and Berwick Railway Co., 10 C. B. 348 . . 88 
 
 "Hand of Providence." Swab. 107 331, 440, 442 
 
 Handaysyde v. Wilson. 3 Car. & P. 528 314, 456 
 
 " Hankow," 4 P. D. 197 ; 48 L. J. Ad. 29 ; 40 L. T. 335 ; 28 W. R. 
 
 156 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 97 243. 257, 308 
 
 "Hanna," L. R. 1 A. & E. 283 ; 36 L. J. Ad. 1 : 15 L. T. 334; 15 
 
 W. R. 263 243, 244, 256, 257 
 
 " Hannah Park " and " Lena," 14 L. T. 675 105 
 
 "Hannibal" and " Qiieen," L. R. 2 A. & E. 53; 37 L. J. Ad. 
 
 12 57, 58, 59 
 
 "Hansa," 58 L. T. 530 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 268 107 
 
 5Bened. 501 377,381 
 
 " Hare," (1904) P. 331 ; 90 L. T. 323 ; 73 L. J. P. 47 ; 9 Asp. M. C. 
 
 547 317,379,523 
 
 Harmer v. Bell. See " Bold Buccleugh." 
 
 Harmond v. Pearson, 1 Camp. 515 88 
 
 "Harmonide-." (1903) P. 1 102 
 
 Harmony, &c. v. United States. See " Malek Adhel." 
 
 "Harold," 84 Fed. Rep. 698 126, 182, 371, 376 
 
 '• Harrington," 13 P. D. 48 ; 57 L. J. Ad. 45 ; 59 L. T. 72 ; (i Asp. 
 
 M. C. 282 163, 284 
 
 Harris v. Anderson, 14 C. B. N. S. 499 29, 196 
 
 V. Hamburg, &a> Gesellschaft, Owners of "Franconia," 2 
 
 C. P. D. 173 ; 46 L. J. C. P. 363 201, 2S5 
 
 V. Mobbs, 3 Ex. D. 268 ; 39 L. T. 164 31 
 
 V. Quine, L. R. 4 Q. B. 653 ; 10 B. & S. 644 ; 38 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 331 ; 20 L. T. 947 ; 17 W. R. 907 212 
 
 V. Willis. 15 C. B. 710 : 24 L. J. C. P. 03 289
 
 XXXVm TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 " Harrisburg," 71 Fed. Rep. 894 416 
 
 119 U. S. Rep. 109 211 
 
 " Harrj'," 15 Fed. Rep. 161 494 
 
 " Hnrton," 9 P. D. 44 ; 53 L. J. Ad. 2.5 ; 50 L. T. 370 ; 32 W. R. 597 ; 
 
 o Asp. M. C. 213 55, 377, 429 
 
 "Hurvost," 11 r. D. 14, 90; 55 L. J. Ad. 35 ; 54 L. T. 274; 55 ibid. 
 
 202 ; 34 W. R. 491 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 546 ; 6 ibid. 5 504, 545 
 
 "Harvest H..me," (1905) P. 177 ; 10 A.sp. M. C. 118; 93 L. T. 395 ; 
 
 74 L. J. P. 65 193, 473 
 
 Hnstorf r. Mayor, &c. of City of New York, 64 Fed. Rep. 869 481 
 
 " JLuswcU," Br. & L. 247 287 
 
 " Hiivaiia," 54 Fed. Rep. 411 54, 475 
 
 Havelock r. Rockwood, 8 T. R. 268 212 
 
 " Haversham Grange," (1905) P. 307 ; 93 L. T. 733 ; 74 L. J. P. 115 ; 
 
 10 Asp. M. C. 156 Ill 
 
 " Haverton," 31 Fed. Rep. 563 336, 352, 391 
 
 " Havilah," 50 Fed. Rep. 331 107 
 
 Hawkins v. Morgan, 49 L. J. Q. B. 618 301 
 
 •'Hawthonibank," (1904) P. 129: 90 L. T. 293; 73 L. J. P. 18 ; 9 
 
 Asp. M. C. 535 346, 347 
 
 Hay V. Le Neve, 2 Shaw's Scotch Appeal Cas. 395 16, 17, 31, 117, 123, 
 
 143, 145 
 Hayn v. Culliford, 4 C. P. D. 182 ; 48 L. J. C. P. 372 ; 40 L. T. 536 ; 
 
 27 W. R. 541 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 48, 128 130, 265 
 
 Heard v. Holman, 19 C. B. N. S. 1 109 
 
 " Hector," 8 P. D. 218 ; 52 L. J. Ad. 47 (costs) ; ibid. 51 (limitation) ; 
 
 48L. T. 890; 31 W. R. 881 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 101— C. A 24,60,86, 116, 
 
 129, 216, 222, 227, 294, 305, 310, 311 
 Hedges v. London and St. Katherine Dock Co., 16 Q. B. D. 597 ; 55 
 
 L. J. M. C. 46 ; 54 L. T. 427 ; 34 W. R. 503 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 539. . . . 304 
 Hedley v. Pinkey & Sons SS. Co., (1894) App. Cas. 222 ; 63 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 419; 70 L. T. 630; 42 W. R. 497; 7 Asp. M. C. 483 99 
 
 " Hedwig," 1 Sp. 19 289 
 
 " Heinrich Bjorn," 11 App. Cas. 270 ; 54 L. J. Ad. 80; 55 L. T. 66 ■ 
 
 33 AV. R. 719 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 1 73, 76, 80 
 
 " Helen Cooper " and " R. L. Mabey," 7 Blatchf. 378 477 
 
 " Helen KeUer," 50 Fed. Rep. 142 . .439^ 479 
 
 " Helenslea," 7 P. D. 57 ; 51 L. J. Ad. 16 ; 47 L. T. 446 ; 30 W. R ' 
 
 616 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 594 285 294 
 
 " Helvetia," 3 Asp. M. C. 43, n ......'..' 404 
 
 Henderson v. Henderson, 3 Ha. 100 .>P2 
 
 " Henri IV^," 13 Quebec L. R. 379 .30, 107 
 
 " Henry Coxon," 3 P. D. 156 ; 47 L. J. Ad. 83 ; 38 L. T. 819 . . ' 9S9 
 
 " Henry M. Clark," 22 Fed. Rep. 752 101 
 
 " Henry Morton," 31 L. T. 859 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 466. . . . ! .436,' 49o', 50'> 545 
 
 " Herald," 63 L. T. 324 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 542 • '312 
 
 " Hercules " (division of loss), 20 Fed. Rep. 205 .\^..... 131 
 
 51 Fed. Rep. 452 !!..., 4,56 
 
 " Hermod," 62 L. T. 670 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 509 4.^' -uo 
 
 Hibbs V. Ross, 5 B. & S. 655 ; L. R. 1 Q. B. 534 ; 35 L. J Q B 193 • 
 
 12 Jur. N. S. 812 ; 15 L. T. 67; 14 W. R. 914 .' q^
 
 TABLE OF CASES. XXxix 
 
 PAGE 
 
 '♦ Hiberaia " (pilot ; costs ; presumption), 31 L. T. 805 ; 24 W. R. 60 : 
 
 2 Asp. M. C. 454— P. C 41, 43, 307. 474 
 
 (pilot ; inevitable accident), 4 Jur. X. S. 12J4 8. "27, '235 
 
 " Hibernian," Redpath r. Allen, 9 Moo. P. C. N. S. 340 ; L. R. 4 
 
 P. C. 511 : 42 L. J. Ad. 8 : 27 L. T. 725 ; 21 W. R. 276 ; I Asp. 
 
 M. C. 491 215, 217, 2ly 
 
 Highfield r. Peake, M. & M. 109 290 
 
 "Highgate," 62 L. T. 841 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 512 6. 408, 411. 413, 458 
 
 Hill '■. Audus, 1 K. & J. 263 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 229 ; 3 W. R. 230 300 
 
 '• Hiroudelle," Ship. Gaz., Dec. 15th 1905 363 
 
 " Hjemmett." 5 P. D. 227 ; 49 L. J. Ad. 66 : 42 L. T. 514 ; 4 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 274 188, 283 
 
 Hobbs i: London .^- South Western Rail. Co., L. R. 10 Q. B. Ill : 44 
 
 L. J. Q. B. 49 ; 32 L. T. 252 ; 23 W. R. 520 115 
 
 " Hochung'" and " Lapwing," 7 App. Cas. 512 : 51 L. J. P. C. 92 ; 
 
 47 L. T. 485 ; 31 W. R. 303 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 39 41,43, 
 
 59, 61, 132. 287 
 Hodgkinson v. Fernie, 2 C. B. N. S. 415 ; 26 L. J. C. P. 217 ; 3 Jur. 
 
 N. S. 818 67 
 
 Hoffman v. Union Ferry of Brooklyn, 68 New York (Sicker's) Rep. 
 
 385 ; 7 Amer. Rep. 435 110, 384 
 
 "Holar," (1901) P. 7 ; 69 L. J. Ad. 140 ; 83 L. T. 436 ; 9 Asp. M. C. 
 
 143 259 
 
 Hole r. Sittingbourne Rail. Co., 6 H. & N. 488; 30 L. J. E.\. 81 ; 3 
 
 L. T. 750 ; 9 W. R. 274 68 
 
 " Hollandia " and " John Ormston " (not reported) 340 
 
 Holman r. Irvine Harbour Trustees, 4 Sess. Cas. 4th Ser. 406 . .94, 215, 239 
 Homer Ramsdell Co. v. Compagnie Generale Trau.satlantique, 182 U. S. 
 
 Rep. 406 241 
 
 " Hope " (port helm), 1 W. Rob. 154 228, 296, 314 
 
 (warping), 2 W. Rob. 8 . . .*. 491 
 
 " Hopewell " and "Prosperous," Rennen v. Humble 128, 139 
 
 Hopton c. a pink, Seld. Ser. Adm. II. 79 72 
 
 " Hornet," (1892) P. 361 ; 68 L. T. 236 ; 7 Asp, M. C. 262 . . 14, 107, 124, 
 
 474, 476 
 Hossack V. Gray, 6 B. & S. 598 ; 34 L. J. M. C. 209 ; 12 L. T. 701 ; 13 
 
 W. R. 859 ; 1 1 Jur. N. S. 996 254, 262 
 
 Houstouu V. Marquis of Sligo, 29 Cli. D. 448 ; 52 L. T. 96 212 
 
 " Howard," 30 Fed. Rej:. 280 108 
 
 " Howard B. Peck," 48 Fed. Rep. 334 365, 481 
 
 " Howard Carroll," 41 Fed. Rep. 159 168. 407 
 
 Howard, Smith & Co. v. Wilson, (1896) App. Cas. 579 ; 65 L. J. P. C. 
 
 66 ; 75 L. T. 81 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 197-P. C 91, 108 
 
 " Hubbuck," Ad. Div. 28th June, 1887 359, 430 
 
 ' ' Hudson," 5 Bened. 206 :5«5. 484 
 
 15 Fed. Rep. 162 •''J. I'J-J. l'-'^ 
 
 " Hudson City," 38 Fed. Rep. 446 -185 
 
 Huggett V. Montgomery, 2 Bos. & P. N. R. 446 2 
 
 Hughes V. Percival, 8 App. Cas. 443 ; 52 L. J. Q. B. 719; 49 L. T. 
 
 189 ; 31 W. R. 725 *>»
 
 xl TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Hu-hus r. Siitherlaml, 7 Q. B. D. 160 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 567; 45 L. T. 
 
 •287 ; 29 W. R. 867 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 459 157 
 
 Hull V. Cook (not reported) 199 
 
 Hiuiiboldt Lumber Manufacturers' Association, In re, 60 Fed. Rep. 428 . . 189 
 
 Hunter V. M'Gowu, 1 Bligh, 573 150 
 
 " Huntress," 2 Sprague, 61 5 
 
 Huttou c. Stoker, " Friends Goodwill " and "Peggy " 141 
 
 Hvnian r. Helm, 24 Ch. D. 531 ; 49 L. T. 376 ; 32 W. R. 258 211 
 
 I. 
 
 " I. M. North, 37 Fed. Rep. 270 109 
 
 " Iberia," 40 Fed. Rep. 893 495 
 
 " Ice King," 52 Fed. Rep. 894 60 
 
 "Ida" (liability; appearance), Lush. 6; 1 L. T. 417 28, 65, 211 
 
 and " Mary Ida " (not reported) 337 
 
 and " Wasa," 15 L. T. 103 ; 2 Mar. Law Cas. 0. S. 414 456, 
 
 457, 486 
 
 " Ulinoi.s" 13 Otto, 298 413 
 
 " Ilos," Swab. 100 97 
 
 " Lnbro," 14 P. D. 73 ; 58 L. J. Ad. 49 ; 60 L. T. 936 ; 37 W. R. 569 ; 
 
 6 Asp. M. C. 392 43, 359, 360, 401 
 
 " Immacolata Concezione," 8 P. D. 34 ; 47 L. T. 388 ; 31 W. R. 642 ; 
 
 4 Asp. M. C. 593 295 
 
 " Immaganda Sara Clasina,' 7 Not. of Cas. 582 ; on app. 8 Moo. P. C. 
 
 75 314, 412 
 
 " Imperial," 38 Fed. Rep. 614 182 
 
 Ince V. East Boston Ferry Co., 106 Mars. Rep. 149 475 
 
 " Independence." See "Arthur Gordon." 
 
 " India," Ad. Div. 7th Dec. 1886 188 
 
 India, Secretary of State for v. Hewitt. See Secretary of State for 
 
 India, «&c. 
 " Indian " and " Jes.sie," 12 L. T. 586 ; 2 Mar. Law Cas. 0. S. 217 . . 479 
 " Indian Chief," 14 P. D. 24 ; 58 L. J. Ad. 25 ; 60 L. T. 240 ; 6 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 362 340, 362, 479, 491, 537 
 
 " Indus," 12 P. D. 46 ; 56 L. J. Ad. 88 ; 56 L. T. 376 ; 35 W. R. 490 ; 
 
 6 Asp. M. C. 105 -C. A 9, 30, 31, 224, 225, 233 
 
 " Industrie," L. R. 3 A. & E. 303 ; 40 L. J. Ad. 26; 24 L. T. 446 ; 19 
 
 W. R. 728; 1 Asp. M. C. 17 27,335,361 
 
 27 Fed. Rep. 767 33, 496 
 
 " Inflexible " (risk of collision). Swab. 32 324, 327 397 
 
 •• Inflexible, H.M.S." (damages), Swab. 200; 5 "W. R. 517 ..101, 110, 111 
 Inman v. Reck. See " City of Antwerp." 
 
 " Innisfail " and " Secret," 35 L. T. 819 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 337 308, 479 
 
 " Insulano " and ' ' City of Mecca " (not reported) 320 
 
 " Inventor," 10 Asp. M. C. 99 28(i 
 
 " Invincible," 2 Gall. 29 I99 
 
 " luna," 4 Moo. P. C. N. S. 336 ; L R. 1 P. C. 426 ; 16 L. T. 158. .'224, 232
 
 TABLE OF CASES. xli 
 
 PAGE 
 
 «' Iron Duke," 4 Not. of Cas. 585 ; aflE. 2 W. Rob. 377 334 
 
 ' ' Ironmaster " (pleading), 6 Jur. N. S. 782 2SS 
 
 (damages), Swab. 441 101, 102 
 
 " Irrawaddy," Ad. Div. loth June, 1887 377 
 
 " Isca," 12 P. D. 34 : 56 L. J. Ad. 47 ; 55 L. T. 779 : 35 W. R. 382; 
 
 6 Asp. M. C. 63 187, 194 
 
 "Islander," 152 Fed. Rep. 385 440 
 
 " Isle of Cyprus," 15 P. D. 134 ; 59 L. J. Ad. 90 ; 63 L. T. 352 ; 38 
 
 W. R. 719 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 534 291 
 
 " Isle of Pines," 24 Fed. Rep. 498 168 
 
 " Itinerant," 2 W. Rob. 236 306, 381 
 
 " Ivanhoe " and " Martha M. Heath," 7 Bened. 213 167, 445 
 
 J. 
 
 " J. D. Peters," 42 Fed. Rep. 269 ;i4 
 
 "J. D. Henkes," 12 P. D. 106; 06 L. J. Ad. 69; 56 L. T. 581 ; 
 
 35 W. R. 412 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 121 309 
 
 " J. H. Rutter," 35 Fed. Rep. 365 25, 369 
 
 "J. R. Hinde," (1892) P. 231 ; 61 L. J. Ad. 91 ; 67 L. J. 832 ; 7 Asp.' 
 
 M. C. 257 533 
 
 " J. R. P. Moore,' ' 45 Fed. Rep. 267 33 
 
 " J. T. Eastou," 24 Fed. Rep. 95 101 
 
 " J. W. Paxon," 24 Fed. Rep. 302 189 
 
 " Jack Jewett," 23 Fed. Rep. 927 186 
 
 " Jackson," 58 Fed. Rep. 607 15 
 
 Jackson v. Kruger, 54 L. J. Q. B. 446 ; 52 L. T. 962 98 
 
 " Jacob," 1 Pritch. Ad. Dig. 3rd ed. 286 ; 5 Ir. Jur. N. S. 379 23S 
 
 " Jacob Brandow," 39 Fed. Rep. 831 190 
 
 "Jacob Christensen," (1895) P. 281 ; 64 L. J. Adm. 92; 72 L. T. 902 ; 
 
 8 Asp. M. C. 21 298 
 
 "Jacob Landstrom," 4 P. D. 191 ; 40 L. T. 38; 27 W. R. Dig. 205; 
 
 4 Asp. M. C. 58 294 
 
 "James," 10 Moo. P. C. 162; Swab. 60; 4 W. R. 353 (reversing 
 
 Swab. 55) 340, 348, 390, 471 
 
 James v. London and South Western Rail. Co., L. R. 7 Ex. 187; 41 
 
 L. J. Ex. 82 ; 26 L. T. 187 ; 20 W. R. 538 ; on app. L. R. 7 Ex. 
 
 287 ; 41 L. J. Ex. 186 ; 27 L. T. 382 ; 21 W. R. 25 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 
 
 226-P. C 299, 300 
 
 " James Berwiud," 44 Fed. Rep. 693 185 
 
 "James Gray" and "John Eraser"; Cashing r. The Owners of 
 
 "John Fraser," 21 How. 184 125, 182, 192, 193 
 
 " James T. Eastou," 27 F.d. Rep. 464 30, 392 
 
 "James Watt," 2 W. Rob. 270 1,5, 327, 419 
 
 " James Westoll," (1905) P. 47 ; 92 L. T. 150 ; 74 L. J. P. 9 ; 10 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 29 295 
 
 Jamieson v. Drinkald, 5 L. J. C. P. 0. S. 30 314
 
 xlii TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 " Jano Bacon," 27 W. R. 35; 6 W. R. 329.... 189, 190, 191, 335,456,473 
 
 " .Timet Wilson," Swab. 261 81 
 
 " Ja^^sy," (1906) P. 270 ; 95 L. T. 363 ; 75 L. J. P. 93 ; 10 Asp. M. C. 
 
 278 209 
 
 "Java," 14 Wall. 189 11, 490 
 
 " Jav Gould," 19 Fed. Rep. 765 46 
 
 '•Jennie S. Barker," L. R. 4 A. & E. 456 ; 44 L. J. Ad. 20 ; 33 L. T. 
 
 :nS; 3 Asp. M. C. 42 333, 340, 404 
 
 "Jeremiah" and "Providence," Mason c. Johnson, Marsd. Ad. Ca. 
 
 282 139 
 
 Jermiu c. Shadfurth, Seld. Ser. Adminilty, II. Ixxxiv 139 
 
 " Jesmond." and " Earl of Elgin," 8 Moo. P. C. N. S. 179 ; L. R. 4 
 
 P. C. 1 : 25 L. T. 514 : 1 Asp. M. C. 150 4, 325, 327, 328, 398, 
 
 399, 422, 429, 471 
 
 " Jesse Sp.iulding," 50 Fed. Rep. 583 23, 439 
 
 " Jesse W. Kiiitrht," 45 Fed. Rep. 590 , 60 
 
 Jocelyn c. Wickett, Seld. Ser. Admiralty, II. Ixxxiv 138 
 
 " Johann Friedrich." 1 W. Rob. 35 199, 202 
 
 "Johann Sverdrup," 12 P. D. 43; 56 L. J. Ad. 256 ; 56 L. T. 256; 
 
 35 W. R. 300 ; 6 A,sp. M. C. 16, 73-C. A 259 
 
 Johanssen v. Elvina, 4 Fed. Rep. 573 27, 107, 113 
 
 " John A. Berkman," 6 Fed. Rep. 535 91 
 
 " John A. Carnie," 49 Fed.' Rep. 682 186 
 
 ••John and Mary," Swab. 471 79, 293, 296 
 
 "John Bellamy," L. R. 3 A. & E. 129 ; 39 L. J. Ad. 28 ; 22 L. T. 244 ; 
 
 3 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 360 276, 278 
 
 " .Tohn Boyne," 36 L. T. 29 ; 25 W. R. 756 : 3 Asp. M. C. 341 286 
 
 '• John Brotherick," 8 Jur. 276 330 
 
 " John Buddie," 5 Not. of Cas. 387 8, 453 
 
 " John Dunn," 1 W. Rob. 159 297 
 
 "John Fenwick," L. R. 3 A. & E. 500 : 11 L. J. Ad. 38 ; 26 L. T. 322 ; 
 
 1 Asp. M. C. 249 335, 359, 364, 486 
 
 "John G. Stevens," 170 U. S. Rep. 113 76, 78 
 
 "John H. May," 52 Fed. Rep. 882 169 
 
 "John Harley" and " William Tell," 13 L. T. 413; 2 Mar. Law Cas. 
 
 O. S. 290 38, 482, 492 
 
 "John Hollway," (1900) P. 37; 69 L. J. Ad. 51; 81 L. T. 726; 
 
 48 W. R. 416 ; 9 Asp. M. C. 36 .542 
 
 " John Johansson," 6 Asp. M. C. 39, n 346 
 
 " John King." 49 Fed. Rep. 469 325, 420 
 
 " John L. Hasbrouck," 3 Otto, 405 448 
 
 "John M'lutyre" (limitation), 6 P. D. 200; 50 L. J. Ad. 76 {nom. 
 
 "John Ormston ") l,5g 
 
 (Art. 18), 9 P. D. 135 ; 53 L. J. Ad. 115 : 51 L. T. 
 
 185 ; 33 W. R. 190 : 5 Asp. M. C. 278— C. A 429 
 
 "John O'Scott," (1897) P. 64 , 66 L. J. Ad. 47 ; 76 L. T. 222 ; 8 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 235— C. A 545 
 
 "John Ormston." See "John M'Intyre." 
 
 "John S. Darcy," 29 Fed. Rep. 644 32i 
 
 "JohnS. Smith," 27 Fed. Rep. 398 485
 
 TABLE OF CASES. xl 
 
 111 
 
 PAQK 
 
 " John Taylor," 6 Bened. 227 411 
 
 "Johnson," 9 Wall. 146 32G, 330 
 
 Johnson v. Black. See "Two Ellens." 
 
 V. Lindsay, 23 Q. B. D. 508 ; 58 L. J. Q. B. 581 ; 38 \V. R. 119. 175 
 
 V. " Niagara," 84 Fed. Rep. 902 370 
 
 JollifPe V. Wallasey Local Board, L. R. C. P. 62 ; 43 L. J. C. P. 41 ; 
 
 29 L. T. 582 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 146 88 
 
 Jones V. Bennett, 63 L. T. 705 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 596 240 
 
 V. Boyce, 1 Stark. 493 3 
 
 V. Corporation of Liverpool, 14 Q. B. D. 890 ; 54 L. J. Q. B. 345 ; 
 
 33 W. R. 551 17.) 
 
 " Jonty Jenk.«," 54 Fed. Rep. 1021 126, 185, 190, 193 
 
 " Joseph Rickett," Ship. Gaz., March 5th, 1901 541 
 
 "Joseph W. Dyer" v. The National Steamship Co., 14 Blatchf. 483; 
 
 4 Asp. M. C. 26 114, 146 
 
 Joyce V. Capel, 8 Car. & Pay. 370 64 
 
 " JuUa," Lush. 224 ; 14 Moo. P. C. {mm. Bland v. Ross) 210. .25, 180, 187, 
 
 189, 191, 195, 197, 228, 230, 231, 232, 233, 236 
 "Julia Fisher," 2 P. D. 115; 36 L. T. 257; 25 W. R. 756; 3 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 380— C. A 294, 295, 311 
 
 "Julia M. Hallock," 1 Sprague, 539 485 
 
 "Juliana," Swab. 20 40 
 
 " Jnliet Erskine," 6 Not. of Cas. 633 7, 373, 383 
 
 " Juniata," 3 Otto, 337 95, 131, 182, 269 
 
 "Juno" (pilotage), 1 P. D. 135; 45 L. J. Ad. 105: 34 L. T. 741 ; 
 
 24 W. R. 902 : 3 Asp. M. C. 217 254, 255, 308 
 
 (dredging), 71 L. T. 341 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 506 340,491.537 
 
 K. 
 
 " Kaikoura," 2 Pr. Ad. Dig. 3rd ed. 1762 113 
 
 " Kaiser Wilhelm der Crosse," (1907) P. 259 ; 97 L. T. 366 ; 76 L. J. P. 
 
 138 ; 10 Asp. M. C. 504 441, 442, 443 
 
 " Kalamazoo," 15 Jur. 885 80, 81, 297 
 
 " Karla," Br. & L. 367 313 
 
 " Karo," 13 P. D. 24 ; 57 L. J. Ad. 8 ; 58 L. T. 188 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 
 
 245 130, 300 
 
 " Kate," (1899) P. 165 ; 68 L. J. Ad. 41 ; 80 L. T. 423 ; 47 W. R. 669 ; 
 
 8 Asp. M. C. 539 102, 109, 1 13 
 
 Kearney v. London, Brighton & South Coast Rail. Co., L. R. 6 Q. B. 
 
 759 ; 40 L. J. Q. B. 285 ; 24 L. T. 913 ; 20 W. R. 24— Ex. Ch 37 
 
 Keddye c. Be Frances, Seld. Ser. Admiralty, II. Ixxxiii 136 
 
 Kemp v. Halliday, 6 B. & S. 723; L. R. 1 Q. B. 520 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 
 
 582 ; 35 L. J. Q. B. 156 ; 14 L. T. 762 ; 14 W. R. 697-Ex. Ch. . . 2S3 
 
 Kendrick v. Burnett, 25 Ct. of Sess. Cas. 4th Ser. 82 211 
 
 " Kennebec," 108 Fed. Rep. 300 362, 369 
 
 Kennedy v. " Sarmatian," 2 Fed. Rep. 911 231, 360, 473, 504 
 
 "Kepler," 2 P. D. 40, n ^' 476,483
 
 xliv TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Kerr c. Screw CoUier Co., (1910) A. C. 165 442 
 
 •• Khetlive." See " Voorwaarts " and " Khedive." 
 
 Kichcner v. Cocklin (not reported) 140 
 
 Kidson c. McArthur, 5 Ct. of Sess. Cas. 4th Ser. 936 26, 158, 361 
 
 " Kilhmiey " (Hull pilotage), Lush. 427 : G L. T. 908. . . .243, 244, 251, 257 
 (pilotage certificate), Lush. 202; 30 L. J. Ad. 41; 5 
 
 L. T. 21 215, 246 
 
 " Killeena," Ad. Div. Nov. 1891 389 
 
 Kiiige fi. Johu.soa, Said. Ser. Admiralty, IL Ixxxiii 136 
 
 Kiug.-^cote, Ex parte. See Tillett, lie. 
 
 " Kiugstou by the Sea," 3 W. Rob. 152 167, 487 
 
 •' Kirby Hall," 8 P. D. 71 ; 52 L. J. Ad. 31 ; 48 L. T. 797 ; 31 W. R. 
 
 658 ; Asp. M. C. 90 292, 378, 380, 429, 432 
 
 -KirkwaU," 100 L. T. 284 ; II Asp. M. C. 173 417 
 
 Kitchener v. Cocklin. See "Blessing " and " William and John." 
 
 '• Kjobenhavn," 2 Asp. M. C. 213 ; 30 L. T. 136 . . . .25, 336, 447, 477, 484 
 
 •■Knaresboro," (1908) P. 38, n 444, 445 
 
 " Knarwater," 6 R. 784 ; 63 L. J. Ad. 65 421 
 
 Knight i: Faith, 15 Q. B. 649 ; 19 L. J. Q. B. 509 ; 14 Jur. 1114 276 
 
 Knott c. Foulgier, Seld. Ser Admiralty, II. Ixxxiv 138 
 
 "Knmsford," (1891) P. 219; 64 L. T. 352; 39 W. R. 559; 7 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 33 313 
 
 " Kulon," 9 Bened. 197 496 
 
 "Kong Magnus" (damage lien), (1891) P. 223 ; 63 L. T. 715; 6 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 583 74, 75, 81, 102 
 
 (interest), (1891) P. 223; 65 L. T. 231; 7 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 64 74 
 
 Koning Willem I., (1903) P. 114; 88 L. T. 807 ; 72 L. J. P. 28 ; 9 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 425 35, 59, 316, 378, 379 
 
 " L. C. Waldo," 100 Fed. Rep 502 403 
 
 " L. P. Dayton," 13 Dav. 337 30, 186 
 
 "La Bourgogne," 117 Fed. Rep. 261 211 
 
 " La Champagne," 60 Fed. Rep. 299 336 
 
 "La Normandie," 58 Fed. Rep. 427 102 
 
 " La Plata," Swab. 220 ; on app. ibid. 298 168, 331, 492, 500 
 
 Lack r. Seward, 4 Car. & Pay. 106 472 
 
 " Laconia," 7 L. T. 164 ; on App. 2 Moo. P. C. N. S. 161 ; 33 L. J. Ad. 
 
 11 ; 12 W. R. 90 2, 143 
 
 "Lady Ann" (pleading), 7 Not. of Cas. 364 287, 288 
 
 " Lady Anne " (negligence), 15 Jur. 18 ; see 7 Not. of Cas. 370 393, 
 
 45", 471 
 
 " Lady Campbell," 2 Hag. Ad. 5 120 
 
 •'Lady Downshire," 4 P. D. 26 ; 48 L. J. Ad. 41 ; 39 L. T. 236 ; 27 
 
 W. R. 648 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 25 55, 280 
 
 " Lady Pike," 21 Wall. 1 '.".'.'.'/ '1^7
 
 TABLE OF CASES. xlv 
 
 PAGE 
 
 " Lady Wodehouse," 2 Timei L. R. 252 54 1 
 
 Lake Erie Trausp. Co. v. Gilchrist Transp. Co., 142 Fed. Rep. 89 326 
 
 " Lake St. Clair"' and " L^mlerwritcr," Wilsou r. Canada Shipping Co.. 
 
 2 App. Cas. 389 ; 36 L. T. 155 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 361 (varying 1 Quebec 
 
 L. R. 323) 5, 305, 388, 392, 393, 413, 487, 488, 489, 496 
 
 "Lanarkshire," 1 Sp. 189 211 
 
 " Lancashire," L. R. 4 A. .t E. 198 : 29 L. T. 927 ; 2 Ai^p. M. C 202. . 3S0, 
 
 384, 484, 492 
 and " Knarwater," (1894) App. Cas. 1; 63 L. J. Ad. 
 
 80 ; 69 L. T. 663 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 376— H. L 421 
 
 Lancaster Canal Co. r. Parnaby. See Parnaby r. &c. 
 " Lapwing." See ■' Hochung." 
 
 Latham r. Hamilton and Merriman Co., 63 Fed. Rep. 856 23, 321, 495 
 
 Laugher v. Pointer, 5 B. A: C. 547 70, 174 
 
 " Laura Lee," 24 Fed. Rep. 483 KU 
 
 " Laura V. Rose," 28 Fed. Rep. 104 493 
 
 "Lauretta," 4 P. D. 25 ; 48 L. J. Ad. 55; 40 L. T. 444 : 27 W. R. 
 
 902 : 4 Asp. M. C. 118 311 
 
 Law r. Baker, 26 Fed. Rep. 164 196 
 
 La we c. Lee, Seld. Ser. Admiralty, II. Ixxxiv 138 
 
 Lawrence v. Jenkins, L. R. 8 Q. B. 274 ; 42 L. J. Q. B. 147 : 28 L. T. 
 
 406; 21 W. R. 577 •• 15 
 
 Lawson v. Dumlin, 9 C. B. 54 62 
 
 Leddy v. Gibson, 11 Ct. of Sess. Cas. 3rd Ser. 304 99 
 
 "Legatus," Swab. 168; 5 W. R. 154 110 
 
 and " Emily," Holt, 217 461 
 
 Leigh c. Ireland, Seld. Ser. Admiralty, II. Ixxxiii 136 
 
 " Leith," 7 Not. of Cas. 137 -i-iO 
 
 "Lemington," 2 Asp. M. C. 475; 32 L. T. 69 60, 71, 83, 84, 179 
 
 " Lena," 14 L. T. .675 ;559 
 
 " Leo," Lush. 444 ; 31 L. J. Ad 78 ; 6 L. T. 58 75, 313 
 
 34 Fed. Rep. 140 352 
 
 "Leon," 6 P. D. 148; 4 Asp. M. C. 404; 50 L. J. Ad. 59; 44 L. T. 
 
 613; 29 W. R. 916 ; on app. 5 Asp. M. L. C. 25 87, 146, 202 
 
 Leonard r Whitwell. V.) Fed. Rep. 547 1 10 
 
 " Leonidas," Stuart's Vice- Ad. Rep. Lower Canada (Lond. 1858), 226. . 488 
 
 " Lepanto," 50 Fed. Rep. 234 • . • 364 
 
 (sound in fog), 21 Fed. Rep. 651 36, 377 
 
 " Leverington," 11 P. D. 117 : 55 L. J. Ad. 78 ; 55 L. T. 386 ; 6 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 7-C. A 317, 401, 403, 410, 4 11. 443 
 
 Leycester r. Logan, 4 K. & J. 725 ; 6 W. R. 849 ; and see 3 K. & J. 
 
 446; 26L. J. Ch. 306; 5 W. R. 334 lil, 1*56 
 
 "Libra," 6 P. D. 139; 4 A^p. M. C. 4 i9 ; 45 L. T. 161.. 320. 428. 541, 542 
 Lidgett v. Seeretan, L. R. 5 C. P. 190 ; 39 L. J. C. P. 196 ; 22 L. T. 
 
 272 ; 18 W. R. 692 -'^ 
 
 "Lidskjalf," Swab. 117 '"•' 
 
 " Ligo," 2 Hagg. Ad. 356 -•• 
 
 LiUeyv. Doubleday, 7 Q. B. D. 510; 44 L. T. 814 ; 51 L. J. (^ I^ 
 
 310 
 
 " Lima," 4 Jur N. S. 147 
 
 115 
 124
 
 xlvi TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 " Lime Rock." 5o Fed. Rep. 126 492 
 
 " Limerick." 1 P. D. 292 ; 34 L. T. 708 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 20G-C. A 303 
 
 LimpiiM r. London General Omnibus Co., 1 II. & C. 526 ; 32 L. J. Ex. 
 
 34: 9.Tur. N. S. 333; 7 L. T. 641 ; 11 W. R. 149 65, 66 
 
 " Lindii," Swab. 306 ; 4 Jur. N. S. M6 ; 6 W. R. 196 104—106, 110 
 
 "LindaFlor,"Swab. 309; 4 Jur. N. S. 172; 6 W. R. 197 78 
 
 " Lindisfarne," (1908) Fo. 604 310 
 
 " Lindsay," Ir. Rep. Ad. 1 Eq. 259 106 
 
 " Lion," L. R. 2 A. & E. 102 : 37 L. J. Ad. 39 ; 18 L. T. 803 ; 17 
 W. R. 577 ; on npp. L. R. 2 P. C. 525 ; 6 Moo. P. C. N. S. 163 ; 38 
 
 L.J. Ad. 51; 21 L. T. 41 ; 17 W. R. 993 216, 243, 257 
 
 Little 1'. Burns, "Owl" and "Ariadne," 9 Ct. of Sess. Cas. 4th Ser. 
 
 118 318, 323, 376, 398, 399, 421 
 
 •' Little Lizzie," L. R. 3 A. & E. 56 ; 23 L. T. 84 ; 18 W. R. 960 289 
 
 Liver Alkiili Co. v. Johnson, L. R. 9 Ex. 338 ; 43 L. J. Ex. 216 ; 31 
 
 L. T. 95 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 332— Ex. Ch 265 
 
 " Livia," 25 L. T. 887 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 204 25, 228 
 
 " Livingstone," Swab. 519 349 
 
 " Ljudica," 23 L. T. 474 289 
 
 Lloyd r. General Iron Screw Collier Co., 3 H. & C. 284 ; 33 L. J. Ex. 
 
 269 ; 10 Jnr. N. S. 661 ; 10 L. T. 586 ; 12 W. R. 882 266, 268 
 
 r. Guibert, 6 B. & S. 100 ; L. R. 1 Q. B. 115 ; 33 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 241 ; 35 L. J. Q. B. 74; 13 L. T. 602— Ex. Ch 146 
 
 " Lloyd.s." See "Sea Queen." 
 
 "Lochlibo," 3 W. Rob. 310; 14 Jur. 1074; on app. nom. Pollock «;. 
 
 M'Alpin, 7 Moo. P. C. 427 7, 229. 2.30, 231, 233, 234, 236, 237, 384 
 
 " Locksley Hall," Ad. Div. 28th March, 1887 232 
 
 Lockycr r. Offley, 1 T. R. 252 276 
 
 Lohre ;•. Aitchison, 3 Q. B. D. 558 ; 46 L. J. Q. B. D. 715 ; 36 L. T. 
 794 ; 26 W. R. 42; on app. 4 App. Cas. 755 ; 49 L. J. Ad. 123 ; 41 
 
 L. T. 323; 28 W. R. 1 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 168— H. Li 101 
 
 " London," Morgan v. Sim. See " City of London." 
 
 (port tack), 6 Not. of Cas. 29 30, 390 
 
 (fog signals), (1904) P. 355 ; 91 L. T. 327 ; 73 L. J. P. 
 
 125 ; 10 Asp. M. C. 12 358 
 
 (costs), (1905) P. 152 ; 93 L. T. 393 ; 74 L. J. P. 71 ; 10 
 
 Asp. M. C. 109 310 
 
 (inevitable accident), Br. & L. 82; 9 Jur. N. S. 1330; 9 
 
 L. T. 348 ; 1 Mar. Law Ca.s. O. S. 398 '. 9, 306 
 
 London and South Western Rail. Co. v. Jame.s, L. R. 8 Ch. 241 ; 42 
 L. J. Ch. 337 ; 28 L. T. 48; 21 W. R. 151 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 526 ..151, 160 
 
 " London Merchant," Marsd. Ad. Cas. 339 I44 
 
 London School Board v. Lardner, " Times," 20th Feb. 1884 280 395 
 
 London Steamship Owners' Insurance Co. v. Grampian Steamship Co., 
 24 Q. B. D. 663 ; 59 L. J. Q. B. 549 ; 62 L. T. 784 ; 38 W. R. 651 ;' 
 
 6 A.sp. M. C. 506— C. A 129 275 
 
 London, Tilbury and Southend Rail. Co., In re, and Trustees of Gower's 
 Walk Schools, 24 Q. B. D. 326 ; 62 L. T..306 ; 59 L. J. Q. B. 162 • 
 
 38W. R. 343 ' j5 
 
 " Londonderry," 4 Not. of Cas. Suppl. xxxi 334
 
 TABLE OF CASES. xlvii 
 
 PAGE 
 
 " Louo^onl," 14 P. D. 34 ; .58 L. J. Ad. 33 : 60 L T. 373 ; 37 W. R. 
 
 372: G Asp. M. C. 371— C. A 71,82,296 
 
 " Longnewtou," 5:) L. T. 200 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 302 '409.' .540 
 
 Longridge r. Dorville, 5 B. & Aid. 117 217 
 
 "Lord Bangor," (1896) P. 28; 60 L. J. Ad. 6; 73 L T.'-IU; 8 Asp. " 
 
 ^■C.ni 167,378,421 
 
 "Lord Byron," cited Maude & Pollock. 4th ed. 607 210. 36(5 
 
 "Lord Hobart," 2 Dods. 100 ' 94 
 
 '• Lord Melville " (not reported) 1 1,; 
 
 "Lord O'Neill," 66 Fed. Rep. 77 .'...'"..... 17 
 
 "Lord of the Isles," cited 2 Hag. 402 oqo 
 
 " Lord Saumarez," 6 Xot. of Gas. 600 18 373 
 
 " Lord Seaton," 2 W. Rob. 391 ; 4 Not. of Gas. 164 289] 290 
 
 " Lord Strathnairn " (not reported) 294 
 
 Lords Bailiff Jurats of Romney Marsh v. Gorporation of the Trinity 
 House, L. R. 5 Ex. 204 ; 39 L. J. Ex. 163 ; 18 W. R. 869 ; on app. 
 L. R. 7 Ex. 247 ; 41 L. J. Ex. 106; 22 L. T. 446 : 20 W. R. 9o2 ..25, 26 
 
 " Lorenzo D. Baker," 24 Fed. Rep. 814 '376 
 
 " Lome," 2 Stuart, V. Ad. (Ganada) 177 '..'..'." 336 
 
 " Lotty," Olcott, Ad. 329 \ 220 
 
 "Louisa," 6 Not. of Gas. 531 ; 3 W. Rob. 99 * ' " "si 
 
 " Louisburg," 75 Fed. Rep. 424 44 
 
 " Louisiana," 3 Wall. 164 48.> 
 
 " Love Bird," 6 P. D. 80 ; 44 L. T. 650 ; 4 Asp. M. G. 427 ... .44, 59, 305. 
 
 331, 336,370, 429 
 
 " Loyal " and " Ghallenger," 14 Quebec L. R. 135 189, 194 
 
 Lucey v. Ingram, 6 M. & W. 302 ; 9 L. J. Ex. 196 217, 246 
 
 " Lucia Jautina " and " Mexican," Holt, 130 58, 462 
 
 •' Lucille," 15 Wall. 676 3'^ 4O6 
 
 "Luckenback," 15 Fed. Rep. 921 190 
 
 " Lucy," 74 Fed. Rep. 572 432 
 
 Ludwig V. Holberg, 36 Fed. Rep. 914 369 
 
 " Luray," 24 Fed. Rep. 751 \\[ ,577 
 
 Luxford r. Large, 5 Gar. & Pay. 421 27, 498 
 
 " Luzerne," 157 Fed. Rep. 391 3 
 
 "Lydia," 11 Blatchf. 415 38.i 
 
 Lyon r. Mells, 5 East, 428 ; 1 Smith, 478 265 
 
 M. 
 
 " M. J. McGaldin," 35 Fed. Rep. 33it 472 
 
 " M. M. G^leb," lu Blatchf. 467 il, 25 
 
 " M Moxham," 1 P. D. 43 ; 45 L. J. Ad. 36 ; 33 L. T. 463 ; 24 W. R 
 
 283 ; on app. 1 P. D. 107 ; 46 L. J. Ad. 17 ; 34 L. T. 559 ; 24 W. R. 
 
 650 ; 3 A.sp. M. G. 191 72. 31. 204 
 
 " Mac," 7 P. D. 38 ; 46 L. T. 206 ; 51 L. J. Ad. 20 ; 30 W. R. 552 ; 
 
 on app. 7 P. D. 126 ; 51 L. J. Ad. 81 ; 46 L. T. 907 ; 4 A.sj). M. 0. 
 
 ^^'> 304
 
 xlviii TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 " McCalluiu " and •' Odette," 7 Duval, Canada, 36 124 
 
 McCowan r. Bainc. See " Niobe." 
 
 McDowall V. Great Western Rail. Co., (1902) 1 K. B. 618 15 
 
 McFarlaiid r. Selhv Smelting and Lead Co., 17 Fed. Rep. 253 473 
 
 McII.'ury V. Lewis, 22 Cli. D. 397 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 325 ; 47 L. T. 549 ; 31 
 
 \V. R. 305 211 
 
 Molntosli r. Slade, 6 B. & C. 657 ; 9 D. & R. 738 ; 5 L. J. (0. S.) 
 
 K. B. 345 245 
 
 Maclaren c. Compagnie Fran(,'aise de Navigation a Vapeur, 9 App. Cas. 
 C-JO. See " Thames " and " Lutetia." 
 
 " McLeud," 5 P. D. 254 ; 50 L. J. Adm. 6 120 
 
 MaoMahou r. Field, 7 Q. B. D. 691 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 311, 552 ; 44 L. T. 
 
 175; 45 L. T. 381 115 
 
 MacMuuus c. Crickett, 1 East, 106 63, 65 
 
 McNeal, Ex parte, 13 Wall. 236 241 
 
 " Mteander " and " Florence Nightingale," 1 Moo. P. C. N. S. 63 ; Br. 
 
 &Lush. 29; 9 Jur. N. S. 475; 8L. T. 34; 11 W. R. 542 440,442 
 
 " Magdcburgh " and " Henry Willard," Ad. Div. Jan. 16, 1885 59, 206 
 
 •■ Maggie Armstrong" and " Blue Bell," 14 L. T. 340; 2 Mar. Law 
 
 Cas. 0. S. 318 479, 481 
 
 " Maggie J. Smith," 16 Davis, 349 395, 452 
 
 " Maggie S. Hart," 38 Fed. Rep. 765 185 
 
 " Magna Charta," 25 L. T. 512 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 153 292, 293, 376 
 
 " Magnet." and " Duke of Sutherland," L. R. 4 A. & E. 417 ; 44 L. J. 
 
 Ad. 1; 32L. T. 129; 2 Asp. M. C. 478 59, 291, 341, 342, 343 
 
 "Magneta," 15 P. D. 101; 59 L. J. Ad. 55; 63 L. T. 114; 6 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 531 , 522 
 
 " Maid of Auckland," 6 Not. of Cas. 240 2, 143 
 
 " Maid of Kent," 6 P. D. 178 ; 50 L. J. Ad. 71 ; 29 W. R. 897 ; 45 
 
 L. T. 718 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 476 104, 302 
 
 " Main," 11 P. D. 132 ; 55 L. J. Ad. 70 ; 55 L. T. 15 ; 34 W. R. 678 ;' 
 
 fi Asp. M. C. 37— C. A 43, 359, 360, 401, 435, 436 
 
 " Majestic," 48 Fed. Rep. 730 495 
 
 Majoribanks t'. Boyd, "Times," 11th Dec 1823 27 113 
 
 " Malek Adhcl," Harmony, &c. Owners v. United States, 2 How. 210.. 86 
 " Mali Ivo," L. R. 2 A. & E. 356 ; 38 L. J. Ad. 34 ; 20 L. T. 681 .200, 211 
 
 -Maling," llOFed. Rep. 227 126, 131^70 
 
 Malster v. Humphreys, 3 Fed. Rep. 535 500 
 
 " Malvina," Lush. 493 ; 31 L. J. Ad. 112 ; 6 L. T. 369 ; on app. Br. & 
 Lush. 57 ; nom. Malcomson r. Meeson, 1 Moo. P. C. N. S. 357 ; 
 
 9 Jur. N. S. 527 ; 8 L. T. 403 ; 11 W. R. 576 303 440 
 
 " Manchester," 1 W. Rob. 62 '290 
 
 " Mangerton," Swab. 1 20 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 620 '. 289 324 
 
 " Mauhasset," 34 Fed. Rep. 408 ' 337 
 
 •' Manitoba," 15 Davis, U. S. 97 12s, 428, 431 474 
 
 •• Mannheim," (1897) P. 13 ; 66 L. J. Ad. 6 ; 75 L T 4'M • 8 'asd ' 
 MC.210 ■ • P- ,^j 
 
 Manzoni v. Douglas, 6 Q. B. D. 145 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 289 ; 29 W. R 
 
 : 40 L. T. 103 .'.V .'.'.".'97, 224 
 
 425 3„ 
 
 •• Marathon," 48 L. J. Ad. 17 ~ '
 
 TABLE OF CASES. xlix 
 
 PAGE 
 
 " Marcia Tribou," 2 Sprague, 17 31. 472, 477 
 
 " Marechal Suchet," (1896) P. 233 ; 66 L. J. Ad. 94 : 74 L. T. 789 ; 45 
 
 W. R. 141 : 8 Asp. M. C. 158 286 
 
 "Margaret" and "Clan Sinclair" (Thames Rules), xom. Cayzer v. 
 
 Carron Co., 9 App. Cas. 873; 54 L. J. Ad. 18; 52 L. T. 361; 33 
 
 W. R. 281 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 204 ..16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 29, 123, 124, 320, 474, 
 
 490, 501, 541, 542 
 (d:image), 6 P. D. 76 ; 50 L. J. Ad. 33 ; 42 L. T. 663 ; 4 
 
 Asp. M. C. 276 ; on app. 6 P. D. 76 ; 50 L. J. Ad. 67 ; 44 L. T. 291 ; 
 
 29 W. R. 533 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 375 1, 13, 14, 22, 108, 533 
 
 4 Otto, 494 187 
 
 and "Tuscar," loL. T. 86 349, 489 
 
 " Margaret J. Sanford," 30 Fed. Rep. 714 ; on app. 37 Fed. Rep. 
 
 148 33, 483 
 
 Margetts and Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation, In re, (1901) 
 
 2 K. B. 792 ; 70 L. J. K. B. 762 ; 49 W. R. 669 274 
 
 "Maria" (pQot), L. R. 1 A. & E. 358; 16 L. T. 717: 15 W. R. 
 
 1113 223, 252 
 
 (pilot), 1 W. Rob. 95 82, 206, 214, 215, 216, 230, 235, 
 
 243, 245, 259 
 "Maria des Dores," Br. 6c L. 27 : 32 L. J. Ad. 163 ; 7 L. T. 838 ; 11 
 
 W. R. 500 290 
 
 " Maria Martin," 12 Wall. 31 17, 190 
 
 " Mariel," 32 Fed. Rep. 103 493 
 
 " Marion," 56 Fed. Rep. 271 19, 360 
 
 " Marion W. Page," 36 Fed. Rep. 329 168 
 
 " Mariska," 107 Fed. Rep. 989 95 
 
 " Mark Eveline," 16 "Wall. 348 395 
 
 " Markland," L. R. 3 A. & E. 340 ; 24 L. T. 596 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 261 . . 78 
 
 " Marmion," 27 L. T. 255 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 412 388, 414 
 
 . Mitch. Mar. Reg., 1st June, 1877 244 
 
 "Marpesia,"' 8 Moo. P. C. N. S. 468; L. R. 4 P. C. 212; 26 L. T. 
 
 333 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 261 4, 7, 10, 29, 144, 145, 287, 306, 310, 471 
 
 "Marpessa," (1891) P. 403 ; 61 L. J. Ad. 9 ; 66 L. T. 356 ; 40 W. R. 
 
 239 : 7 Asp. M. C. 155 105, 113 
 
 (1907) A. C. 241 ; 97 L. T. 1 ; 76 L. J. P. 128 ; 10 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 232 112 
 
 Marshall v. " Conroy," 2 Fed. Rep. 785 337 
 
 V. Moran. See " Ocean Wave." 
 
 MarsingUl c. Taylor, " Adventure " and " Supply " 140 
 
 "Martello," 46 Davis, 64 36, 44, 429 
 
 (.speed), 39 Fed. Rep. 505 382 
 
 Martin v. Crompe, 1 Ld. Raym. 340 98 
 
 V. Green, 1 Keb. 730 ; Seld. Ser. Adm. II. Ixxxiv 138, 199 
 
 V. Martin & Co., (1897) 1 Q. B. 429 294 
 
 V. Temperley, 4 Q. B. 298 ; 12 L. J. Q. B. 129 ; 7 Jur. 150 .... 219 
 
 " Mary " and " Rowland," Murton, Wreck Enquiries 473 
 
 (costs), 7 P. D. 201 ; 48 L. T. 28 ; 31 W. R. 248 ; 5 Asp. M. 
 
 C. 33 309, 310 
 
 M. d
 
 1 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 «' Mary " (pilot), 5 P. D. 14 ; 48 L. J. Ad. 66 ; 41 L. T. 351 ; 28 W. R. 
 
 95;"4Asp.M.C. 183 170,172,178,227 
 
 " Mary or Alexandra," L. R. 1 A. & E. 335 ; 16 L. T. 98 ; 2 Mar. Law 
 
 Cas. O. S. 477 ^^ ^ 
 
 " Mary Ann," L. R. 1 A. & E. 8 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 31 ; 35 L. J. Ad. 6 ; 
 
 13 L. T. 384 ; 14 W. R. 136 81, 147 
 
 11 Fed. Rep. 336 409, 415 
 
 " Mary Anpiista," 55 Fed. Rep. 343 3 
 
 " Mary C. Elphicke," 115 Fed. Rep. 375 398 
 
 '• Mary Eraser," 26 Fed. Rep. 872 481 
 
 •• Mary Homisell." 4 P. D. 204: 48 L. J. Ad. 54; 40 L. T. 368; 28 
 
 W. R. 140; 4 Asp. M. C. 101 5, 54, 171, 190,336,343,352 
 
 " Mary Ida," 20 Fed. Rep. 741 131 
 
 " Mary L. Gushing-," 60 Fed. Rep. 110 9 
 
 " Mary Lohdon," 58 L. T. 4(jl ; 6 Asp. M. C. 262 441, 529 
 
 " Mary Powell," 36 Fed. Rep. 598 483 
 
 Mary Tuff Co. v. British India Steam Nav. Co. See " Meanatchy." 
 
 " Maryland," 19 Fed. Rep. 551 186 
 
 (burden of proof), 14 Fed. Rep. 367 33 
 
 Mason c. Johnson. See " Jeremiah " and " Providence." 
 
 V. Sainsbury, 3 Dougl. 61 278 
 
 " Massachusetts," 1 W. Rob. 371 108, 228, 234, 481 
 
 " Masten," Brown, Ad. 436 480 
 
 " Masters" and " Raynor," Brown, Ad. 342 472 
 
 " Matthew Cay," 5 P. D. 49 ; 49 L. J. Ad. 47 ; 41 L. T. 759 ; 28 W. R. 
 
 262 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 221 308 
 
 Matthews v. London Street Tramways Co., 58 L. J. Q. B. 12 ; 60 L. T. 
 
 47 98 
 
 " Maverick," 1 Sprague, 23 491 
 
 75 Fed. Rep. 845 477 
 
 " Max Morris," 30 Davis, 1 131, 132 
 
 " May Queen," Ad. Div. 1st May, 1900 33 
 
 " Maybey " and " Cooper," 7 Blatchf. 378 ; 14 Wall. 204 7, 182 
 
 Mayhew v. Boyce, 1 Stark. 423 456, 493 
 
 Mayor, &c. of Colchester v. Brooke, 7 Q. B. 339 31, 68 
 
 " Mayumba," 21 Fed. Rep. 476 168 
 
 " Meanatchy," "Mary " Tug Co. t-. British India Steam Nav. Co., (1897) 
 
 App. Cas. 351 ; 66 L. J. P. C. 92 30, 46 
 
 " Mediana," (1900) App. Cas. 113 ; 69 L. J. Ad. 35 ; 82 L. T. 95 ; 48 
 
 W. R. 398; 9 Asp. M. C. 41 ' Ill, 112 
 
 " Medusa," 46 Fed. Rep. 303 319 
 
 " Melampus," Ship. Gaz., Dec. 22nd, 1903 459 
 
 " MeUona " (evidence), 10 Jur. 992 290 
 
 (speed ; look-out ; damages), 3 W. Rob. 7 103, 472 
 
 (bail ; limitation ; in rem), 3 AV. Rob. 16 .. 71, 73, 74, 76, 83, 
 
 87, 146 
 " Melpomene," L. R. 4 A. .fe E. 129 : 42 L. J. Ad. 45 ; 28 L. T. 76 ; 
 
 21 W. R. 956 : 1 Asp. M. C. 515 293 
 
 Melton V. Nesbit, 1 C. & P. 70 292 
 
 " Melvina," 43 Fed. Rep. 77 486
 
 TABLE OF CASES. H 
 
 PAOB 
 
 " Memnon," 62 L. T. 84 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 488. .43, 48, 323, 424, 426, 429, 464 
 
 " Mentor," 1 C. Rob. 179 94 
 
 " Mercedes de Larrenaga," (1904) P. 215 ; 90 L. T. 2-50 ; 73 L. J. P. 65 ; 
 
 9 Asp. M. C. 571 221, 253 
 
 " Merchant Prince" (collision), 10 P. D. 139 : 54 L. J. Ad. 79 ; 53 L. T. 
 
 914 ; 34 W. R. 231 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 520 334, 335, 364, 451 
 
 — (jamming of wheel chain), (1892) P. 179 ; 67 L. T. 
 
 251 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 208— C. A 7. 9. 30, 31 
 
 " Mercurius " 308 
 
 Meretony v. Dunlope, 1 T. R. 260 276 
 
 " Merle," 31 L. T. 447 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 402 68, 69, 78, SI 
 
 " Merrimac," U Wall. 199 12, 495 
 
 "Mersey," (1901) P. 369 ; 70 L. J. Ad. 100; 85 L. T. 584; 9 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 273 295 
 
 Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v. Turner, " Zeta," (1891) P. 216 ; 
 65 L. T. 230; 7 Asp. M. C. 64; on app. (1893) App. Cas. 468: 63 
 
 L. J. Ad. 17 ; 69 L T. 630 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 369 76, 77, 239, 304, 312 
 
 Mersey Docks and Harbour Trustees v. Gibbs, L. R. 1 H. L. 93 ; 
 
 12 Jut. N. S. 571 ; 14L. T. 677; 14 W. R. 872 90,91,92,239 
 
 •' Merthyr," 79 L. T. 676 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 475 S6, 328, 372, 419 
 
 "Mesaba," 111 Fed. Rep. 215 412 
 
 Metcalfe r. Hetherington, 5 H. & N. 719 ; 11 Ex. 257 ; 8 W. R. 475 — 
 
 Ex. Ch 239 
 
 " Meteor," Ir. Rep. 9 Eq. 567 17, 123, 229, 237, 249 
 
 " Mexico." 84 Fed. Rep. 504 4, 25 
 
 "Michigan," 52 Fed. Rep. 501 32 
 
 63 Fed. Rep. 280 375, 376, 377 
 
 Middlesex Quarry Co. v. " Albert," 2 Fed. Rep. 821 32 
 
 Midland Insurance Co. v. Smith, 6 Q. B. D. 561 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 329 ; 
 
 45L. T. 411; 29 W. R. 850 276. 27S 
 
 "Midlothian," 15 Jur. 806 290 
 
 "Milan," Lush. 388; 31 L. J. Ad. 105; 5 L. T. 590 27, 40, 
 
 42, 60, 96, 98, 116, 121, 129, 131, 202, 268, 307 
 " Milanese," 4 Asp. M. C. 318, 418 ; on app. 43 L. T. 107 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 
 
 438— H. L 310, 311, 370, 373, 382 
 
 Miller v. Powell, 2 Ct. of Sess. Cas. 3rd Ser, 976 300 
 
 " Milligan," 12 Fed. Rep. 338 19 
 
 Mills V. Armstrong. See " Bernina," No. 2. 
 
 MUls' Estate, Ee, 34 Ch. D. 24 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 60; 55 L. T. 465; 35 
 
 W. R. 65 305 
 
 "Millwall," [1905] P. 155; 93 L. T. 426; 74 L. J. P. 01 ; 10 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 15 179 
 
 " Milwaukee," Brown, Ad. 313 324, 327, 422, 447, 449, 467, 470 
 
 Milwaukee Rail. Co. v. Kellogg, 4 Otto, 469 14 
 
 "Minna," L. R. 2 A. & E. 97 97, 232. 476 
 
 "Minnehaha," Lush. 335; 15 Moo. P. C. 133; 30 L. J. Ad. 211; 
 
 7 Jur. N. S. 1257 ; 4 L. T. 810 ; 9 W. R. 925 188 
 
 " Minnie," (1894) P. 336 ; 71 L. T. 715 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 421 441, 504 
 
 (damages), 26 Fed. Rep. 860 107 
 
 " Minnie C. Taylor," 52 Fed. Rep. 323 169 
 
 d2
 
 lii TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 '• Miranda." 7 V. D. 185 ; 51 L. J. Ad. 56 ; 47 L. T. 447 ; 30 W. R. 
 
 616; 4 Asp. M. C. 695 286, 287 
 
 " Mischief," 39 Fed. Rep. 510 363 
 
 Mitchell r. Tarbutt, 5 T. R. 619 95 
 
 " Mobile," Swab. 69 ; on app. Swab. 127 ; 10 Moo. P. C. 467 ; 4 W. R. 
 
 708 222, 223, 394, 487 
 
 " Moderation," 1 Moo. P. C. 528 ; 9 L. T. 586 ; 1 Mar. Law Gas. 0. S. 
 
 413 327, 455 
 
 Moffat V. Batonian, L. R. 3 P. C. 115 : 6 Moo. P. C. N. S. 369 25 
 
 " Mohawk." 42 Fed. Rep. 189 384 
 
 " Mohler." 21 Wall. 230 495 
 
 " MoU^re," (1893) P. 217; 62 L. J. Ad. 102 ; 69 L. T. 263 ; 1 R. 639 ; 
 
 7 Asp. M. C. 364 330, 401, 436 
 
 Monaghaii r. Horn, " Garland," Duval (Canada), 409 297 
 
 " Monarch " and " Success," 1 W. Rob. 21 123. 144 
 
 " Moukscaton," 14 P. D. 51 ; 58 L. J. Ad. 52 ; 60 L. T. 662 ; 37 W. R. 
 
 523 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 383 93, 306—310 
 
 " Monmouth " and " Raritan," 44 Fed. Rep. 809 498 
 
 " Monsoon " and " Neptune," Holt, 186 ; 13 L. T. 510 ; 2 Mar. Law 
 
 Cas. 0. S. 289 409 
 
 '• Monte Rosa," (1893) P. 23 ; 62 L. J. Ad. 20 ; 68 L. T. 299 ; 41 W. R. 
 
 304 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 326 14, 18, 21, 55, 123, 124, 230, 533 
 
 " Monticello," 1 Pars, on Ship. (ed. 1809) 566 37O 
 
 " Montreal," 1 Sp. 154 (note) ; 17 Jur. 538 221 
 
 " Moonlight," 50 Fed. Rep. 478 494 
 
 " Moorcock," 14 P. D. 64 ; 58 L. J. Ad. 73 ; 60 L. T. 054 ; 37 W. R. 
 
 439 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 357, 373 91 
 
 Morewood v. Pollok, 1 El. & B. 743 150 
 
 Morgan v. Ravey, 6 H. & N. 265 268 
 
 V. Sim. See "City of London." 
 
 " Morgengry " and " Blackcock," (1900) P. 1 ; 09 L. J. Ad. 3 ; 81 L. T. 
 
 417 ; 48 W. R. 121 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 591— C. A i26, 179 
 
 " Morning Light," 2 Wall. 550 10, 3SlV472i 475 
 
 Morrel c. Rheinfrank, 24 Fed. Rep. 94 54 
 
 Morrison c. General Steam Nav. Co., 8 Ex. 733 ; 22 L. J. Ex. 233 • 17 
 
 Jut. 507; 1 W. R. 311— Ex. Ch 19 4Q 
 
 Mors V. Slue, 3 Keb. 72, 112, 135 ; 1 Ventris, 190, 238 265, 270 
 
 Morton v. Hutchinson. See " Frankland " and " Kestrel." 
 
 " MoseUe," 32 L. T. 570 ; 2 A.sp. M. C. 586 " 244, 250 
 
 Mostyn v. Fabrigas, 1 Cowp. 161 .,0q 
 
 " Mount Hope," 84 Fed. Rep. 910 27, 36,' '180', 376, 485 
 
 •• Moume," (1901) P. 68 ; 70 L. J. Ad. 7 ; 83 L. T. 748 ; 9 Asp. M. C. 
 
 1^^ 409 497 
 
 " Moxey," Abbot, Ad. 73 " ' ^„ 
 
 " Mud Hopper," 40 L. T. 462 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 103 ".".'..'...'.'. .12 282 
 
 Muller V. Baldwin, L. R. 9 Q. B. 457 ; 43 L. J. Q. B. 164 ; 30 L t' " 
 
 864 ; 22 W. R. 909 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 301 '. . ' ' ' ^^g 
 
 " MuUingar," 26 L. T. 326 ; 1 Asp. M. 0. 252 ."....'.."..".'.....'..'. 71 296 
 
 Mumford r. Crocker. See " Queen of the Bay." 
 
 Munks t'. Jackson, 66 Fed. Rep. 571 lo..
 
 TABLE OF CASES. lui 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Munro i: Pilkiiigton, 31 L. J. Q. B. 81 213 
 
 '• Munroe," (1893) P. 248 ; 70 L. T. 246 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 407 ; 1 R. 642. . 273 
 
 Murphy v. Palgrave, 3 Mar. Law. Cas. O. S. 284 : 21 L. T. 209 489 
 
 Mutrie /■. Binney, 35 Ch. D. 614 ; r-,G L. T. 455 ; 36 W. R. 131 211 
 
 " Myrtle," 44 Fed. Rep. 779 399 
 
 '• Mystery," (1902) P. 115 ; 71 L. J. Ad. 39 : 86 L. T. 359 ; 50 W. R. 
 414; 9 Asp. M. C. 281 90, 197, 297, 307 
 
 N. 
 
 " N. B. Starbuck," 29 Fed. Rep. 797 109 
 
 "N. Strong," (1892) P. 105; 67 L. T. 299; 7 Asp. M. C. 194.... 370, 
 
 373, 382 
 
 " Nabob," Brown, Ad. 115 97, 475 
 
 " Nacoochee," 28 Fed. Rep. 462 377 
 
 " Nador," (1909) P. 300 ; 100 L. T. 1007 ; 78 L. J. P. 106 9, 36 
 
 "Naples," 11 P. D. 124: 55 L. J. Ad. 64: 55 L. T. 584; 35 W. R. 
 
 59 : 6 Asp. M. C. 30 306, 307 
 
 " Narragansett," 10 BlatcM. 475 334, 436, 440 
 
 " Natchez," 73 Fed. Rep. 267 184 
 
 National Steam Co. v. Merry. See " Pennsylvania." 
 
 " Nautik," (1895) P. 121 ; 64 L. J. Ad. 61 ; 11 R. 716 : 72 L. T. 21 ; 
 
 43 W. R. 703 : 7 Asp. M. C. 591 304 
 
 Neel V. Blythe, 42 Fed. Rep. 457 1 1 
 
 " Nellie," 80 L. T. 808 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 547 308 
 
 " Nellie Clark," 50 Fed. Rep. 585 357 
 
 " Nellie D. ," Blatchf . 245 488 
 
 Nelson v. Couch, 15 C. B. N. S. 99 ; 33 L. J. C. P. 46 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 
 
 366; 8L. T. 577; 11 W. R. 964 296 
 
 V. Fawcett, "Resolution" and " Langton," Marsd. Ad. Cas. 
 
 332 1^1 
 
 " Nepoter," L. R. 2 A. & E. 375: 38 L. J. Ad. 63; 22 L. T. 177; 
 
 18W. R. 49 -71 
 
 " Neptune," 1 Hag. 227 "•'' 
 
 " Neptune the Second." 1 Dods. Ad. 467 82, 290, 480 
 
 " Nerano" and " Dromedary," 22 Ct. of Sess. Cas. 4th Ser. 237 318 
 
 " Nereus," 3 Bened. 238 488 
 
 - 23 Fed. Rep. 448, 457 22 
 
 ' ' Nessmore," 50 Fed. Rep. 616 336, 364 
 
 Netherlands Steamboat Co. v. Styles. See " Batavier." 
 
 " Nevada," 27 L. T. 720 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 477 2"<5 
 
 16 Otto, 154 '73 
 
 "Never Despair," 9 P. D. 34; 53 L.J. Ad. 30; 50 L. T. 369; 32 
 
 W. R. 559 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 21 1 '-''^ 
 
 " New Eagle," 3 W. Rob. 441 ; 4 Not. of Cas. 426 «l 
 
 " New Ed." and " Gustav," 9 L. T. 547 ; 1 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 407 . . 343 
 " New Pelton," (1891) P. 258 ; 60 L. J. Ad. 78 ; 65 L. T. 494 ; 7 Asp. 
 
 jl (^ 8^ 287, 292, 640, 642
 
 liv TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 " New York," 40 Fod. Rep. 900 109 
 
 175 U. S. Rep. 187 131 
 
 (keep her course), 82 Fed. Rep. 819 319, 411, 413, 448 
 
 Mayor of, v. Workman, 67 Fed. Rep. 347 86 
 
 New York and Baltimore Transportation Co. v. Philadelphia and 
 
 Savannah Steamship Co., " Keystone State," 22 How. 461 167 
 
 New York, &c. Mail Steamship Co. v. Rumball, 21 How. 372 . .34, 321, 412 
 
 " New York Packet," 4 Lower Canada Rep. 343 238 
 
 " Newbattle," 10 P. D. 33 ; 54 L. J. Ad. 16 ; 52 L. T. 15 ; 33 W. R. 
 
 318; 5 Asp. M. C. 356 210, 295, 311, 366 
 
 Newman c. Lacy, Seld. Ser. Admiralty, II. Ixxxiv 139 
 
 " Newport News," 83 Fed. Rep. 522 326 
 
 " Ngapoota," (1897) App. Cas. 391 ; 66 L. J. P. C. 88— P. C 46, 430 
 
 " Niagara," 44 Fed. Rep. 775 36, 496 
 
 84 Fed. Rep. 902 370 
 
 " Nichols," 7 Wall. 656 3, 326, 329 
 
 Nicholson v. Mouncey, 15 East, 384 94 
 
 " Nicolina," 2 W. Rob. 175 294 
 
 "Nightwatch," Lush. 542; 8 Jur. N. S. 1161; 32 L. J. Ad. 47; 
 
 7L. T. 396; 11 W. R. 189 197 
 
 " Niiurod," 15 Jur. 1201 440, 442 
 
 "Niobe," McCowan v. Baine (insurance), (1891) A. C. 401 ; 65 L. T. 
 
 502 : 7 Asp. M. C. 89— H. L 170, 274 
 
 . '— (tug and tow), 13 P. D. 55 ; 57 L. J. Ad. 33 ; 59 L. T. 257 ; 
 
 36 W. R. 812 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 300— H. L 27, 175, 176, 188, 190 
 
 Nixon V. Roberts, 1 J. & H. 739 ; 4 L. T. 679 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 844 ; 7 
 
 Jur. N. S. 820 75, 151, 163, 166 
 
 "No," 1 Sp. 184 292 
 
 Noble c. Wilson, "Eagle," and " Hopewell " (not reported) 140 
 
 Noden c. Ashton (not reported) 140 
 
 " Non Pareille," 33 Fed. Rep. 524 404 
 
 "Nor," 30 L. T. 576 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 264 3, 387, 418 
 
 " Nora Costello," 46 Fed. Rep. 869 11 
 
 "NordKap" and "Sandhill," (1894) App. Cas. 646 23, 427, 439 
 
 "Norge," 55 Fed. Rep. 347 410, 417 
 
 " Norma," 35 L. T. 418 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 272 408, 414 
 
 "Normandie," 43 Fed. Rep. 151 434 
 
 and " Pekin." See " Pekin." 
 
 "Normandy," L. R. 3 A. & E. 152; 39 L. J. Ad. 48; 23 L. T. 631 ; 
 
 18 W. R. 903 95, 160, 161 
 
 (1904) P. 187; 90 L. T. 351 ; 73 L. J. P. 55 ; 9 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 563 77 
 
 "North American" and "Wild Rose," 14 L. T. 68 ; 2 Mar. Law 
 
 Cas. 0. S. 319 236, 380 
 
 and "Tecla Carmen," Swab. 358; Lush. 79; 12 
 
 Moo. P. C. 331 ; 5 Jui-. N. S. 659 123, 287, 291 
 
 "North Britain," (1894) P. 77 ; 63 L. J. Ad. 33; 70 L. T. 210; 42 
 
 W. R. 243 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 413— C. A 108, 273 
 
 North of England Iron Steamship Insurance Association r. Armstrong, 
 
 L. R. 5 Q. B. 244 ; 39 L. J. Q. B. 81 ; 21 L. T. 822 ; 18 W. R. 520. . 277
 
 TABLE OF CASES. Iv 
 
 PAOB 
 
 " Northampton," 1 Sp. lo2 230, 253, 288, 478 
 
 " Northern Indiana," 3 Blatchf . 92 377, 475 
 
 '• Northumbria." L. R. 3 A. & E. 6, 24 ; 39 L. J. Ad. 3, 24 ; 21 L. T. 
 
 681 ; 18 W. R. IS8 102, 109. 151, 163, 299 
 
 "Norway," Br. & L. 377 ; 12 L. T. 57 ; 13 W. R. 296 271 
 
 Nor^vich Steamboat Co. v. Wright, 13 Wall. 104 161 
 
 Notara v. Henderson, L. R. 5 Q. B. 346 ; 39 L. J. Q. B. 167 ; 22 L. T. 
 
 577 ; on app. L. R. 7 Q. B. 225 ; 41 L. J. Q. B. 158 ; 26 L. T. 442 ; 
 
 20 W. R. 443 106 
 
 Nothard r. Pepper, 17 C. B. N. S. 39 ; 10 L. T. 782 289 
 
 " Netting HiU," 9 P. D. 105 ; 53 L. J. Ad. 56 ; 51 L. T. 66 ; 32 W. R. 
 
 764 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 241— Ex. Ch 100, 114 
 
 Nouviou V. Freeman, 15 App. Cas. 1 ; 59 L. J. Cli. 337 ; 62 L. T. 189 . . 212 
 
 " Nova Scotian " and " Quobec," 2 Quebec L. R. 1 11, 440 
 
 Nugent V. Smith, 1 C. P. D. 19 ; 45 L. J. C. P. 19 ; 33 L. T. 731 ; on 
 
 app. 1 C. P. D. 423 ; 45 L. J. C. P. 697 ; 34 L. T. 827 ; 24 W. R. 
 
 237; 3 Asp. M. C. 198-P. C 265, 266 
 
 " Nutmeg State," 62 Fed. Rep. 847 410, 418 
 
 "Nymph," Swab. 86 73, 74 
 
 O. 
 
 " Oakfield," II P. D. 34 ; 55 L. J. Ad. 11 ; 54 L. T. 578 ; 34 W. R. 
 
 687 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 575 231, 237, 308, 309 
 
 Oakley v. Speedy, 40 L. T. 881 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 134 63, 280 
 
 " Obdam," 60 Fed. Rep. 637 . . '^^^ 
 
 "Obey,"L. R. 1 A. &E. 102; 12 Jur. N. S. 817 158,222,232 
 
 Occidental and 0. SS. Co. v. Smith, 74 Fed. Rep. 261 331, 440, 441 
 
 Ocean Steamship Co. v. Apcar & Co. See '• Arratoon Apcar." 
 
 " Ocean Wave," Marshall v. Moran, 6 Moo. P. C. N. S. 492 ; L. R. 3 
 
 P. C. 205 ; 23 L. T. 218 25, 177, 178, 227, 228, 230, 231. 232, 253 
 
 "Oceanic," 61 Fed. Rep. 338 397 
 
 . 88 L. T. 303; 9 Asp. M. C. 378 374, 376 
 
 " Oceano " and "Virgo," 3 P. D. 60 402, 447 
 
 " Oceanus," 5 Bened. 545 ; on app. 12 Blatchf. 430 404, 436, 449 
 
 " Octavia SteUa," 57 L. T. 632; 6 Asp. M. C. 182 214 
 
 " Oder," 13 Fed. Rep. 272 359 
 
 " Odessa," 46 L. T. 77 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 493— C. A 396, 541 
 
 " Ogemaw," 32 Fed. Rep. 919 1^2, 472 
 
 Ogle V. Barnes, 8 T. R. 188 ^ 
 
 " Ohio," 91 Fed. Rep. 547 ^^^ 
 
 " Ole Bull," (1905) P. 52 ; 92 L. T. 807 ; 74 L. J. P. 52 : 10 Asp. M. C. 
 
 84 221,250,254 
 
 •' Oliver," 22 Fed. Rep. 848 ■^^-' "3^ 
 
 " Olympia," 61 Fed. Rep. 120 ;; ^^ 
 
 Omoa Cleland Coal and Iron Co. v. Huntley, 2 C. P. D. 404 ; 37 L. T. 
 
 184 ; 25 W. R. 675 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 501 2^0
 
 PAGE 
 
 485 
 385 
 
 Ivi TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 O'Neil r. Sears, 2 Sprague, 52 
 
 " Ophelia," 44 Fed. Rep. 941 
 
 " Oporto," (1897) P. 249 ; 66 L. J. Ad. 49 ; affg. 75 L. T. 599 ; 8 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 213 4-^^ 
 
 " Orange," 46 Fed. Rep. 408 384 
 
 " Oratava " and " Janet," Marsd. Ad. Gas. 337 144 
 
 " Oravia," 97 L. T. 523 ; 10 Asp. M. C. 436 373, 379 
 
 " Oregon " (speed), 27 Fed. Rep. 751 374 
 
 (flare), 45 Fed. Rep. 62 365 
 
 (flare), 51 Dav. 186 452 
 
 Orhanovich v. " America," 4 Fed. Rep. 337 196 
 
 " Orient," 39 L. J. Ad. 8 ; 21 L. T. 761 ; 3 Mar. Law Gas. 0. S. 321 ; 
 
 on app. nom. Yeo v. Tatham, 8 Moo. P. G. N. S. 74 ; L. R. 3 P. C. 
 
 696 ; 40 L. J. Ad. 29 : 24 L. T. 918 ; 20 W. R. 6 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 108 . . 73, 
 
 81, 82, 293, 296 
 " Orion," (1891) P. 307 ; 60 L. J. Ad. 90 ; 65 L. T. 500 ; 7 Asp. M. G. 
 
 88 358 
 
 "Omen," Gt. of App. 23 Jan. 1900 413 
 
 " Orpheus," L. R. 3 A. & E. 308 ; 40 L. J. Ad. 24 ; 23 L. T. 855 . .76, 164 
 " OrwcU," 13 P. D. 80 ; 57 L. J. Ad. 61 ; 59 L. T. 312 ; 36 W. R. 703 ; 
 
 6 Asp. M. C. 309 114, 302, 465 
 
 Ad. Div. May, 1887 -"^SS 
 
 Ad. Div. 17th December, 1887 415, 487 
 
 " Oscar," 10 L. T. 789 ; 12 W. R. 872 290 
 
 "Osceola," 34 Fed. Rep. 921 HI 
 
 " Osmanli," 7 Not. of Gas. 507 289 
 
 " Otter," L. R. 4 A. & E. 203 ; 30 L. T. 43 : 22 W. R. 557 ; 2 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 208 30, 291, 380, 492 
 
 " Otto " and ' ' Thorsa." See Wilson v. Gui-rie. 
 
 " Ovingdean Grange," (1902) P. 208 ; 71 L. J. Ad. 105 ; 87 L. T. 15— 
 
 G. A 1 8, 2 1 , 23, 542 
 
 Owen V. " Providence," Marsd. Ad. Gas. 13 80 
 
 " Owen Wallis," L. R. 4 A. & E. 175 ; 43 L. J. Ad. 36 : 30 L. T. 41 ; 
 
 22 W. R. 695 ; 2 Asp. M. G. 206 317, 498 
 
 " Owl" and " Ariadne." See Little v. Bums. 
 Owners of " Velasquez " v. Briggs. See " Velasquez." 
 
 P. 
 
 "P. Galand," (1893) App. Gas. 207 ; 62 L. J. Ad. 41 ; 68 L. T. 469 ; 7 
 
 Asp. M. G. 317— H. L 340, 346 
 
 " P. I. Nevius " and "Wide Awake," 67 Fed. Rep. 158 183 
 
 "Pacific," 9 P. D. 124; 53 L. J. Ad. 67; 51 L. T. 127 ; 33 W. R. 124; 
 
 5 Asp. M. G. 263 359, 432, 489 
 
 " Pactolus," Swab. 173 ; 28 L. T. 0. S. 220 ; 5 W. R. 167 101 
 
 Page c. Haslewood, Seld. Ser. Admiralty, II. Ixxxiii 136 
 
 V. Defries, 7 B. & S. 137 65 
 
 " Palatine," 27 L. T. 631 : 1 Asp. M. G. 468 409, 415, 438, 488
 
 TABLE OF CASES. Ivii 
 
 11 
 
 PAGE 
 
 " Palermo," 9 P. D. 6 ; 53 L. J. Ad. (1 ; 49 L. T. 551 ; 32 W. R. 103 : 
 
 5 Asp. M. C. 165 2«9 
 
 (crew spaces), 10 P. D. 21 ; 54 L. J. Ad. 46 ; 52 L. T. 390 ; 
 
 33 W. R. 643 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 369 ir,G 
 
 "Palestine," 13 W. R. Ill 41 
 
 "Palimirus," 37 W. R. 266; aJfifg. 13 P. D. 14 : 57 L. J. Ad. 21 ; 5« 
 
 L. T. 533 ; 36 W. R. 768 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 271 359 
 
 " Palmetto." 1 Biss. 140 496 
 
 Pangbiirn r. Gunn, 4 Fed. Rep. 35 483 
 
 " Panther," 1 Sp. 31 440, 442 
 
 " Para," Ad. Div. 4th March, 1886 363 
 
 " Paramatta," Stockton, V. Ad. Dig. Canada, 192 391 
 
 "Parana," 1 P. D. 452 ; 45 L. J. Ad. 108 ; 35 L. T. 32 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 
 
 220 ; on app. 2 P. D. 118 ; 36 L. T. 388 ; 25 W. R. 596 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 
 
 399 114. 115, 310 
 
 Parke c. Sorrell, Sold. Ser. Admiralty, II. Ixxxiv 138 
 
 Parker r. North British Rail. Co., 25 Ct. of Sess. Cas. 4th Ser. 1059 93 
 
 " Parkersburg," 5 Blatchf. 247 475 
 
 " Parlement Beige," 4 P. D. 129 ; 48 L. J. Ad. 18 ; 40 L. T. 222 : on 
 
 app. 5 P. D. 197 ; 42 L. T. 273 ; 28 W. R. 642 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 234— 
 
 C. A 71, 72, 73, 82, 209 
 
 Parnabj^ v. Lancaster Canal Co., 11 Ad. & El. 223 ; 3 P. & D. 162 : 9 
 
 L. J. Ex. 338— Ex. Ch 91, 92 
 
 Parnell v. Mort, Liddell & Co., 29 Ch. D. 325 ; 53 L. T. 186 ; 33 W. R. 
 
 481 312 
 
 " Pasithea," 5 P. D. 5 294 
 
 " Passaic," 76 Fed. Rep. 460 33 
 
 " Patience," 167 Fed. Rep. 855 169 
 
 " Patria," 92 Fed Rep. 411 376, 457 
 
 L. R. 3 A. & E. 436 ; 41 L. J. Ad. 23 ; 24 L. T. 849 ; 
 
 1 Asp. M. C. 71 76. 146 
 
 " Patriotto" and " Rival," 2 L. T. 301 476, 479 
 
 " Patroclus," 13 P. I). 54 ; 58 L. T. 774 ; 36 W. R. 928 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 
 
 285 361 
 
 Peake v. Screech, 7 Q. B. 603 ; 14 L. J. Q. B. 317 256 
 
 Pearce v. Page, 24 How. 228 498 
 
 " Peckforton Castle," 2 P. D. 222 ; 47 L. J. Ad. 12 ; 37 L. T. 539 ; 26 
 
 "W. R. 81 ; on app. 3 P. D. 11 ; 47 L. J. Ad. 69 : 37 L. T. 816 ; 26 
 
 W. R. 346 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 533-C. A 397, 435, 436 
 
 " Peerless," 6 L. T. 107 309 
 
 Lush. 30 ; 29 L. J. Ad. 49 ; 2 L. T. 25 ; on app. uuiu. 
 
 Prowse V. European, &c. Co., 13 Moo. P. C. 484 ; 30 L. J. Ad. 89 ; 
 
 3 L. T. 125 9, 200, 217, 231 — 235, 481, 502 
 
 Peers c. Cole, Seld. Ser. Ad. II. Ixxxiv 138 
 
 "Pegasus," 19 Fed. Rep. 40 17 
 
 " Pekin," (1897) App. Cas. 532 ; 77 L. T. 444 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 367. .318, 400, 
 
 401, 402, 403, 446 
 
 " Pelaw " (not reported) 311 
 
 Pettie V. Boston Tow Boat Co., 49 Fed. Rep. 464 107 
 
 " Pennland," 23 Fed. Rep. 551 34, 376
 
 Iviii TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 " Pennsylvania," 12 Fed. Rep. 914 60 
 
 National Steamship Co. v. Merry, 23 L. T. 55 ; 3 
 
 Mar. Law Gas. 0. S. 477-P. C 7. 41, 21-2, 348, 369 
 
 19 Wall. 125; 31 L. T. 103. .. .60, 212, 348, 369, 374, 370 
 
 Penny v. Wimbledon Urban Council, (1898) 2 Q. B. 212 ; 78 L. T. 748 : 
 
 67 L. J. Q. B. 754 89 
 
 " Pensher," Swab. 211 103 
 
 " Pepperell," Swab. 12 382 
 
 " Peri," 32 L. J. Ad. 46 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 1230 ; 11 W. R. 44 306 
 
 " Perim," Ad. Div. 10th Nov. 1886 287, 444 
 
 Perkins v. Gingell, 50 J. P. 277 544 
 
 " Perkiomen," 27 Fed. Rep. 573 370 
 
 " Perth," 3 Hag. 414 380 
 
 " Peru," Pritch. Ad. Dig. 3rd ed. 1412 25, 228 
 
 " Peshawur," 8 P. D. 32 ; 52 L. J. Ad. 30 : 48 L. T. 796 ; 31 W. R. 
 
 660 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 89 211 
 
 " Peshtigo," 25 Fed. Rep. 488 126, 376 
 
 " Pet," 20 L. T. 961 ; 17 W. R. 899 296 
 
 "Pctersfield" and "Judith Randolph," Wildman c. Blake, Marsd. 
 
 Ad. Cas. 332 123, 128, 140 
 
 Petley v. Catto. See " Christina." 
 
 " Petrel," (1893) P. 320 ; 62 L. J. Ad. 92 ; 70 L. T. 417 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 
 
 434 96, 99, 157 
 
 Petrier. Owners of "Rostrevor," (1898) 2 Ir. 556 304 
 
 " Phebe," Ware's Rep. 263 64, 69, 146 
 
 "Philadelphian," (1900) P. 262; 69 L. J. Ad. 31 ; 81 L. T. 728; 48 
 
 W. R. 431 ; 9 Asp. M. C. 72 52, 363 
 
 Philips V. Baillie, 3 Dougl. 374 271 
 
 V. Homfray, 24 Ch. D. 439 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 833 ; 49 L. T. 5 ; 
 
 32 W. R. 6 74 
 
 " Philotaxe," 37 L. T. 540 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 512 405, 435, 479 
 
 " Picton," 4 Duval (Canada), 648 200 
 
 (1910) P. 46 358 
 
 " Pierrepont," 42 Fed. Rep. 687 189 
 
 " Pieve Superiore," L. R. 4 A. & E. 170 ; 43 L. J. Ad. 1 ; 29 L. T. 
 
 702 ; 22 W. R. 416 ; on app. L. R. 5 P. C. 482 ; 43 L. J. Ad. 20 ; 30 
 
 L. T. 887 ; 22 W. R. 777 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 319 76, 270, 271 
 
 " Pilgrim," 57 Fed. Rep. 670 498 
 
 (1895) P. 117 ; 64 L. J. Ad. 78 ; 11 R. 718 157 
 
 Pilk V. Venore, 1 Molloy (ed. 1769), 359 62 
 
 "Pilot," 20 Fed. Rep. 860 352 
 
 Pink V. Fleming, 25 Q. B. D. 396 ; 59 L. J. Q. B. 559 ; 63 L. T. 413 ; 
 
 6 Asp. M. C. 554— C. A 114 
 
 "Pladda," 2 P. D. 34 ; 46 L. J. Ad. 61 9, 12,473, 483 
 
 " Planet," Brown, Ad. 124 478 
 
 " Plato " and " Perseverance," Holt, 262 487, 493 
 
 "Pleiades" and " Jane," (1891) App. Cas. 259 ; 60 L. J. P. C. 59 ; 65 
 
 L. T. 169 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 41 288 
 
 Pluckwell V. Wilson, 5 Car. k P. 375 445 
 
 Plummer v. Wildman, 3 M. & S. 482 279 283
 
 TABLE OF CASES. lix 
 
 PAOK 
 
 Plummer v. Woodbum, 4 B. & C. 625 212 
 
 Pollok V. M'Alpiu. See " LochUbo." 
 
 Pontifex v. Midland Ry. Co., 3 Q. B. D. 23: 47 L. J. Q. B. 28; 
 
 37 L. T. 403 ; 26 W. R. 209 268 
 
 Pooty c. Rudd, Seld. Ser. Ad. II. Ixxxiv 137 
 
 " Port Victoria," (1902) P. 25 ; 71 L. J. Ad. 3C ; 86 L. T. 804 ; 9 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 314 27, 76 
 
 Portevant v. " Bella Donna," Newb. Ad. 510 477 
 
 "Portia," 64 Fed. Rep. 811 18, 131 
 
 " Potomac," 8 Wall. 590 290, 409, 413 
 
 15 Otto, 630 ; 13 Fed. Rep. 399 272, 277, 278 
 
 Potter c. Keeble, Seld. Ser. Ad. II. Ixxxiv 138 
 
 " Pottsville," 12 Fed. Rep. 631 376 
 
 " Rough Reepsee," 162 Fed. Rep. 494 77 
 
 Poulton ('. London & South Western Ry. Co., L. R. 2 Q. B. 534; 
 
 36 L. J. Q. B. 294 ; 17 L. T. 841 ; 16 W. R. 309 66 
 
 PoweU c. Trevyne, Seld. Ser. Ad. II. Ixxxiv 137 
 
 " Premier," 51 Fed. Rep. 766 19 
 
 " Pres. Briarly," 24 Fed. Rep. 478 190 
 
 Price V. Dewhurst, 8 Sim. 279 212 
 
 Priestley v. Fowler, 3 M. & W. 1 99, 195 
 
 " Prince Leopold de Belgique," (1909) P. 103 ; 100 L. T. 201 ; 78 L. J. 
 
 P. 67; 7 Asp. M. C. 203 442, 443 
 
 " Princess," 52 L. T. 932 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 451 109 
 
 " Princesse Clementine," (1897) P. 18 ; 66 L. J. Ad. 23 ; 75 L. T. 695 ; 
 
 8 Asp. M. C. 222 285 
 
 " Princeton," 3 P. D. 90 ; 47 L. J. Ad. 33 ; 38 L. T. 260 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 
 
 562 221 , 230, 253, 308, 478 
 
 61 Fed. Rep. 116 369 
 
 "Prins Hendrick," (1899) P. 177; 68 L. J. Ad. 86; 80 L. T. 838; 
 
 8 Asp. M. C. 548 218 
 
 " Printz Frederick," 2 Dods. 451 94 
 
 " PrLscilla," L. R. 3 A. & E. 125 ; 23 L. T. 566 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 468 . . 392, 
 
 393, 438, 463, 488 
 
 " Privateer," 7 L. R. Ir. 105 386, 394 
 
 " Protector," 1 W. Rob. 45 81 
 
 " Providence," 98 Fed. Rep. 133 60, 112 
 
 " PubUc Opinion," 2 Hag. 398 "-^OO 
 
 Purkis V. Flower, L. R. 9 Q. B. 114 ; 43 L. J. Q. B. 33 ; 30 L. T. 40 ; 
 
 22 W. R. 239 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 226 78, 303 
 
 " Pyrus " and " Smales," 2 Mar. Law Cas. 0. S. 288 ; Holt, 40 3 
 
 Q. 
 
 Quarman v. Burnett, 6 M. & W. 499 1"'' 
 
 " Quebec" and " Charles Chaloner," 19 Lower Canada Jurist, 201 . .42, 241 
 
 1 Quebec L. R. 1 '*•'» 
 
 " Queen," L. R. 2 A. & E. 354 ; 38 L. J. Ad. 39 ; 20 L. T. 856. .67, 222, 232
 
 Ix TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 132 
 
 ' ' Quceu," 40 Fed. Rep. 694 
 
 V. &c. See Reg. ;'. &c. 
 
 "Queen Elizabeth," 100 Fed. Rep. 87 1 =^90 
 
 " Queen of the East " and " Calypso," 4 Bened. 103 "178 
 
 •' Queen of the Orwell," 7 L. T. 839 ; 1 Mar. Law Cas. 0. S. 300 ; 11 
 
 W. H. 499 ^^ 
 
 " Queen Victoria," 7 Asp. M. C. 9 ; G4 L. T. 520 409, 479 
 
 " Quickstep," 9 Wall. 660 187, 189 
 
 (tug and tow), 15 P. D. 196 ; 59 L. J. Q. B. 65 ; 63 L. T. 
 
 713 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 603 70, 172, 173, 196 
 
 R. 
 
 " R. B. Forbes," 1 Sprague, 328 182 
 
 •• R. C. Veit," .)6 Fed. Rep. 122 183 
 
 " R. H. Waterman " and " Transfer," 82 Fed. Rep. 478 497 
 
 " R. L. Alston," 7 P. D. 49; 46 L. T. 208; 30 W. R. 707; 4 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 509 ; on app. 8 P. D. 3 ; 48 L. T. 469 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 43— 
 
 C. A •. 123, 498, 529 
 
 " R. R. Kii-kland," 48 Fed. Rep. 760 32, 406 
 
 " Racine," (1906) P. 273 ; 95 L. T. 597 ; 75 L.J. P. 83 ; 10 Asp. M. C. 
 
 300 102, 109, 113 
 
 Radley r. London & North Western Rail. Co., 1 App. Cas. 754 ; 46 
 
 L.J. Ex. D. 573; 35 L. T. 637; 25 W. R. 147 19 
 
 " Radnorshire," 5 P. D. 172 ; 49 li. J. Ad. 48 ; 43 L. T. 319 ; 29 W. R. 
 
 476 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 338 291 
 
 Raisin r. Mitchell, 9 C. & P. 613 28 
 
 " Raithwaite Hall," 30 L. T. 233 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 210 501 
 
 " Rajah," L.R. 3 A. & E. 539; 41 L. J. Ad. 97; 27 L. T. 102; 21 
 
 W. R. 14 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 403 160 
 
 " Raleigh " and " Niagara," 44 Fed. Rep. 781 182, 185, 369, 371 
 
 " Ralph Creyke," 55 L. T. 155 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 19 491, 492, 497 
 
 Ramsay v. Quinn, Ir. Rep. 8 C. L. 322 99 
 
 Randal v. Cockrane, 1 Ves. Sen. 98 276 
 
 " Ranger." See " Cologne" and " Ranger." 
 
 Rankine v. Raschen, 4 Ct. of Sess. Cas. 4th Ser. 725 166 
 
 " Ranza," Ship. Gaz., 13th December, 1898 413 
 
 " Ratata," Preston Corporation i'. Biornstad, (1898) App. Cas. 513; 
 
 67 L. J. Ad. 73 ; 78 L. T. 797 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 427. . . .25, 67, 93, 187, 188, 
 
 189, 239 
 Rayne, Ex parte, 1 Gale & Dav. 374 ; 1 Q. B. 982 ; 10 L. J. Q. B. 354. . 163 
 
 " Reba," 22 Fed. Rep. 546 109 
 
 " Rebecca," Ware's Rep. 188 64, 146 
 
 " Rebecca Shepherd," 33 Fed. Rep. 926 10 
 
 " Recepta" (prohibition; altering judgment), (1893) P. 255 ; 62 L. J. 
 
 Ad. 18 ; 69 L. T. 252 ; 41 W. R. 561 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 359 309 
 
 (Hmitation), 14 P. D. 131 ; 58 L. J. Ad. 70 ; 61 L. T. 698 ; 
 
 6 Asp. M. C. 433 156
 
 TABLE OF CASES. Ixi 
 
 PAGE 
 
 " Red Cro88," 97 L. T. 610 : 10 Asp. M. C. 5'21 403 
 
 Redhead r. Midland Rail. Co., L. R. 2 Q. B. 412 : on app. ibid. 4 Q. B. 
 
 379 2t'G 
 
 Redpath r. Allan. See " Hibernian." 
 
 Reed v. Welford, Marsd. Ad. Cas. 308 140 
 
 Reg. t: Anderson, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 1(51 : 38 L. J. M. C. 12 : 19 L. T. 
 
 400 ; 17 W. R. 208 199, 281 
 
 r. Barrett, 2 C. & K. 343 280 
 
 r. Carr, 10 Q. B. D. 76 : 52 L. J. M. C. 12 ; 47 L. T. 450 ; 31 W. R. 
 
 121 ; i Asp. M. C. 604 199, 281 
 
 V. City of London Court Judge, 8 Q. B. D. 609 ; 51 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 305 ; 30 W. R. 566 200 
 
 V. Haines, 2 C. & K. 368 2S0 
 
 V. Judge of City of London Court, (1892) 1 Q. B. 273 : 61 L. J. 
 
 Q. B. 337 ; 66 L. T. 135 : 40 W. R. 215 295 
 
 V. Keyn, 2 Ex. D. 63 ; 46 L. J. M. C. 17 59, 66, 198, 201, 281 
 
 r. Lewis, 1 D. & B. C. C. 182 281 
 
 f. Meuham, 1 E. & F. 369 281 
 
 V. Polwart, 1 Q. B. 818 71 
 
 r. Sattler, D & B. C. C. 525 281 
 
 r. Seberg, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 264 ; 39 L. J. M. C. 133 (nom. Reg. r. 
 
 Von Seberg) ; 22 L. T. 523 (nom. Reg. v. Sven Seberg) 281 
 
 V. Spence, 1 Cox, C. C. 352 -'SO 
 
 V. Stanton, 8 Ell. & B. 445 : 27 L. J. Q. B. lO.') ; 4 Jur. N. S. 10. 
 
 332 : 6 W. R. 39 244. 247, 256, 257 
 
 V. Taylor, 9 Car. & P. 672 280 
 
 V. Williams, 9 App. Cas. 418 ; 53 L. J. P. C. 64 ; 51 L. T. 546 . . 91 
 
 " Regina del Mare," Br. & L. 315 278 
 
 '> Reginald," 97 L. T. 608 ; 10 Asp. M. C. 519 352 
 
 " Reiher," 45 L. T. 767 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 478 360 
 
 " Reinbeck," 60 L. T. 209 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 366 211 
 
 Reischer v. Borwick, (1894) 2 Q. B. 548 ; 63 L. J. Q. B. 753 ; 71 L. T 
 
 238 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 493— C. A KH, 27 
 
 " Relief," 63 Fed. Rep. 169 410 
 
 Olcott, Ad. 104 385 
 
 Reney v. Magistrates uf Kirkcudbright, (1892) Asp. Cas. 264 ; 61 L. J. 
 
 P. C. 23 ; 67 L. T. 474 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 221 -H. L 90, 92, 235, 238 
 
 " Renovator," 30 Fed. Rep. 194 -tSS 
 
 " Republic," 29 Fed. Rep. 98 •'^-^ 
 
 " Rescue," 2 Sprague, 16 ^^- 
 
 " Resolution," 60 L. T. 430 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 363 328, 376, 378, 380 
 
 and "Langton," Nelson c. Fawcett, Marsd. Ad. 
 
 Cas. 332 '^'^ 
 
 " Retriever " and " Queen," 17 L. T. 329 ; 2 Mar. Law Cas. 0. S. 555 . . 282 
 
 Rex V. Allen, 7 Car. & P. 153 "•^80 
 
 V. Collector of Customs, 2 M. & S. 223 •'« 
 
 V. Green, 7 Car. & P. 156 -•'<" 
 
 V. Lambe, 5 T. R. 7« -"'" 
 
 V. Neale, 8 T. R. 241 -•*•'' 
 
 V. Watts, 2 Esp. 675 "** 
 
 ':•>
 
 Ixii TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGB 
 
 ' Rhein," 86 L. T. 265 ; 9 Asp. M. C. 278 539 
 
 " Rhode Island," Olcott, Ad. 505 ; 1 Blatchf. 363 404, 436 
 
 17 Fed. Rep. 554 376 
 
 " Rhondda," Scioluna v. Stevenson, 8 App. Cas. 549; 49 L. T. 210; 
 
 5 Asp. M. C. 114 422, 441, 492 
 
 " Rhosina," 10 P. D. 131 ; 54 L. J. Ad. 72 ; 53 L. T. 30 ; 33 W. R. 
 
 794 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 460 90, 92, 230, 232, 239 
 
 "Richmond" and " E. Heipershansen," 63 Fed. Rep. 1020. . . .19, 183, 472 
 
 " Riehcr." 2 Pr. Ad. Dig. 1747 101 
 
 " Rigaud," 11 Quebec L. R. 382 472 
 
 "Rigborgs Mindo," 8 P. D. 132; 52 L. J. Ad. 74; 49 L. T. 232; 
 
 5 Asp. M. C. 123, C. A. . .86, 129, 220, 222, 230, 232, 233, 234, 252, 305—310 
 
 " Rijnstroom," 80 L. T. 422 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 538 309, 311, 312 
 
 Rio Grande do Sul Steamship Co., In re, 5 Ch. D. 282 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 
 
 277 ; 36 L. T. 603 ; 26 W. R. 328 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 424— C. A 74, 79 
 
 " Ripon," 10 P. D. 65 ; 54 L. J. Ad. 56 ; 52 L. T. 438 ; 33 W. R. 659 ; 
 
 5 Asp. M. C. 365 55, 228, 231, 236, 337 
 
 (pilot), 6 Not. of Cas. 245 233 
 
 "Ripon City," (1897) P. 226; 66L. J. Ad. 110; 77 L. T. 98; 8 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 304 71, 73, 82 
 
 " Risca," Ad. Div. 25th March, 1886 290 
 
 " Risoluto." 8 P. D. 109 ; 52 L. J. Ad. 46 ; 48 L. T. 109 ; 31 W. R. 
 
 657 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 93 113 
 
 Ritchie v. Bowsficld, 7 Taunt. 309 216 
 
 " River Derwent," 64 L. T. 509 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 37— H. L 292, 542, 543 
 
 " River Lagan," 57 L. J. Ad. 28 ; 55 L. T. 773 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 281 . . 197, 
 
 298, 307, 502 
 River Wear Commissioners v. Adamson, 1 Q. B. D. 546 ; 29 L. T. 530 ; 
 
 22 W. R. 47 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 242 ; on app. 2 App. Cas. 743 ; 47 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 193; 37 L. T. 543: 26 W. R. 217; 3 Asp. M. C. 521.. 64, 68, 70, 78, 82, 
 
 164, 219 
 
 " Riversdale," 53 Fed. Rep. 286 10, 476 
 
 "Roanoke," (1908) P. 231; 99 L. T. 78; 77 L. J. P. 115. .408, 411, 414, 465 
 
 "Rob Roy," 3 W. Rob. 190 5, 336 
 
 " Robert," Ad. Ct. 9th June, 1818 145 
 
 " Robert and Ann," and " Lloyd's," Holt, 55 358, 472 
 
 " Robert Burnett, 46 Fed. Rep. 415 184 
 
 "Robert Dixon," 40 L. T. 333 ; 4 P. D. 121 ; 27 W. R. 736 ; 4 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 95 ; on app. 5 P. D. 54 ; 42 L. T. 344 ; 28 W. R. 716 ; 4 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 246 189—192 
 
 " Robert H. Rathbun," 38 Fed. Rep. 549 392 
 
 Robinson v. Detroit, &c. Steam Nav. Co., 73 Fed. Rep. 883 440 
 
 " Rockaway," 19 Fed. Rep. 449 32, 486 
 
 Rockett V. Chippendale, (1891) 2 Q. B. 293; 60 L. J. Q. B. 782; 64 
 
 L-T. 641 ....312 
 
 Rodrigucsf. Melhuish, lOEx. 110; 24 L.J. Ex.26; 2 W. R. 518 253 
 
 " RoecUff," L. R. 2 A. & E. 363 ; 38 L. J. Ad. 56 ; 20 L. T. 586 ; 17 
 
 W. R. 745 75 
 
 RoUes r. Newell, 25 Q. B. D. 335 ; 59 L. J. Q. B. 423 ; 63 L. T. 384 ; 
 
 39 W. R. 96 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 563 " 544
 
 TABLE OF CASES. Ixiii 
 
 PAQB 
 
 " Eomance," (1901) P. 15 : 70 L. J. Ad. 1 ; S3 L. T. 488 ; 9 Asp. M. C. 
 
 ^*^ 340, 344. 362 
 
 " "Rona," 7 P. D. 247 : 51 L. J. Ad. 65 : 46 L. T. 601 : 30 W. R. 614 ; 
 
 4 Asp. M. C. 520 3Q3 
 
 and " Ava." 29 L. T. 781 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 182 . .123, 124. 327, 337, 
 
 383, 399, 432 
 "Rondane," 69 L. J. Ad. 114; 82 L. T. 828; 9 Asp. M. C. 106.... 41, 378 
 "Rosalie," 5 P. D. 24o ; nO L. J. Ad. 3 ; 44 L. T. 32 ; 4 Asp. M. c' 
 
 38-i 30.340, 348, 390, 391. 413, 415,457 
 
 " Rose," 2 W. Rob. 1 418, 432 
 
 Rose V. Miles, 4 M. & S. 101 ' jOg 
 
 ' ' Rose CuUrin," 52 Fed. Rep. 328 168 407 
 
 "Rose of England," 59 L. T. 262 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 304 497 
 
 " Rosetta," 59 L. T. 342 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 310 . .378, 430 
 
 " Roslyn," 22 Fed. Rep. 687 ..." 30 
 
 " Rossendale," 2 Pritch. Ad. Dig. (ed. 1865) 591 291 
 
 Rothwell c. Lucas, Seld. Ser. Ad. II. Ixxxiii 13(5 
 
 " Rougemont," (1893) P. 275 ; 62 L. J. Ad. 121 ; 70 L. T. 420 ; 1 R. 
 
 658 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 437 '. 295 
 
 Rourke v. White Moss Colliery Co., 2 C. P. D. 205 ; 46 L. J. C. P. 283 ; 
 
 36L. T. 49; 25 W. R. 263— C. A " .' 17.5 
 
 " Royal Charter," L. R. 2 A. & E. 362 ; 38 L. J. Ad. 36 ; 20 L. T. 
 
 1019 ; 18 W. R. 49 ' " 30^ 
 
 Ruabon Steamship Co. v. London Assurance, (1900) App. Cas. 6 ; 69 
 
 L. J. Q. B. 86 ; 81 L. T. 585 : 48 W. R. 225 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 369— 
 
 H- ^- ' 101 
 
 " Ruby" (liens), (1898) P. 52; 67 L. J. Ad. 28 ; 78 L. T. 267; 8 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 389 78 
 
 (pilotage), 15 P. D. 164 ; 59 L. J. Ad. 68 ; 63 L. T. 735; 39 
 
 W. R. 42 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 577 247, 253, 308 
 
 " Ruby Queen," Lush. 266 82 481 
 
 Ruckton c. Lanibton, Seld. Ser. Admiralty, II. Ixxxiii 13.'j 
 
 Rundell v. Compagnie Gencrale Transatlantique, 94 Fed. Rep. 366 .... 2U 
 
 Russell c. Joad, Seld. Ser. Admiralty, II. Ixxxiv 139 
 
 " Russia," 3 Bened. 471 ; 21 L. T. 440 492 
 
 " Rutland " (pilot), (1897) App. Cas. 333 ; 66 L. J. Ad. 105 ; 76 L. T. 
 
 662 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 270— H. L 255, 257 
 
 Rutter c. Ribbatira, Seld. Ser. Admiralty. II. Ixxxiii 136 
 
 S. 
 
 " S. Anderson," 27 Fed. Rep. 392 152 
 
 " S. Shaw," 6 Fed. Rep. 93 l<i 
 
 " S. S. Wilhelm," 59 Fed. Rep. 169 1H!» 
 
 " S. W. Morris," 59 Fed. Rep. 616 189 
 
 " Saale," 63 Fed. Rep. 47S .•J7fi 
 
 " Saguii " V. " Grace," 42 Fed. Rep. 461 190
 
 Ixiv TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 " Saint Aubin." (1907) P. 60 ; O,-) L. T. 086 ; 76 L. J. P. 25 ; 10 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 298 *'^^' ^^^ 
 
 " Saint Audries," 54 L. T. 278 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 552 403 
 
 " Saint Cloud," Br. & L. 4 ; 8 L. T. 54 271, 302 
 
 " Saint Cyrau " and " Henry," 12 W. R. 1014 462 
 
 Saint John c. Grant. Seld. Ser. Admiralty, II. Ixxxiii 136 
 
 " Saint John's," 42 Fed. Rep. 75 470 
 
 " Saint Lawrence," 19 Fed. Rep. 328 477 
 
 " Saint Olaf," L. R. 2 A. & E. 360 ; 38 L. J. Ad. 41 ; 20 L. T. 758 ; 
 
 17 W. R. 743 79 
 
 " Saint Paul," (1908) P. 320 ; 100 L. T. 184 ; 78 L. J. P. 1 ; U Asp. 
 
 M. C. 152 ; on app., (1909) P. 43 3, 370, 373 
 
 " Saltburu," (1892) P. 333 ; 69 L. T. 88 ; 1 R. 5*3 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 325. . 312 
 
 "SamGaty," 8 Bissel, 190 108 
 
 " Sammie," 36 Fed. Rep. 568 492 
 
 " Sampson," 4 Blatchf. 28 281 
 
 " Samuel H. Crawford," 6 Fed. Rep. 906 341 
 
 "Sandhill." .SVc Nord Kap. 
 
 " Sans Pareil, H.M.S.," (1900) P. 267 ; 69 L. J. Ad. 127 ; 82 L. T. 606 ; 
 
 9 Asp. M. C. 78.. 6, 17, 20,51, 54, 59, 94,366,458,459,461,462,469,471 
 
 " Sapphire," 11 Wall. 164 482, 485 
 
 18 Wall. 51 128 
 
 and " Girdleness," Ad. Div. Feb. 1884 48 
 
 " Sara," 14 App. Gas. 209 ; 58 L. J. Ad. 57 ; 61 L. T. 26 ; 38 W. R. 
 
 129 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 413— H. L 76 
 
 " Saracen," 2 W. Rob. 451 : on app. uom. Bernard v. Hyne, 6 Moo. 
 
 P. C. 06; 11 Jur. 253; 4 Not. of Cas. 498 78, 79, 81 
 
 "Saragossa," 69 L. T. 664 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 289— H. L 411, 413, 425, 
 
 437, 438, 455 
 
 "Sarah," Lush. 549 77, 303, 304 
 
 " Saratoga," 1 Fed. Rep. 730 18 
 
 " Sardinian," Ad. Div. 9th Dec. 1886 305 
 
 " Satanita," (1897) App. Cas. 59 ; 66 L. J. Ad. 1 ; 75 L. T. 337 ; 8 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 190 156 
 
 "Saucy Lass " and " Bolderaa," Holt, 205 415 
 
 " Savernake " (costs), 5 P. D. 166 ; 49 L. J. Ad. 71 ; 29 W. R. 123 ; 5 
 
 Asp. M. C. 34, n 309, 310 
 
 •'Saxonia," Lush. 410 ; 15 Moo. P. C. 262 ; 31 L. J. Ad. 201 ; 6 L. T. 
 
 6 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 315 ; 10 W. R. 431 . . 198, 205, 207, 318, 334, 335, 336, 361 
 
 2 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 417 ; 15 L. T. 113 487 
 
 Scaramanga v. Marquand, 53 L. T. 810 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 506 -C. A 270, 
 
 276, 283 
 
 " Schwalbe," Lush. 239 ; 14 Moo. P. C. 241 ; 4 L. T. 160 223, 230 
 
 Swab. 521 287, 290 
 
 " Schwan" (Thames Rules), 61 L. T. 308 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 409 542, 543 
 
 and " Albano," (1892) P. 419 ; 69 L. T. 34 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 
 
 347— C. A 7, 8, 160, 225, 232 
 
 " Schwann" and " Robert Morrison," L. R. 4 A. & E. 187 ; 43 L. J. 
 
 Ad. 18 ; 30 L. T. 537 ; 22 W. R. 743 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 259 308 
 
 " Scioto," Davis, 359 475
 
 TABLE OF CASES. \xy 
 
 "Scotia," 63 L. T. 324 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 541 H, 107, 124. 474, 476, 484 
 
 14WaU.170 5 '?4\lQ%o« .1, 
 
 a i.i. /-. lie, , ^ 0, <54, J19, 336, 413 
 
 Scott V. Cornell Steamboat Co., 59 Fed. Rep. 638 190 
 
 v. London & St. Katherine's Dock Co., 3 H. & C. 596 . , 36 
 
 V. Scott, 2 Stark. 438 g- 
 
 V. Seymour, 1 H. & C. 219 2li 
 
 " Scout," L.E. 3A. & E. 512; 41 L. J. Ad. 42V 26 L T 371 "oq 
 
 W. R. 617 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 258 ' " g^ 
 
 Scull V. Raymond, IS Fed. Rep. 547 -4 
 
 "Sea Gull," 23 Wall. 165 .!..'!**...!.!!..'" '3 
 
 Sea Insurance Co. v. Haddan, 13 Q. B. D. 706 ; 53 L. J. Q. B 25-> -50 
 
 L. T. 657 ; 32 W. R. 841 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 230— C. A ' 278 
 
 " Sea Nymph," Lush. 23 ^gg 
 
 " Sea Nymph of Chester," Holt, 34 336 
 
 " Sea Queen " or "Lloyds," Br. & L. 359 ; 32 L. J. Ad 197 • 9 L T 
 
 236 ' • • 257 
 
 "Sea Spray," (1907) P. 133; 96 L. T. 792 ; 76 L. J. P. 48 284 
 
 " Seacaucus," 34 Fed. Rep. 68 " " 337 
 
 Seagars c. " Haddock," Seld. Ser. Admiralty, 11. Ixxxiii .*'.'.' 135 
 
 " Seaton," 9 P. D. 1 ; 53 L. J. Ad. 15 ; 49 L. T. 747 ; 32 W. R. 600 '; 
 
 6 Asp. M. C. 191 28, 327, 328, 388,401,404,439 
 
 Seccombe v. Wood, 2 Moo. & Rob. 290 26 
 
 " Secret " (anchoring), 26 L. T. 670 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 318 9, 477, 480 
 
 Secretary of State for India v. Hewitt, 6 Asp. M. C. 384 ; 60 L. T.' 
 
 '"^^^ 286 
 
 Sedgworth v. Overend, 7 T. R. 279 97 
 
 " Seine," Swab. 411 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 298 65,' 66, 205, 440 
 
 " Selina," 2 Not. of Cas. 18 79 
 
 " Senator D. C. Chase," 46 Fed. Rep. 874 36 
 
 " Seneca," 47 Fed. Rep. 87 34 
 
 " Seringapatam " (division of loss), 3 W. Rob. 38 ; 5 Not. of Cas. 61 . . 123, 
 
 124, 128, 388 
 " Servia," " Carinthia," (1898) P. 36 ; 67 L. J. Ad. 36 ; 78 L. T. 54 ; 
 
 8 Asp. M. C. 353 ' 253 
 
 42 Dav. 144 322, 497 
 
 Seward v. Owners of "Vera Cruz." See " Vera Cruz " (No. 2). 
 "SeymoUcus," (1909) P. 109 ; 100 L. T. 382 ; 78 L. J. P. 52 ; 11 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 206 442 
 
 " Shannon," 1 "W. Rob. 463 ; 7 Jur. 380 479 
 
 Sharp V. PoweU, L. R. 7 C. P. 253 ; 41 L. J. C. P. 95 ; 26 L. T. 436 ; 
 
 20 W. R. 584 15 
 
 Sharpsburg Sands Co. v. Monongahela River Co., 145 Fed. Rep. 424 . . 474 
 Shaw, Savill & Albion Co. v. Timaru Harbour Board, 15 App. Cas. 429 ; 
 
 59 L. J. C. P. 77 ; 62 L. T. 913 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 521— P. C 93, 239 
 
 Sherman v. Mott, 5 Bened. 372 12 
 
 Shersby v. Hibbert. See " Duke of Manchester." 
 
 Shields v. Mayor, 18 Fed. Rep. 748 3(54 
 
 " Shubert "v. " Einar," 45 Fed. Rep. 497 182 
 
 " Sicilian Prince," 128 Fed. Rep. 133 440 
 
 Sills V. Brown, 9 Car. & P. 001 14, 292 
 
 M. c
 
 Ixvi TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 " Simla " and " City of Lucknow," Ad. Div. March, 1884 334, 364 
 
 Simpson V. Blues, "Madge Wildfire," L. R. 7 C. P. 290; 41 L. J. 
 
 0. P. 121 ; 26 L. T. G97 ; 20 W. R. 680 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 326 297 
 
 ,,, Fogo, 1 H. & M. 195 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 249 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 403 ; 
 
 S L. T. 61 : 11 W. R. 418 212 
 
 ('. Thompson, 3 App. Cas. 279 : 38 L. T. 1 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 567 
 
 _H. L 64, 72, 98, 271, 272, 278, 279 
 
 "Singapore" and "Hebe,'" 4 Moo. P. 0. N. S. 271 ; L. R. 1 P. C. 
 
 378 289, 387, 390, 394, 414 
 
 " Sinquasi,"' o P. D. 211 : TiO L. J. Ad. 5 ; 43 L. T. 768 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 
 
 :?83 UO-nr., 177, 187, 194,223, 228,231,232, 237 
 
 Sir John Jackson, Limtd. r. Owners of S.S. "Blanche." See "Steam 
 
 Iloiipcr, No. 66." 
 
 " Sir Robert Peel," 43 L. T. 364 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 321— C. A 292 
 
 "Siren," 7 Wall. l-)2 9-i 
 
 " Sisters " (admitting liability), 32 L. T. 837 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 589 300 
 
 (damages ; no coUision ; appeal), 1 P. B. 117 ; 45 L. J. Ad. 
 
 39 ; 34 L. T. 338 ; 24 W. R. 412 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 122— C. A 3, 4, 8, 
 
 27, 29, 70, 76, 172, 299, 300 
 
 " Six Sisters," (1900) P. 302 : 69 L. J. Ad. 139 533 
 
 ' ' Skerryvore " (not reported) 543 
 
 " Skipsoa," (1905) P. 32 ; 93 L. T. 181 ; 74 L. J. P. 34 ; 10 Asp. M. C. 
 
 91 '545 
 
 Slaney r. Ilopwood, Sold. Ser. Admiralty, II. Ixxxiv 138 
 
 Slattery's Case. See Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Rail. Co. v. 
 
 Slattery. 
 
 Slyfield V. Penfold, 66 Fed. Rop. 362 14. 28 
 
 Smith, rn rr, " City of Mecca," 1 P. D. 300 ; 45 L. J. Ad. 92 ; 35 L. T. 
 
 380 : 24 W. R. 903 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 259— C. A 199. 285 
 
 r. Bailej-, (1891) 2 Q. B. 403 64 
 
 r. Baker, (1891) App. Cas. 325; 60 L. J. Q. B. 683; 65 L. T. 
 
 467 ; 40 W. R. 392 36 
 
 V. Brown, L. R. 6 Q. B. 729 ; 40 L. J. Q. B. 214 ; 24 L. T. 808 ; 
 
 19 W. R. 1165; 1 Asp. M. C. 56 297 
 
 Smith r. Condry, 1 How. 28 114, 217, 241 
 
 r. " Creole " and " Sampson," 2 Wall. Jun. C. C. R. 485 . .182, 241 
 
 V. Dobson, 3 M. & G. 59 ; 3 Scott, N. R. 330 28, 498 
 
 V. Kirby, 1 Q. B. D. 131 ; 24 W. R. 207 163 
 
 1-. Nugent. See Nugent r. Smith. 
 
 r. Saint Lawrence Tow Boat Co., L. R. 5 P. C. 308 ; 28 L. T. 
 
 885 ; 21 W. R. 569 , 2 Asp. M. C. 41 187, 192, 193, 380 
 
 r. Scott, 4 Taunt. 126 271 
 
 V. South Eastern Rail. Co., (1890) 1 Q. B. 178; 65 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 219; 73 L. T. 614 ; 44 W. R. 291 ,32 
 
 V. Steele, L. R. 10 Q. B. 125 ; 44 L. J. Q. B. 60 ; 32 L. T. 195 ; 
 
 25 W. R. 338 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 487 99 
 
 V. Vo.ss, 2 H. & N. 97 ; 26 L. J. Ex. 233 ; 5 W. R. 534 .... 62, 442 
 
 V. Wilson, (1895) App. Cas. 579; 65 L. J. C. P. 66; 75 L. T. 
 
 81 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 196 88 
 
 " Smyrna " and " Yrouw Mai'ia " (not reported) 199
 
 TABLE OF CASES. Ixvii 
 
 PAOE 
 
 •' Smyrna," (mentioned Lush. 385) ' 340, 30S 
 
 2 Moo. P. C. N. S. 43o ; 10 .Tiir. N. S. 977 ; 11 L. T. 74 ; 
 
 2 Mar. Law Cas. 0. S. 93 374, 490, ;'.02, 503, 504 
 
 " Snark,"' (1900) V. 105 ; 69 L. J. Ad. 41 ; 82 L. T. 42 : 9 Asp. M. C. 
 
 50 88, 89 
 
 Sneidall c. Leigh, Seld. Ser. Admiralty. II. Ixxxiii 13G 
 
 Snee.shy r. Lancashire and Yorkshire Rail. Co., L. R. 9 Q. B. 2G3 .... 15 
 
 Snelling v. Pulling, 29 Ch. D. 85 ; 52 L. T. 335 ; 33 W. R. 449 312 
 
 "SoUs," 10 P. D. 62 ; 54 L. J. Ad. 52 : 52 L. T. 440 ; 33 AV. R. 659 ; 
 
 5 Asp. M. C. 308 280 
 
 "Solway," 10 P. D. 137; 54 L. J. Ad. 83; 53 L. T. 080; 34 W. R. 
 
 232 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 482 290 
 
 " Somerset," Ship. Gaz., May 25th, 1909 308 
 
 "Sontag," 40 Fed. Rep. 174 49G 
 
 " South Sea," Swab. 141 108 
 
 Spaight r. Tedcastle, 6 App. Cas. 217; 44 L. T. 589 ; 29 W. R. 7G1 : 
 
 4 Asp. M. C. 406 15, 20, 21, 24, 86, 132, 187, 192, 222—232 
 
 " Spearman." See " Tourri " and "Spearman." 
 
 Speller v. Bristol Steam Navigation Co., 13 Q. B. D. 96 ; 53 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 322 : 50 L. T. 419 ; 32 W. R. 670 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 228— C. A 298 
 
 " Spiegel," 84 Fed. Rep. 1002 456 
 
 " Spindrift." See " Jennie S. Barker." 
 
 "Spirit of the Ocean," Br. & Lush. 336 ; 34 L. J. Ad. 74 ; 12 L. T. 
 
 239; 2 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 192 157. 158 
 
 " Sprightly " and " Wells." See Hay v. Le Neve. 
 
 " Spring," L. R. 1 A. & E. 99 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 788 387, 393 
 
 Stacpoole r. Betridge, 5 Victoria L. R. 302 ; 14 W. R. 975 63 
 
 " Stadacona," 5 Not. of Cas. 371 330 
 
 " Staffordshire," 8 Moo. P. C. N. S. 443 ; L. R. 4 P. C. 194 ; 27 L. T. 
 
 46 ; 20 W. R. 557 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 365— P. C 80 
 
 " Stakesby," 15 P. D. 166 ; 59 L. J. Ad. 72 ; 63 L. T. 115 ; 39 W. R. 
 
 80 ; G Asp. M. C. 532 359 
 
 " Stanmore," 10 P. D. 134 ; 54 L. J. Ad. 89 ; 53 L. T. 10 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 
 
 441-C. A 323, 325, 427 
 
 " Star of India," 1 P. D. 460 ; 45 L. J. Ad. 102 ; 35 L. T. 407 ; 25 AV. R. 
 
 377; 3 Asp. M. C. 261 101, 111, 112 
 
 " Star of New Zealand," Ship. Gaz., Nov. 7th, 1899 378 
 
 >' State of Alabama," 17 Fed. Rep. 847 •"575 
 
 ' ' State of Texas," 20 Fed. Rep. 254 330 
 
 " Steam Hopper No. 66," (1907) P. 254 ; 97 L. T. 360 ; 76 L. J. P. 110 ; 
 
 on app., (1908) A. C. 126 ; 98 L. T. 4G4 ; 77 L. J. P. 84 ; 11 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 37 1''" 
 
 Steel V. Lester, 3 C. P. D. 121 ; 47 L. J. C. P. 43 ; 37 L. T. 642 ; 26 
 
 W. R. 212; 3 Asp. M. C. 537 G'-'. 1''* 
 
 '< Stella," (1900) P. 162 ; 69 L. J. Ad. 70 ; 82 L. T. 390-C. A. ; 9 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 66 1'"' 
 
 " Stephen Bennett," 54 Fed. Rep. 207 439 
 
 " Stephen Morgan," 4 Otto, 599 -HG 
 
 " Sterling " and " Equator," 16 Otto, 647 127. 182 
 
 e2
 
 Ixviii TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 " Stettin," Br. & Lush. 199 ; 31 L. J. Ad. 208 ; 6 L. T. 613-P. C. . . 244^ 
 
 Stevens c. Trehawke, Seld. Ser. Admiralty, II. Ixxxiii 136 
 
 Stewart v. Steele, 5 Scott, N. R. 927 276 
 
 '< Stirlintrshire " and " Africa," 2 Mar. Law Cas. 0. S. Dig. 672 487 
 
 Stoomvaart Maatschappy Nederland v. Peninsular and Oriental Steam 
 
 Navigation Co. See " Voorwiiarts " and " Khedive." 
 '•Stork " and •' Never Despair." See "Never Despaii-." 
 
 " Stormeock." 53 L. T. rjS ; 5 Asp. M. C. 470 177 
 
 Stort V. Clements, 1 Peake, 107 62, 94, 214 
 
 Strakor r. Hartlaud, 2 H. & N. 570 ; T, N. R. 163 ; 34 L. J. Ch. 122 ; 10 
 
 Jur. N. S. 1143; U L. T. 622 163 
 
 " Stranger," 6 Not. of Cas. 36 471 
 
 Brown, Ad. 281 187, 189, 190 
 
 " Strathay," 27 Fed. Rep. 562 184 
 
 "Strathnaver," 1 App. Cas. 58; 34 L. T. 148 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 113— 
 
 p. C 298, 307 
 
 Stretch r. " Margaret," 2 Fed. Rep. 255 186 
 
 Stuart V. Isemonger. See " Diana." 
 
 Sturgis V. Boyer, 24 How. 110 174, 181 
 
 V. Clough, 21 How. 451 495 
 
 Submarine Telegraph Co. r. Dickson, 15 C. B. N. S. 759 ; 33 L. J. C. P. 
 
 139 : 10 Jur. N. S. 129 ; 10 L. T. 32 ; 12 W. R. 384 202 
 
 Summers v. " Oneida," 84 Fed. Rep. 716 107 
 
 " SunUght," (1904) P. 100 ; 90 L T. 32 ; 73 L. J. P. 25 ; 9 Asp. M. C. 
 
 509 404, 497 
 
 " Sunnyside," 1 Otto, 208 60, 330, 333, 404, 413, 456, 457, 475 
 
 " Superb " and " Florence Bragington." See " Florence Bragington." 
 
 " Superior," 6 Not. of Cas. 607 453, 456 
 
 "Supply, H. M.S.," 12 L. T. 799; 2 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 262 366 
 
 "Sussex," (1904) P. 236 ; 90 L. T. 549 ; 73 L. J. P. 73 ; 9 Asp. M. C. 
 
 578 57, 253 
 
 "Sutherland," 12 P. D. 154 ; 56 L.J. Ad. 94; 57L. T. 631; 36 W. R. 
 
 13 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 181 257 
 
 " Sutlej," (1905) T. L. R. 325 459 
 
 Sutton V. Mitchell, 1 T. R. 18 149 
 
 V. Sutton, 22 Ch. D. 511 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 333 ; 48 L. T. 95 ; 31 
 
 W. R. 369 122 
 
 "Swallow, H.M.S.," Swab. 30 289, 307 
 
 • 36 L. T. 331 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 371— C. A 10, 498 
 
 " Swan," 3 Blatchf . 285 90 
 
 " Swanland," 2 Sp. 107 18, 38, 40, 292 
 
 " Swansea" and "Condor," 4 P. D. 115 ; 48 L. J. Ad. 33 ; 40 L. T. 
 
 442; 27 W. R. 748; 4 Asp. M. C 115- C. A 55, 280, 310 
 
 " Sweepstakes," Brown, Ad. 509 188 
 
 " Swift" (oysters), (1901) P. 168; 70 L. J. Ad. 47; 85 L. T. 346; 9 
 
 Asp. M. C. 244 77, 304 
 
 Swyre c. Church, Seld. Ser. Admiralty, II. Ixxxiv 138 
 
 " Sylph " (custom), 2 Sp. 75 289, 324, 331, 336, 440 
 
 (altering course), Swab. 233 328
 
 TABLE OF CASES. lxL> 
 
 PAGE 
 
 " Sylph " (personal injury), L. R. 2 A. & E. 24 ; 37 L. J. Ad. 14 ; 17 
 
 L. T. 519 296, 297 
 
 " Sylvester Hale," 6 Bened. 023 320 
 
 " Syracuse." 9 Wall. 672 167, 432 
 
 12 Wall. 167 189, 331 
 
 (damages), 18 Fed. Rep. 828 108, 109 
 
 " T. C," In re, Ir. Rep. 11 Eq. 1.51 79 
 
 '• Tactician," (1907) P. 244; 97 L. T. 621; 76 L. J. P. 80; 10 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 534 228. 237 
 
 " Talabot," 15 P. D. 194 ; 63 L. T. 812 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 602 447 
 
 «' Talbot," (1891) F. 184 ; 64 L. T. 542 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 36 43, 45, 55, 
 
 336, 490 
 " Tasmania," No. 1 (lien), 13 P. D. 110: 57 L.J. Ad. 49; 59L.T. 263; 
 
 6 Asp. M. C. 305 60, 67, 81, 83, 84, 179, 194 
 
 No. 2 (Art. 27), 15 App. Cas. 223 ; 63 L. T. 1 ; 6 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 517-H. L. 5, 288, 458 
 
 Taylor v. Burger, 8 Asp. M. C. 364 497 
 
 V. Carryl, 20 How. 583 73 
 
 V. Dewar, 5 B. & S. 58 ; 33 L. J. Q. B. 141 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 361 ; 
 
 lOL. T. 267; 12 W. R. 579 97, 273, 276, 278, 297 
 
 " Tecla Carmen." See " North American " and " Tecla Carmen." 
 
 " Telegraph," Valentine v. Cleugh, 8 Moo. P. C. 167 ; 1 Sp. 427 30, 
 
 40, 305 
 
 " Temiscouata," 2 Sp. 208 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 479 80, 297 
 
 "Temora," Lush. 17; 1 L. T. 418 243, 244, 256 
 
 Tennant & Co. v. Ellis & Co., 6 Q. B. D. 46 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 143 ; 43 
 
 L. T. 506 ; 29 W. R. 121 ^^12 
 
 "Tergeste," (1903) P. 26; 72 L.J. Ad. 18; 87 L. T. 567; 9 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 356 78 
 
 " Test," 5 Not. of Cas. 276 327, 412, 453, 460, 463 
 
 " Teutonia," 23 Wall. 77 378 
 
 " Thames." See " Sisters." 
 
 -6C. Rob. 345 ■• -194 
 
 (inevitable accident), 32 L. T. 343 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 512 ... .8, 37 
 
 and " Lutetia," Maclaren v. Compagnie Frau(,'aise de 
 
 Navigation a Vapeur, 9 App. Cas. 640 318, 427, 430 
 
 " Theodore H. Rand," 12 App. Cas. 247 ; 56 L. J. Ad. 65 ; 56 L. T. 
 
 343; 35 W. R. 781 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 122 -H.L 322,421.429 
 
 "Theta," (1894) P. 280 ; 63 L. J. Ad. 160; 71 L. T. 25; 43 W. K. 
 
 160; 6 R. 712; 7 Asp. M. C. 480 H-* 
 
 "Thotford," 57L. T. 455; 6 Asp. M. C. 179 529,645 
 
 " Thetis," L. R. 2 A. & E. 365 ; 38 L. J. Ad. 42 ; 22 L. T. 276 ; 3 Mar. 
 
 Law Cas. O. S. 357 12. 65, 196 
 
 Ship. Gaz., June 23rd, 1906 ; March 15lh, 1907 173 
 
 " Thomas Jolitfe." See " Avon " and " Thomas Jolille."
 
 Ixx TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 " Thomas Lea," 35 L. T. 40G ; 3 Asp. M. C. -200 ^o.) 
 
 " Thoniiis Martin," 3 Blatchf. 517 '^^^ 
 
 " Thomas V. Wray," 2S Fed. Rep. .V_T, 107 
 
 " Thomas Towcll "' aud " Cuba," 14 L. T. G03 : 2 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 
 
 344 '-' ' 
 
 Thompson r. Hopper, El. Bl. & El. 1038 ; 27 L. J. Q. B. 441 ; 6 W. R. 
 
 .S.)7-Ex. Ch -"'5 
 
 V. Reynolds, 7 E. & B. 172 : 2G L. J. Q. B. 93 ; 23 Jnr. 
 
 N. S. 464 -^4, 27G 
 
 Thomson r. South Eastern Rail. Co., 9 Q. B. D. 320 ; 51 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 322 ; 4G L. T. 513; 30 W. R. 537 '^^^ 
 
 "Thornley," 7 Jnr. G59 10, 306, 494 
 
 " Thornton," 2 Bened. 429 483, 485 
 
 Thornton r. Boland, 2 Binjr. 219 ; 9 Moore, 403 245 
 
 Thoro-ood r. Bryan, S C. B. 115; 18 L. J. C. P. 33G 60, 9G, 98, 99 
 
 Thorp r. Hammond, 12 Wall. 408 86, 475, 488 
 
 Thredgold c. Gosling, Seld. Ser. Admiralty, II. Ixxxiii 136 
 
 "Three R'-ktions " and "Britannia," Faye c. Granam, Marsd. Ad. 
 
 Cas. 331 142 
 
 " Thurinsria," 41 L. J. Ad. 44 ; 26 L. T. 446 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 283 .... 105, 
 
 106, 206 
 " Thyatira." 8 P. D. 115 ; 52 L. J. Ad. 85 ; 49 L. T. 406 ; 32 W. R. 
 
 276; 5 Asp. M. C. 147 110 
 
 " Ticonderoga," Swab. 215 71, 83. 87, 170 
 
 Tills c. " Mary," Marsd. Ad. Cas. 284 89 
 
 Tindall v. Bell. 11 M. & W. 228 ; 12 L. J. Ex. 100 110 
 
 " Tirzah," 4 P. D. 33 ; 48 L. J. Ad. 15 : 39 L. T. 547 ; 27 W. R. 584 ; 
 
 4 A.«p. M. C. 55 341. 343, 349 
 
 " Titan," 23 Fed. Rep. 413 18, 99, 337 
 
 " Titan " and " Rambler," 96 L. T. 93 ; 10 Asp. M. C. 350 1, 362, 
 
 369, 545 
 
 "Tolka." Ad. ]Jiv. 14 Dec. 1886 363 
 
 " Topaze, H.M.S.," 10 L. T. 659 ; 12 W. R. 923 ; 2 Mar. Law Cas. 
 
 0. S. 38 331, 3'^G 
 
 " Toward " aud " Turkistan," 13 Ct. of Sess. Cas. 4th Ser. 342 93 
 
 (not reported) 105 
 
 Traders' North Staffordshire Carrying Co., In re, L. R. 19 Eq. 60 79 
 
 '• Transfer " (No. 2), 56 Fed. Rep. 313 11 
 
 " Transit," 3 Bened. 192 391,414 
 
 " Travc," 68 Fed. Rep. 390 44, 51, 376, 451 
 
 " Tredeberg," (1885) 10 P. D. 112 309 
 
 Trew V. Peirce, " Mary of Poole " and " Mary of Weymouth," Marsd. 
 
 Ad. Cas. 261 123, 139 
 
 "Trident," 1 Sp. 217 330, 491 
 
 "Triune." 3 Hag. lU G3, 151, 158 
 
 " Troy," 28 Fed. Rep. 861 185 
 
 Trufort, Re, Trafford v. Blanc, 36 Ch. D. 600 ; 36 W. R. 163 212 
 
 " Try Again," Ship. Gaz., June 2nd, 1908 442, 443 
 
 Tryon r. National Provident Institution, 16 Q. B. D. 678 : 55 L. J. 
 
 Q. B. 236 ; 54 L. T. 167 ; 34 W. R. 398 . , 9S 
 
 "Tryst." (1909) P. 333 57
 
 TABLE OF CASES. Ixxl 
 
 FAGB 
 
 Tutf r. Warmaii, 2 C. B. N. S. 740 ; 20 L. J. C. V. 263 ; o "\V. R. 685 ; 
 
 on app. 5 C. B. N. S. 573 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 222 : 27 L. J. C. P. 322 ; 6 
 
 W. R. 693— Ex. Ch 14, 19, 20, 21, 40, 41 
 
 "Turquoise," (1908) P. 148: 98 L. T. 588: 77 L. J. P. 97: 11 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 28 362, 364 
 
 " Turret Court," 69 L. J. Ad. 117 : 84 L. T. 331 ; 9 Asp. ^l. C. 162 . . 313 
 «>Tweedsdale," 14 P. D. 104; 58 L. J. Ad. 41; 61 L. T. 371; 37 
 
 W. R. 783 : 6 Asp. M. C. 430 358, 407, 408, 430, 450, 403 
 
 " Tweuty-oue Friends," 33 Fed. Rep. 190 7 
 
 "Two Ellens," Johnson v. Black, 3 Moo. P. C. N. S. 398; L. R. 4 
 
 P. C. 161 ; 41 L. J. Ad. 33 : 23 L. T. 1 ; 20 W. R. 592 ; 1 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 208 73, 74, 70, 81 
 
 " Two Sisters," 1 Pritch. Ad. Dig. (ed. 1887) 248 30 
 
 Twynehara r. Harman, Marsd. Ad. Cas. 130 199 
 
 Tyiie Improvement Commissioners f. General Steam Nav. Co., L. R. 2 
 
 Q. B. 05 ; 5 B. & S. 60 : 30 L. J. Q. B. 22 ; 15 L. T. 487 : 15 W. R. 
 
 178— Ex. Ch 217. 243, 259 
 
 IT. 
 
 Ueborweg v. La Compaguie Geueralc Transatlauticiuc, 00 Fed. Rep. 
 
 401 '^'^'^ 
 
 "Uhla," L. R. 2 A. & E. 29 (note) ; 37 L. J. Ad. 10 (note) ; 19 L. T. 
 
 89 ; 3 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 148 485, 493 
 
 " Ulster" (coming out of dock), 1 Moo P. C. N. S. 31 ; L. T. 730 ; 
 
 1 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 234 471, 497 
 
 (appeal), 1 Moo. P. C. N. S. 31 : 10 W. R. 794 312 
 
 "Umbilo," (1891) P. 118; 00 L. J. Ad. 7 : 64 L. T. 328; 39 W. K. 
 
 336 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 26 ^''^ 
 
 " Umbria," ICO U. S. Rep. 404 102, 328, 376, 380 
 
 " Undaunted," 11 P. D. 46 ; 55 L. J. Ad. 24 : 54 L. T. 542 : 31 W. R. 
 
 680; 6 Asp. M. C. 580 _• ^^^^ 
 
 " Underwriter." See " Lake St. Clair " and " Underwriter." 
 
 "Undine," 2 Pritch. Ad. Dig. 1761 H'^ 
 
 " Union," Lush. 128 ; 30 L. J. Ad. 17 ; 3 L. T. 280 79, 204 
 
 Union Marine Ins. Co. v. Borwick, (1895) 2 Q. B. 279 ; 04 L. .1. Q. B. 
 
 679 ; 73 L. T. 156 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 71 - < ' 
 
 Union Steamship Co. v. Owners of " Aracan." See " American - and 
 
 "Syria." 
 " United Service," 8 P. D. 56 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 55 ; 52 L. J. Ad. IS ; 48 
 L. T. 486 ; 31 W. R. 614 ; on app. 9 P. D. 3 : 53 L. J. Ad. 1 : 32 
 
 W. R. 565 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 170 ; 49 L. T. 701 188, 195, 502 
 
 "UnitedS.ate8,"12L.T. 33-P. C 19,125,500 
 
 . . V. St. Louis & Mississippi Valley Transportation Co., 
 
 184 U. S. Rep. 217 ''' 
 
 "Unity," Swab. 101 314,331.440,4.2 
 
 " Upton Castle," ^906) P. 147 ; 93 L. T. 81 1 ; 75 L. J. P. 77 ; 10 Asp. 
 
 MC.153 357.358,407
 
 Ixxii TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 " Urania." 5 L. T. 402 ; 10 W. R. 97 ; 1 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 156 295 
 
 <• Uranus." Ship. Gaz., March 30th and 31st, 1909— Ad. Ct 226 
 
 Usher t: Lyon, 2 Price, 118 252 
 
 "Uskmoor," (1902) P. 250; 71 L. J. Ad. 103 ; 87 L. T. 55 ; 51 W. R. 
 
 93 ; 9 Asp. M. C. 316 ^69 
 
 " Utopia." (1893) App. Cas. 492 ; 62 L. J. P. C. 118 ; 70 L. T. 47 ; 
 
 IR. 394; 7 Asp. M. C. 408-P. C 82,88,310 
 
 Vadala v. Lawes, 25 Q. B. D. 310 ; 62 L. T. 701 ; 63 ibid. 128 ; 38 
 
 W. R. 594 212 
 
 " Valleyo," Ad. Div. 27th April, 1887 58 
 
 Van Eijck v. Soraerville, (1906) A. C. 489 ; 10 Asp. M. C. 263 166 
 
 " Vanderbilt," 6 Wall. 225 330, 445 
 
 Vanderplank r. Miller, M. & M. 169 472 
 
 " Vandyk," 7 P. D. 42 ; on app. 47 L. T. 694 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 17 282 
 
 "Velasquez," Owners of "Velasquez" v. Briggs, 4 Moo. P. C. N. S. 
 
 426; L. R. 1 P. C. 494 ; 36 L. J. Ad. 19 ; 16 L. T. 777 ; 16 W. R. 
 
 89 224, 232 
 
 " Velocity," 6 Moo. P. C. N. S. 263 ; L. R. 3 P. C. 44 ; 39 L. J. Ad. 
 
 20 ; 21 L. T. 686 ; 18 W. R. 264 292, 317, 327, 331, 400, 402, 411, 
 
 445, 446 
 
 Velthasen v. Ormsby, 3 T. R. 315 199 
 
 Vennall v. Gamer, 1 Car. & M. 21 ; 3 Tyr. 85 4 
 
 "Vera Cruz," No. 1 (infringement of regulations), 9 P. D. 88 ; 53 L. J. 
 
 Ad. 33 ; 51 L. T. 24 ; 32 W. R. 783 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 254. . . .20, 43, 45, 55, 
 
 59, 61, 123, 132, 206, 305 
 No. 2 (jurisdiction in rem), 9 P. D. 96 ; 53 L. J. Ad. 33 : 
 
 51 L. T. 104 • 5 Asp. M. C. 270 ; (H. L.) nom. Seward r. "Vera 
 
 Cruz," 10 App. Cas. 59 ; 54 L. J. Ad. 9 ; 52 L. T. 474 ; 33 W. R. 
 
 477 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 386 21, 76, 114, 204, 210, 211, 297 
 
 Verduen c. March (not reported) 136 
 
 " Veritas," (1901) P. 304 ; 70 L. J. Ad. 75 : 85 L. T. 136 ; 9 Asp. M. C. 
 
 237 77, 78, 281, 304 
 
 " Vernon," 1 W. Rob. 310 207, 224 
 
 " Vesper," 9 Fed. Rep. 569 376, 381 
 
 " Vesta" (pilot), 7 P. D. 240 ; 51 L. J. Ad. 25 ; 46 L. T. 492 ; 30 W. R. 
 
 705 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 515 256, 259 
 
 " Ve-iuvius " and " Savernake." See " Savernake." 
 
 "Vianna," Swab. 405 498 
 
 " Vicksburg," 7 Blatchf. 216 488 
 
 "Victor," Lush. 72; 29 L. J. Ad. 110; 2 L. T. 331 75, 80, 297, 298 
 
 "Victor Covacevitch," 10 P. D. 40; 54 L. J. Ad. 48 ; 52 L. T. 632; 
 
 5 Asp. M. C. 417 292 
 
 " Victoria " (lights), 3 W. Rob. 49 334, 336, 380, 382, 384 
 
 (pilot), Jx. Rep. Ad. 1 Eq. 336 245, 261
 
 TABLE OF CASES. Ixxl 
 
 XXlll 
 
 PAOB 
 "Victoria," No. 1 (damage to cargo), 12 P. D. 105 ; 56 L. J. Ad. 75 : 
 
 56 L. T. 499; 35 W. R. 291 : 6 Asp. M. C. 120 76 
 
 No. 2 (life claimants), 13 P. D. 125 ; 57 L. J. Ad. 103 ; 59 
 
 L. T. 728 ; 37 W. R. 62 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 335 166 
 
 " Victoria " and " Keilawarra." See Australian, &c. Co. r. Smith. 
 Victorian Railway Commissioners v. Coultas, 13 App. Cas. 222; 57 
 
 L. J. P. C. 69 ; 58 L. T. 390 ; 37 W. R. 129 100 
 
 "Victory" and " Plymothian," 168 U. S. Rep. 410 131, 403 
 
 " Vildosala," 42 L. T. 96 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 228 294 
 
 •' Ville du Havre," 7 Bened. 328 474 
 
 " Vindomora," 14 P. D. 172 ; 59 L. J. Ad. 8 ; 61 L. T. 655 ; 38 W. R. 
 
 69; 6 Asp. M. C. 438 ; affd. (1891) App. Cas. 1 ; 60 L. J. Ad. 1 ; 
 
 63 L. T. 749 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 569 328, 380 
 
 " Viola," 59 Fed. Rep. 632 42, 471 
 
 Violet t'. Blague, Cro. Jac. 514 199 
 
 «' Virgil," 2 W. Rob. 201 7, 288 
 
 ♦' Virginia Ehrmau," 7 Otto, 309 182, 269 
 
 " Virgo," 35 L. T. 519 ; 25 W. R. 397 ; 3 Asp. M. C. 285 9, 25 
 
 7 Bened. 495 417 
 
 " Vivar," 2 P. D. 29 ; 35 L. T. 782 ; 25 W. R. 453 : 3 Asp. M. C. 
 
 308— C. A 199, 285 
 
 "Vivid" (speed), Swab. 88; on app. nom. Churchward r. Palmer, 
 10 Moo. P. C. 472 ; 4 W. R. 755— P. C 40, 377 
 
 (keep her course), 7 Not. of Cas. 127 383, 412, 419 
 
 (foul berth), 42 L. J. Ad. 57 ; 28 L. T. 375 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 
 
 601 478, 479, 483 
 
 Vognel c. Tomlinson, Marsd. Ad. Cas. 314 75, 146 
 
 "Volant" (part-owner; liability), 1 W. Rob. 383; 1 Not. of Cas. 
 
 503 80, 146, 158, 200, 297 
 
 (arrest ; damages) , Br. & L. 321 298 
 
 Volcano," 2 W. Rob. 337 94, 479, 481 
 
 " Voorwaarts " and "Khedive," Stoomvaart, «S:c. Co. r. Peninsular, &c.Co. 
 
 (infringement of regulations), 5 App. Cas. 876 ; 52 L. J. Ad. 1 ; 43 
 
 L. T. 610 ; 29 W. R. 173 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 360— H. L. ...3, 41, 42, 45—59, 
 317, 318, 321—324, 421, 422—431, 452—454, 462, 465, 477 
 "Voorwaarts "and "Khedive." Stoomvaart, &c. Co. r. Peninsular, &c.Co. 
 
 (division of loss), 7 App. Cas. 795 ; 52 L. J. Ad. 1 : 47 L. T. 198 ; 
 
 31 W. R. 249 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 567-H. L 17, 61, 68, 87, 121, 123, 124, 
 
 127, 129, 130, 132, 146, 165, 206, 275 
 
 " Vortigern," Swab. 518 ; 1 L. T. 307 '286 
 
 " Vrow Janetze," Ad. Ct. 2nd Feb. 1820 145 
 
 W. 
 
 "■ W. A. Levering," 36 Fed. Rep. 511 191> '^'^^ 
 
 " W. A. Scholten," 13 P. D. 8 ; 57 L. J. Ad. 4 ; 58 L. T. 91 ; 36 W. R. 
 
 559 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 244 -"•'' 
 
 "W. C. Redfield," 4 Bened. 227 •'0''. ^SS 
 
 <i
 
 Ixxiv TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 " AV. H. Grutwiik," 81 Fed. Rep. 590 182 
 
 " W. J. Keyser," SG Fed. Rep. 731 190 
 
 AVahlberg v. Young, 45 L. J. C. V. 783 ; 24 W. R. 846 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 
 .,- 162, 195, 299 
 
 Waite c. North Eastern Ry. Co., E. B. & E. 7 19 99 
 
 Wakelin r. London and South Western Ry. Co., VI App. Cas. 41 ; 50 
 
 L. J. Q. B. 229 ; 55 L. T. 709 ; 35 W. R. 144 21, 29, 32 
 
 Walker V. Maitland, 5 B. & A. 171 272, 275 
 
 " Wallace," 4 1 Fed. Rep. 894 482 
 
 Walsh V. Brooklyn and New York Ferry Co., G8 Fed. Rep. 507 322, 
 
 412, 497 
 " Walter D. Wallet," (1893) P. 202 ; G2 L. J. Ad. 88 ; 69 L. T. 771 ; 
 
 7 Asp. M. C. 398 298 
 
 Waltliam r. jriilgar, Moo. 776 65 
 
 •' Wanata." 4 Bened. 310 ; 5 Otto, COO = 1C3 
 
 •• Wanderer," 20 Fed. Rep. 140 132 
 
 " Wansfell," 1 Sp. 269 40 
 
 " Warkworth," 9 P. D. 20 ; 53 L. J. Ad. 4 ; 32 W. R. 479 ; 49 L. T. 
 
 715 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 194 ; on app. 9 P. D. 145 ; 53 L. J. Ad. 65 ; 33 
 
 W. R. 112 ; 51 L. T. 558 ; 33 W. R. 112 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 326— C. A. . .9, 25, 
 
 151, 157, 161, 228, 300, 311 
 •• Warrior," L. R. 3 A. & E. 553 ; 27 L. T. 101 : 21 W. R. 82 ; 1 Asp. 
 
 :\[. C. 400 335, 406, 464 
 
 " Warsaw," (1898) P. 127 ; 07 L. J. Ad. 50 ; 78 L. T. 327 ; 46 W. R. 
 
 638 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 399 244, 256, 259 
 
 " Warwick," 15 P. D. 189 ; 63 L. T. 561 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 545 358 
 
 " Washington," 5 Jur. 1067 123. 305 
 
 '^ Wasp," L. R. 1 A. k E. 367 : 16 L. T. 854 ; 2 Mar. LawCas. O. S. 
 
 552 80 
 
 •' AVaterloo." 2 Dods. Ad. 433 84 
 
 Wayde v. Lady Carr. 2 Dow. & R. 255 445 
 
 '• Webb," 14 Wall. 406 182, 187, 197 
 
 Webster v. Di.-iharoon, 64 Fed. Rep. 143 69 
 
 V. Manchester, Shettield, &c. Ry. Co., 5 Asp. M. C. 256, u 286 
 
 " Wega," (1895) P. 156 : 64 L. J. Ad. 68 ; 72 L. T. 332 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 
 
 597 537, 540 
 
 Wells V. Armstrong, 29 Fed. Rep. 216 33 
 
 f. Osman, 2 Raym. 1044 ; 6 Mod. 238 St 
 
 '• Wenona." 19 Wall. 41 326 
 
 •• Wesley," Lu.sh. 268 256, 257 
 
 •• Western Belle," 95 L. T. 364 ; 10 Asp. M. C. 279 474, 476 
 
 ' ' Westei-nland," 24 Fed. Rep. 703 22, 500 
 
 " Westhall," 153 Fed. Rep. 1010 330 
 
 " Westphalia," 4 Bcued. 404 ; 24 L. T. 75 ; 1 Asp. M. C. 12 381 
 
 " Wexford," 13 P. D. 10 ; 57 L. J. Ad. 6 ; 58 L. T. 28 ; 36 W. R. 560 ; 
 
 Asp. M. C. 244 106 
 
 Wharton c. Pitts, 1 Salk. 518 199 
 
 " Wheatsheaf " and " Intrepide," 13 L. T. 612 ; 2 Mar. LawCas. O. S. 
 
 292 27, 435 
 
 White V. Crisp, 10 E.\-. 312 26, 88
 
 TABLE OF CASES. IxXV 
 
 TAOK 
 
 White V. Dobinson, 14 Sim. 373 o-,5 
 
 r. Phillips, 15 C. B. N. S. 245 : 33 L. J. C. T. 33 : 10 Jiir. N. S. 
 
 425 : L. T. 388 ji^ 
 
 White c. Walker, Seld. Ser. Adm. II. Ixxsiv 137 
 
 " "SMiiteash," and " Winnie," 64 Fed. Eep. 893 412, 4G2 
 
 " ^Miitlieburii," S3 L. T. 748 ; 9 Asp. M. C. 154 n\'. 414 
 
 " Whitney," 77 Fed. Rep. 1001 37I 
 
 Whitridffe r. Dill. 23 How. 448 4;j(j^ 47-, 
 
 " Why Not," L. E. 2 A. & E. 265 : 38 L. J. Ad. 26 ; IS L. T. 861 . . . .' 288 
 "Wild Ranger." Lush. 553: 32 L. J. Ad. 49; 9 Jur. X. S. 134; 
 
 7 L. T. 725 ; 11 W. R. 255 UG. 007 
 
 Wildman c. Bkkes. See " Petersfield " and "Judith Randolph." 
 " Wilhelmina." Sec " Williaraina." 
 
 Wilkins V. Day, 12 Q. B. D. 110 : 49 L. T. 399 ; 32 W. R. 123 31 
 
 Wilkinson c. Clarke (not reported) 1 m; 
 
 «' Willajnette," 70 Fed. Rep. 874 17 
 
 " Willard Saulsbury," 1 Pars, on Ship. (ed. 1869) 504 3(;i 
 
 " Willcm III.," L. R. 3 A. & E. 487 : 25 L. T. 386 ; 20 W. R. 216 : 
 
 1 Asp. M. C. 129 7:, 
 
 " William," 4 Quebec L. R. 306 170, i82 
 
 " William Cox," 9 Fed. Rep. 672 190 
 
 " AVilliam Hutt," Lush. 25 290 293 29t 
 
 " William Kraft," 33 Fed. Rep. 847 '. 190,' 193 
 
 '•William Lindsay," L. R. 5 P. C. 338; 29 L. T. 355 ; 22 W. R. 6; 
 
 2 Asp. M. C. 118 9, 25, 93, 4S1 
 
 " William Money," 2 Hag. 136 81 
 
 ' ' William Murtaugh," 3 Fed. Rep. 404 190 
 
 '• Willinm AY. Wood," 66 Fed. Rep. 601 179 
 
 " WiUiamina," 3 P. D. 97 110 
 
 Williams c. Marten, Seld. Ser. Adm. II. Ixxxlv ; 128 
 
 V. Newton, 14 M. & W. 747 ; 15 L. J. Ex. 11 256 
 
 Willoughby r. Horridge, 12 C. B. 742 97 
 
 Wilsey v. " Celestial Empire," 2 Fed. Rep. 651 ISO 
 
 Wilson r. Currie, "Otto" and " Thorsa," (1894) App. Cas. 116- 
 
 H. L .-,1, 325, 398, 427 
 
 f- Dickson, 2 B. & Aid. 2 146, 150, 158 
 
 V. Merry, L. R. 1 Sc. Ap. 326 99 
 
 ''. Newport Dock Co., L. R. 1 Ex. 177 101,114 
 
 Wilson Sons r. Owners of Cargo r.r " Xantho," 12 App. Cas. 503; 56 
 
 L. J. Ad. 110 ; 57 L. T. 701 ; 36 W. R. 353 ; G Asp. M. C. 9, 207— 
 
 H. L 2(16, 267 
 
 Windhum and otliers v. Robertson, 42 Sc. Law Rep. 602 430 
 
 " Winestead," (1895) P. 170; 11 R. 59 ; 64 L. J. Ad. 51 : 72 L. T. 91 ; 
 
 7 Asp. M. C. 547 255, 
 
 .)-, 
 
 )i 
 
 " Winkfield," (1902) P. 42 ; 71 L. J. Ad. 21 ; S5 L. T. 668 ; 49 W. R. 
 
 685; 9 Asp. M. C. 259-C. A 97, 166 
 
 " Winooski," 162 Fed. Rep. 64 376 
 
 " Winstanley," (1896) P. 297 ; 65 L. J. Ad. 121 ; 74 L. T. 432; affd. 
 
 75 L. T. 133 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 170 12, 403, 504
 
 Ixxvi TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 "Winston," 8 P. D. 176 ; 52 L. J. Ad. 72 ; 49 L. T. 403 ; 31 W. R. 
 
 892 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 143; on app. 9 P. D. 85 ; 53 L. J. Ad. 69; 51 
 
 L. T. 183 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 274-C. A 223, 225, 230, 245, 246, 308 
 
 " WiiTall," 3 W. Rob. 56 472 
 
 " Wisconsin," 23 Fed. Rep. 283 353, 365 
 
 Withcofsky v. Wier, 32 Fed. Rep. 301 74 
 
 " Wobum Abbey," 38 L. J. Ad. 28 ; 20 L. T. 621 ; 3 ilar. Law Gas. 
 
 O. S. 240 220,482 
 
 Wood V. Smith. See " City of Cambridge." 
 
 " Woodford," Ship. Gaz., March 10th & 1 1th, 1905 9 
 
 Woodley v. Michell, 11 Q. B. D. 47 ; 52 L. J. Q. B. 325 ; 48 L. T. 599 ; 
 
 31 W. R. 651 : 5 Asp. M. C. 71-C. A 266, 267, 269 
 
 '• Woodrop Sims," 2 Dods. Ad. 83 117, 124, 142 
 
 Wordsworth v. Willan, 4 Esp. 273 445 
 
 Workman r. Mayor, &c. New York, 179 U. S. Rep. 552 86 
 
 Worth r. Steam Tug " William Murtagh," 6 Fed. Rep. 192 90 
 
 " Wrestler," 144 Fed. Rep. 334 ; 153 Fed. Rep. 973 442 
 
 Wright P. Lethbridge, 63 L. T. 572 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 558— C. A 91, 94 
 
 '•Wyanoko," 40 Fed. Rep. 702 382 
 
 X. 
 
 " Xantho." See Wilson Son.s r. Owners of Cargo ex " Xantho." 
 Xenos r. Fox, L. R. 4 C. P. 665; 38 L. J. C. P. 351 ; 19 L. T. 84; 
 17 W. R. 893-Ex. Ch 273 
 
 Yates V. HaU, 1 T. R. 73 149 
 
 V. Whyte, 4 Bing. N. C. 272 ; 2 Scott, 640 ; 7 L. J. C. P. 116. . 115, 
 
 276, 278 
 
 Yaxley v. Delavall, Seld. Ser. Admiralty, II. Ixxxiv 138 
 
 " Ydun," (1899) P. 236 ; 68 L. J. Ad. 101 ; 81 L. T. 10 ; 8 Asp. M. C. 
 
 551— C. A 93 
 
 " Yeager," 20 Fed. Rep. 653 278 
 
 ' ' Yorkshireman," 2 Hag. Ad. 30 (note) 110 
 
 " Young America " (damages), 54 Fed. Rep. 410 108, 110 
 
 (tug and tow), 25 Fed. Rep. 207 184, 189 
 
 — —(tug and tow), 26 Fed. Rep. 174 110, 131, 184, 190 
 
 " Young Mechanic," 2 Curtis, 404 74 
 
 "Yourri" and "Spearman," 10 App. Cas. 276; 53 L. T. 29 ; 5 Asp. 
 
 M. C. 458— P. C 441, 501
 
 TABLE OF CASES. Ixxvii 
 
 Z. 
 
 PAOB 
 
 "Zadok," 9 P. D. 114; 53 L. J. Ad. 72; 32 W. R. 1003; 50 L. T. 
 
 695 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 252 3o, 36, 374, 375, 382. 383, 409, 457. 471 
 
 " Zanzibar," (1892) P. 233 : 61 L. J. Ad. 81 ; 68 L. T. 297 ; 40 W. R. 
 
 702 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 258 154 
 
 "Zephyr," 11 L. T. 351 ; 2 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 146 296, 297 
 
 " Zeta." See Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v. Turner. 
 
 "Zoe," 11 P. D. 72; 55 L. J. Ad. 52; 54 L. T. 879; 35 W. R. 61; 
 
 5 Asp. M. C. 583 164, 166 
 
 " Zollverein," Swab. 96 ; 2 Jui-. N. S. 429 205, 206 493
 
 THE LAW 
 
 OF 
 
 COLLISIONS AT SEA, 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 The mere fact that a ship strikes or goes foul of and injures Collision 
 another creates no liability in herself, her owners, or those in ne"-li"-euce 
 
 s no 
 
 charge of her. The assertion that one ship " ran down " — in iTcatos i 
 
 o ^ _ liability 
 
 the language of the old cases "stemmed" — the other, is a 
 mere allegation of negligence, and in no way advances the 
 case {((). Thus where a tug was lawfully lying alongside a 
 pontoon, and was run into by another vessel, and driven 
 against the pontoon, it was held that no action would lie by 
 tlie owners of the pontoon against the tug (b). In order tliat 
 damages may be recovered, negligence for wliich the owners 
 or persons in charge of the ship sued are responsible must be 
 proved. There is but one case only in whicli damages may 
 be recovered without proof of negligence — where one of the 
 statutory regulations, which might by possibility have con- 
 tributed to the collision, has been infringed. Here a statutory 
 rule of law (e) requires that the ship which lias broken the 
 law shall be deemed to be in fault for the collision. It 
 excludes evidence directed to show that the infringement did 
 not in fact contribute to the collision, and renders the con- 
 sideration of the question of actual negligence unnecessary. 
 
 («) The James Wait, 2 AV. Rob. (i) T/ic Titan, 10 Asp. 350. 
 
 270, 278; iind pei- Lord Esher, The (c) 57 & 58 Vict. c. GO, s. 419. 
 Margaret, 6 V. i). 7G. 
 
 M. »
 
 NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 Case of 
 
 iii8criitjil)le 
 
 fault. 
 
 What is 
 negligence. 
 
 The precise effect of this important enactment is considered 
 in Chapter II., below. 
 
 Where a ship, or each of two ships, alleges negligence on 
 the part of the other, and it is manifest that the collision was 
 caused by fault somewhere, but the evidence does not satisfy 
 the Court on Avhich side the fault lies, no damages can on 
 tlio same principle be recovered, and each ship bears her own 
 loss {(/). The Englisli law as to the incidence of loss in this 
 case diifors from that of some foreign countries, and also, it 
 seems, from wliat has been called the general maritime 
 law (c) . 
 
 Negligence which, as stated above, is the foundation of 
 the right to recover damages in an action of collision, is the 
 failure to exercise the skill, care and nerve which are ordinarily 
 to be found in a competent seaman. " We are not to expect 
 extraordinary skill or extraordinary diligence, but that degree 
 of skill, and that degree of diligence, which is generally to be 
 found in persons w^ho discharge their 'duty " (,/"). In The 
 Dundee {(j), Lord Stowell defined negligence as " a want of 
 that attention and vigilance which is due to the security of 
 other vessels that are navigating the same seas, and wOiich, if 
 so far neglected as to become, however unintentionally, the 
 cause of damage of any extent to such other vessels, the 
 maritime law considers as a dereliction of bounden duty, 
 entitling the sufferer to a reparation in damages." In a case 
 before the House of Lords, it was said that the duty of a 
 seaman is " to take reasonable care and to use reasonable 
 skill to prevent the ship from doing injury ; " and this 
 reasonable care must be tested by the circumstances of each 
 
 [d) The Maid of ^Lulchnd, 6 Not. 
 of Cas. 240 ; The Catherine of Dover, 
 2 Hajr. Ad. 145 ; The laconia, 2 
 Moo. P. C. N. S. 161 ; and see per 
 Lord AVensleydale, More/a)! v. Sim, 
 The Lo»do)i, 11 Moo. P. C. 307, 312. 
 But formerly the law was otherwise ; 
 i^ifra, p. 13.5 siq. As to whether 
 trespass or case "was the proper form 
 of action at common law, see Davis 
 V. Saunders, 2 Chit. 639 ; Ogle v. 
 Barnes, 8 T. E. 188 ; Huggett v. 
 Montgomery, 2 Bos. and P. N. E. 445. 
 
 ((') See Bell's Commentaries on 
 the Law of Scotland (ed. 1870, hy 
 McLaren), I. C27 ; Bynkershoek, 
 
 Quc-Bst. Jur. Priv. C. 4, c. 18; 
 Pothier, vol. 4, p. 44 i. There is 
 no express authority for this i-tate- 
 ment as to the peculiarity of English 
 law, and there are earlier decisions 
 to the contrary ; but there is no 
 doubt that the law is as stated in 
 the text. As to the Roman and 
 foreign law on the point, see irifra, 
 p. 63, and the note at the foot of 
 Chapter VI. 
 
 (/) Ter Dr. Lushington, The 
 Thomas Powell and The Cuba, 14 
 L. T. 603. 
 
 {g) 1 Hag. Ad. 120.
 
 ORDINARY CARE REQUIRED. 3 
 
 case, thus in the case of a collision between a ship being 
 launched and another afloat, it was held that under the 
 circumstances the utmost possible precautions by those in 
 charge of the launch were essential, and that it was negligence 
 not to take every possible step to assure themselves that 
 nothing was approaching the place which the launch would 
 reach {//). Generally speaking, negligence causing a collision 
 may arise either from a breach of one of the regulations for 
 preventing collisions or from a failure, as abeudy stated, to 
 exercise reasonable skill and care in a matter of seamanship. 
 Thus, if a ship comes into collision through not going at a 
 moderate speed in a fog, she has broken an international 
 and written rule of seamanship. If, seeing a fog ahead, a vessel 
 has not taken precautions to lessen her speed as she approaches 
 the fog and a collision in the fog is a result, she will be held 
 to blame, because those in charge have not exercised good 
 seamanship (/). 
 
 If a vessel by her own fault makes a collision so imminent A wrong step 
 that it cannot be avoided except by extraordinary skill, nerve, aL'^^'J-'ofure 
 or exertion on the part of the other ship, and a collision collision is not 
 occurs, it will be held to have been caused by the former, "''^''^'''°''^- 
 and she will be liable for the entire loss (/.•). And the same 
 principle applies in all cases of sudden and great danger 
 whether caused by negligence or not. The law requires that 
 a seaman should exhibit ordinary presence of mind and 
 ordinary skill ; but it is manifest that at a moment of great 
 peril a man may do, or omit to do, something which may 
 contribute to the collision, without thereby showing himself 
 deficient in ordinary skill, care, or nerve. Such an act or 
 
 {h) The George Roper, 8 P. D. 119. place a man in such a situation that 
 
 (t) The St. I'aid, (1908) P. 320, at he must adopt a perilous alternative 
 
 p. 336; 11 Asp. 152, at p. 156. (as jumping- oflE a coach), I am 
 
 {k) The Nor, 2 Asp. M. C. 264; responsible for the consequences." 
 
 The C. 3[. Palmer and The Larnax, Amongst manj^ American ca-ses to 
 
 infra ; The Pyriis and The Smales, the same effect are : The Xichals, 7 
 
 Holt. 40; The Sustcrs, IP. D. 117; Wall. 656; The Carroll, 8 AVall. 
 
 The Bijwell Casllc, '^ 'P. T). 21^; The 302, The City of Paris, 9 Wall. 
 
 Il'clltain Frederick and The Pyfoqed 634; The Lucile, 15 Wall. 676; 
 
 VhriHlensen, 4 App. Gas. 669; The The Favorita, 18 Wall. 598; The 
 
 J'oorwaartu and The Khedive, 5 App. Falcon, 19 Wall. 75; The Sea Gull, 
 
 Gas. 876. Gf. also Clayards v. 23 Wall. 165 ; The Man/ Aiiyii.sta, 
 
 Drthiek, 12 Q. B. 439; and per 55 Fed. Rep. 343 ; The Luzerne, U^l 
 
 Lord KUeuborough, G. J., in Jones Fed. Rep. 391. 
 V. Boyce, 1 Stark. 493, 495: " If I 
 
 b2
 
 4 NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 omission is not lield to be negligence (/) . So where the 
 action of the other ship is so unexpected and unaccountable 
 tliat it could not reasonably have been anticipated, failure to 
 do absolutely the right thing is viewed with lenience (m). 
 Exoopt where There is, however, an exception to the above rule where a 
 statiito'i^' ship has, even under circumstances of sudden and extra- 
 pivsi.mi.ti. n ordinarv l)eril, infringed one of the statutory regulations 
 tliat might by possibility have contributed to the collisioUo 
 In such a case, although those on board have not, in fact, 
 been guilty of any neghgent act or omission (>?), by the 
 arbitrary enactment above referred to tlie ship is deemed to 
 be in fault for the collision. 
 E<:implep. Tlie following cases illustrate the principle above mentioned, 
 
 tliat a wrong step taken in the agony of the collision will not 
 necessarily cause the ship to be held in fault for the collision. 
 A sailing sliip (o) in a thick fog sighted another at so short 
 a distance that in a minute, or less than a minute, the ships 
 were in collision. Her helm was altered, but the head- 
 sheets, which had just been let go, were not hauled aft, nor 
 were the lee braces let go, so as to assist her head in paying 
 off. It was held that, even if the collision could have been 
 avoided by the measures suggested, the time was so short 
 tliat there was no negligence in their omission. 
 
 A steamship bound down the river Thames on a very dark 
 night was rounding-to in Gravesend Reach before coming to 
 an anchor. While rounding-to she ran into and sank a 
 vessel at anchor without a riding light up. The instant the 
 latter vessel was seen the engines of the steamship were 
 stopped and reversed, but her anchor was not let go. It was 
 held that, even if the collision could have been averted by 
 letting go the anchor, the master of the steamship was not 
 guilty of negligence, because, at the moment, it did not 
 occur to him to let go his anchor {p). 
 
 {I) The Sisters, 1 P. D. 117 ; The the other's bows and struck her on 
 
 Jcsmond and The Earlof Eltjiji, L. R. the far side. 
 
 4 P. C. 1, 7; The JUarpeka, L. R. (;*) Infra, p. 39. 
 
 4 P. C. 212; Veniiall v. Garner, 1 (o) The Marpesia, L. R. 4 P. C. 
 
 Cr. & M. 21 ; The City of Antv;erp 212. 
 
 and rAei='m'(/nc/(, L. R. 2P. C. 25. {p) The C. M. Falmer and The 
 
 {m) The Mexico, Si Fed. Rep. 50 u, Larnax, 2 Asp. M. C. 94; The 
 
 where a steamship, whose duty it Elizabatli and The Adalia, 22 L. T. 
 
 was to keep out of the way, crossed 74, is a similar case.
 
 EXA>rPLES THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 liyrhts; hail- 
 iufr or other 
 oinban-assiufj 
 acts. 
 
 But if a ship seeks to excuse herself for taking a wrong 
 step, which, in fact, caused or contributed to tlie collision, 
 upon the ground of sudden peril, she nmst show clearly that 
 she was in no way responsible for the sudden peril (q). 
 
 Upon the same principle, if a ship by carrying wrong Misleudinj 
 lights, or by navigating in an improper or unusual manner, 
 misleads or embarrasses another, she cannot attribute as a 
 fault to the latter any act which was the probable result of 
 her own negligence (r) . So where a ship is hailed from 
 another to take a particular course, and she obeys tlic hail, 
 the other ship cannot be heard to say that the course was 
 wrong, although, in fact, it caused the collision and was in 
 violation of the regulations (s). 
 
 Where there is risk of collision, and the regulations require Beth ship-; 
 both ships to alter their courses, or to take other measures to '^!"t'h the"^ ' 
 avoid collision, it is negligence in either ship not to take the ref?uhitions. 
 prescribed step. One of them cannot excuse herself for 
 disobeying the law upon the ground that there would have 
 been no collision if the other had obeyed the law. In sucli 
 a case she would be prevented from recovering more than 
 half her loss by the statute (f) ; and, independently of the 
 statute, a vessel, which, by infringing the regulations, or by 
 negligence in any other respect, contributes to a collision, is 
 held to be in fault {u). 
 
 It is sometimes contended on the part of a ship tliat has in ordiuury 
 
 failed to comply with the regulations, and is herself in fault, j'?*^*^ ".° 
 
 J- '^ _ ° ' _ ' discrotiou as 
 
 that the other ship is guilty of contributory negligence for tocimiplyin;,' 
 not having departed from the regulations (x). Such a con- ^pUliations. 
 
 {(/) See T/te Bywell Caslh, 4 P. D. 
 219, and the cases cited above. 2'lie 
 J)(irid Morris, Brown, Ad. 273 ; T/ic 
 Ehzabelh Jonex, ti Da.v. .t14. 
 
 (>•) The Hob Ro)/, 3 W. Rob. 190; 
 The Scotia, 14 Wall. 170 ; Thr Manj 
 lloumeU, 4 P. D. 204 ; 40 L. T. 3G8. 
 
 (•s) Sec The dtrolus liotchcrs, 3 
 Hag. Ad. 343, note. In this case a 
 t>hip close-hauled on tlie starboard 
 tack hailed another close-hauled on 
 the port tack to keep her luff. The 
 latter did .so, and a collision occurred. 
 The first ship was held in favilt. It 
 is snlnnitted that the decisi(jn wouM 
 be the same at the present day, and 
 
 that such a case is provided for by 
 
 Art. 
 
 Sec also U'ilmii v. Cmiadii, 
 
 Shipping Co., The Lake St. Clair and 
 Tlie Undcru:ritir, 2 App. Csis. 389 ; 
 3 Asp. M. C. 361 ; The James ll'att, 
 2 W. Rob. 270; The Lidrpculanr, 
 14 Moo. P. C. 103, 109; The Jlimtns.s, 
 2 Sprusi-ue, 01. 
 
 {t) See below, pp. 39 scq. 
 
 («) See The Amcrict, 2 Otto, J32. 
 
 [x) The Bijfojfd Chri.sfciii'iii, 4 
 App. Cas. 669. In The Taimaiiia, 
 the contention, which had n(jt been 
 raised before Butt, J., succeeded in 
 the Court of Appeal, 11 P. D. .Vi : 
 but the decision of that Court was in
 
 liievitab!e 
 
 NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 tention will seldom succeed. It will be seen below {y) that a 
 construction lias been put upon 57 & 5S Vict. c. 60, s. 419 (4), 
 and Article 27 of the regulations, which leaves to persons in 
 charge of ships little discretion as to complying or not com- 
 plying with a regulation, where it is possible that the 
 collision may be avoided by obeying it. In The Benares {z), 
 it was held by the Court of Appeal that where by departing 
 from the regulations there is a chance of avoiding a collision 
 that is otherwise inevitable, a vessel will not be held in fault 
 for taking advantage of that chance ; but that she should be 
 held guilty of negligence for adhering to the regulations, 
 the circumstances must be very exceptional {a). 
 
 A coUision which could not by any care or skill have been 
 acfiaent. prevented is accurately described as an inevitable accident. 
 But the term " inevitable accident " in Admiralty is 
 sometimes used in a wider and looser sense to describe a 
 collision which could not have been prevented by ordinary 
 care. Indeed, the word " inevitable " has found its way into 
 judgments in which a plaintiff has failed to prove that a 
 defendant was negligent. As far as possible, therefore, 
 cases of true inevitable accident should be distinguished from 
 cases in which negligence on the part of a defendant has 
 not been proved. The phrase is not a happy one, for a 
 collision which might have been avoided by the exercise of 
 extraordinary skill and care is not inevitable (b). 
 
 In T/ie Europa (c), Dr. Lushingtou states that inevitable 
 accident is " where one vessel doing a lawful act without any 
 intention of harm, and using proper precautions, unfortu- 
 nately happens to run into another vessel." Again, it has 
 been said, " to constitute inevitable accident, it is necessary 
 that the occurrence should have taken place in such a manner 
 as not to have been capable of being prevented by ordinary 
 skill and ordinary prudence. We are not to expect extra- 
 ordinary skill or extraordinary diligence, but that degree of 
 
 turn reversed by the House of Lords of inevitable accident seems to have 
 
 (15 App. Gas. 223). See also The hoen '^ casus fortuitiis." In a plead- 
 
 lliyhgate, 6 Asp. M. C. 512. inff of the seventeenth century a 
 
 {y) I».f>'a, p. -i". collision without any special circum- 
 
 {z) 9 P. D. 16. stances is stated to have occurred 
 
 (a) Of. JI.M.S. Sam Pareil, (1900) because " God so willed it" ; Selden 
 
 P. 267. Soc. Ser., Vol. 11, p. Ixxxi. 
 
 (J) In the old cases the equivalent (c) 14 Jur. 627, 629.
 
 INEVITABLE ACCIDENT. 
 
 A collision 
 
 skill cand that degree of diligence which is generally to be 
 found in persons avIio discharge their duty"(</). The 
 Privy Council, adopting the language of Dr. Lushington, 
 defined inevitable accident to be " that which a party cliarged 
 with an offence could not possibly prevent by the exercise of 
 ordinary care, caution, and maritime skill" (<>), and this 
 must now be regarded as an authoritative definition (/). 
 
 From the above considerations it is evident that to sustain 
 tlie plea of inevitable accident it is not enougli to show raerelv ""^-^ ^'' ^'lust^tl 
 
 ii , ,1 1,. . . ., 1 , , , "^ bvnoirliirenco 
 
 that the colhsion was inevitable at the moment of, or for thcu-h iu- 
 
 some moments before, its occurrence. The weight of a ship somMinfe'^ 
 
 and her momentum are so great that her rudder, and even ^^^^"■<' it 
 
 her engines (in the case of a steamship) are frequently °^^"'^^^" 
 
 powerless to avert a collision for some time before the sliips 
 
 come together. It is not enough for a ship to show that, as 
 
 soon as the necessity for taking measures to avoid collisions 
 
 was perceived, all that could be done was done. The 
 
 question remains whether precautions should not have been 
 
 taken earlier. When two ships are shown to have been in a 
 
 position in which a collision was inevitable, the question is, 
 
 by whose fault, if there was fault, did the vessels get into 
 
 such a position ? {g) . Thus, if a vessel is proceeding at too 
 
 great a rate of speed, or with no look-out (//), she cannot be 
 
 heard to allege inevitable accident (/). 
 
 Where a collision is the result of inevitable accident the Burden of 
 burden of proving that it was so does not in the first instance P''»\'"7, 
 attach to the ship alleging it. But where a prima facie case accident, 
 of negligence is made out, as when the .plaintiff's vessel has 
 been run into when at anchor, then it lies on the ship 
 alleging inevitable accident to prove it (/.•) . 
 
 It seems that a vessel in default for not having lights, or Vessel in- 
 
 [d) The Thomas FouelUnd TheCuha, 
 U L. T. 603. See also The M<nihcy 
 and The Cooper, U Wall. 204, 215', for 
 II similar statement by the Supreme 
 Court of the United States. 
 
 (e) Per Sir J. Colville, The Mar- 
 pesia, L. R. 4 P. C. 212, 220, citing 
 from The Vifgil, 2 W. Rob. 201. 
 Sec also The LocJiUho, 3 W. Rob. 
 310, 318. 
 
 (/) The Schwan and The Albaiio, 
 (1892) P. 419. 
 
 [(j) See The Independence, 14 Moo. 
 
 P. C. 103. 109; The Despatch, ibid. 
 83 ; The Peiinsijlvania, 23 L. T. 55 ; 
 llie America, 2 Otto, 432. 
 
 [h) The Twenty-One Friends, 33 
 Fed. Rep. 190. 
 
 (j) See per Dr. Lushington, The 
 Jittuf Erskine, 6 Not. of Crts. 033. 
 
 (/) The Butiiia, 3 Not. of Cas. 208 ; 
 The Marpesia, L. R. 4 P. C. 212; 
 The Merchant J'riiur, (1892; P. 179; 
 The Hchtian, (1892) P. 419; The 
 Florence P. Hall, 14 Fed. Rep. 408; 
 and see infra, p. 29.
 
 8 NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 frin-ii.f,' the for uot coraplying- with the regulations, cannot, at least where 
 r'muo/picud such non-compliance by possibility miglit have contributed to 
 inevitable ^]^q collision, successfully plead inevitable accident (/). But 
 such a defence may be good where the circumstances of the 
 case made a departure from the regulations necessary, or 
 Avhere her inability to take the proper measures was caused 
 by no fault of her own (iii). 
 Collision in- A collisiou may be an inevitable accident so far as the ship 
 as concerns*'" sucd is Concerned, although it was caused by fault elsewhere ; 
 the ship sued, j^g j,j ^]^q pg^gg gf r^ gj^ip which is thrown against another 
 by the swell of a passing steamship, or by a third ship 
 coming foul of her (n), or causing her suddenly to alter her 
 course in order to avoid a fourth ship (o). 
 Disabled ship. "Where a ship is unable to take the proper measures to 
 avoid a collision owing to her being disabled, or for some 
 reason for which she is not responsible, it is the duty of the 
 other ship to avoid her if she can. But a collisiou occurring 
 in consequence of her disabled state will be held to be an 
 inevitable accident, if the other vessel was ignorant of it, and 
 was not in fault for not being aware of it, or for not keeping 
 out of the way (p). 
 Instances of Jq the following cases the Courts have held that the 
 
 inevitable n-- i p- • ^ ^ • i t 
 
 accident. coUisioDS Were the result of inevitable accident. It must, 
 
 however, be pointed out again that the question before the 
 Court in all these cases was, not whether the collision was 
 inevitable, but whether it could have been avoided by 
 ordinary care. 
 
 A vessel, close-hauled on the starboard tack, saw the red 
 light of a vessel close-hauled on the port tack, a little on her 
 port bow, and kept her course. The other vessel, having lost 
 her head sails in a previous collision, was unable to bear up, 
 and a collision occurred {q). 
 
 A steamer entering the Thames suddenly ran into a dense 
 
 (/) 56 & 57 Vict. c. GO, s. 419 ; see M. C. 512. 
 j«//-ff, pp. 39 sf</. (p) The John Buddie, 5 Not. of 
 
 {m) See infra, pp. 46 et seq. Cas. 387. 
 
 [ii) The Sisters, 1 P. D. 117; 17ie [q) The Aimo and The Amelia, 2 
 
 Ilibcrma, 4 Jur. N. S. 1244. Asp. M. C. 96. As to a vessel 
 
 (o) The ISchwan and The Albaiw, disabled by her own fault, see infra, 
 
 (1892) P. 419; The Themes, 2 As^. p. 25. > ^ >
 
 INEVITABLE ACCIDENT. 
 
 
 
 fog of which there was no warning, and at once proceeded 
 to anchor, as was the proper course, the master doing his 
 best to ascertain that there was no vessel in the vichiitv. 
 His vessel, however, came into collision with a ship at anchor 
 whose sound signals were unavoidably not heard by the 
 vessel about to anchor. It was held that the eolhsiou was 
 the result of an unavoidable accident (r) . 
 
 A ship, which had made fast by order of the port authority 
 to a private buoy, was held not to be in fault for a collision 
 caused by the parting of the band round the buoy (.s). And 
 in America the drawing of a " spile," to which the vessel had 
 properly been made fast {f), was held inevitable accident. 
 
 In the absence of evidence of negligence on the part of 
 the crew, the jamming of the cable round the ^nndlass, 
 when the anchor was let go, was held to be an inevitable 
 accident (u). 
 
 The parting of a cable in a gale of wind (./■), and of moor- 
 ings in calm weather (y), has been held to be an inevitable 
 accident. But if there is negligence in not letting go an 
 anclior, or in not having an anchor ready to let go M'hcn 
 the vessel is adrift, she cannot sustain the defence of 
 inevitable accident (z). 
 
 Where a collision occurred in consequence of the breaking 
 of part of the steering gear, there being a latent defect in the 
 metal, it was held to be an inevitable accident (a). But if 
 the gear is manifestly insufficient or weak, or has not been 
 properly cared for (b), the defence of inevitable accident 
 cannot be sustained {e). 
 
 (r) TheNador, (1909) P. 300. 
 
 (s) The William Lindsay, L. R. 5 
 P. C. 338. 
 
 (0 The Marii L. Ciishimi, GO Fed. 
 Ptcp. 110. 
 
 {>() The Williaiit I.iudsnij, .\/ipra ; 
 The Pecrlesx, Lush. 30. But see The 
 Aijamemnon, 1 Quebec L. R. 333, as 
 to windlass carrj'ing awiiy. 
 
 [x) The London, Br. & L. 82; 1 Mar. 
 Law Cas. 0. S. 398. 
 
 \!jj The Aiidiasmdor, Ad. 
 Feb. I'ith, 1875, cited in 
 I'ladda, 2 P. D. 34. 37. 
 
 (c) The I'ladda, 2 P. D. 34 
 
 Ct., 
 The 
 
 Thi 
 
 Kepler, ibid. 40 ; The Vitij of Fekin(j, 
 
 14 App. Cas. 40 (chain cable not 
 bent) ; The Jl'oodford, Court of .\p- 
 poal, March loth, 11th, 190.-) (Shi])- 
 piiig Gazette), wlierc it was held that 
 the master had not taken proper 
 precautious to yuard against a violent 
 storm. As to such a plea by a .sliip 
 Avhich has given another %i foul 
 berth, see The Secret, 1 Asp. M. C. 3 IS. 
 
 (a) The I'irf/o, 3 Asp. M. C. 28,j. 
 
 {'') The Altcnourr, 39 Fed. Rep. 
 118 (nut allowed to work off'. 
 
 ((•) The M. M. Caleb, 10 Blat<-hf. 
 4G7 ; The U'arlcworlh, 9 P. D. 20, 
 145; The Lndus, 12 P. D. 4(i ; 
 The Merchant rrincc, (1892) P."
 
 10 NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 Where a ship was entering a harbour, and owing to a 
 combination of circumstances, namely less water than usual, 
 a strong breeze, and a freshet, the vessel struck the jetty 
 and (lid damage to it, it was held that her owners were 
 not liable, as the above circumstances constituted force 
 majeure (d). 
 
 A ship which had been ashore on a sand, was driving over 
 it, and came into collision with another brought up in deep 
 water to leeward of the sand. To have let go her anchor 
 before she was clear of the sand w^ould have been dangerous 
 to herself, and without letting go while on the sand she could 
 not keep clear of the ship at anchor. A collision which 
 followed was held to be inevitable (e) . 
 
 A dumb barge in the Thames, driving with the tide, came 
 into collision with a steamer going up against the ebb at the 
 rate of two knots. There was evidence that the barge could 
 not have been seen sooner than she was seen. In the absence 
 of evidence of negligence on the part of the steamer, the 
 collision was held to be an inevitable accident (_/). 
 
 Where two ships, by no fault of their own, suddenly find 
 themselves in a position in which a collision is imminent, and 
 one of them omits to execute a manoeuvre which possibly 
 might have averted the collision, she will not necessarily be 
 held in fault for not having taken the measure suggested. 
 Where two large sailing-ships, one in the act of going about, 
 and the other going free, sighted each other in a dense fog at 
 a distance of less than 300 yards, and a collision occurred in 
 less than a minute, it was held that the ship in stays was 
 not in fault for not having haided aft her head sheets to 
 assist her helm, although if she had done so the collision 
 might have been averted. The collision was held to be a 
 case of inevitable accident (g) . 
 
 In T/te Resolution {h), Sir J. Marriott held that a collision 
 
 179 (steam steering gear failing (/) The Swalloiv, 3 Asp. M. C. 
 
 to act); The Ohjmpia, 61 Fed. 371. 
 
 Rep. 120 (parting of the wire tiller (;/) The Marpesia, L. R. 4 P. C. 
 
 rope); The Riversdale, 53 Fed. Rep. 212. 
 
 286, alitcr. [h) Marsd. Ad. Ca. 332 : The 
 
 [d) 77(c7?owffw, (1909) P. 163, Atlanta, 41 Fed. Rep. 639, was a 
 
 (c) The Thornley, 7 Jur. 659. The similar decision, in the case of 
 
 Buckhur.st, 6 P. D. 152, is a very blinding snow ; The Rebecca Shepherd, 
 
 similar case. 32 Fed. Rep. 926 (fog).
 
 cases. 
 
 INEVITABLE ACCIDENT. 11 
 
 Caused by " showring weather, the darkness of the night, and 
 the small distance of the two ships and shortness of time in 
 discovering each other, being close," was an inevitable 
 accident. 
 
 In the American decisions there are numerous examples of American 
 cases of which the following are a few selected instances. 
 
 A vessel in the open sea overtook another at niglit, the 
 darkness being so great that she could not see the vessel 
 ahead in time to avoid her (/). A sailing-ship in a narrow 
 channel being suddenly compelled to let go her anchor to 
 save herself from going ashore, in consequence of the wind 
 failing, a steamship close astern unavoidably ran into her {k). 
 
 A large steamer was entering a harbour by a course that 
 was not the usual one, but which was a course she had a riglit 
 to go. As she was rounding the stern of a hulk, she suddenly 
 saw and ran into a schooner which the hulk had prevented her 
 seeing before. The schooner, which had just cast olf from her 
 tug, was setting her sails and drifting with the tide in a help- 
 less condition (/). 
 
 A vessel overtook and passed another, and was then 
 suddenly hindered by ice ; each vessel took all reasonable 
 steps, but the vessel which had been overtaken ran into and 
 damaged the one which had passed her {in). 
 
 A vessel properly moored was set adrift by six other craft 
 driving on her, and did some damage (»). A craft set adrift 
 by an extraordinary mass of ice (o), or an extraordinary 
 flood {j)), and doing damage, has been held not to blame for 
 this reason. 
 
 A vessel in tow of a tug salvor in a thick fog, by reason of 
 her disabled state, took a sudden sheer, and fouled the masts 
 of a sunken ship, to which, it was alleged, she was taken need- 
 lessly near. It was held that, as between the owners of tlie 
 sunken wreck and the tug, the damage to the former was an 
 inevitable accident {q). 
 
 (i) The Morniny Lhjhi, 2 Wall. .JoO, in) The Nora Costclh, 4G Fuel. liop. 
 
 557. 86y. 
 
 (/.:) The Elcclra, G Bened. 1S9. (o) The Tnaisfer (No. 2), 5G Fed. 
 
 [Ij The Java, 14 Wall. IH'J ; The Rep. ^13. 
 ^'ovaScoiiana.nd The Quebec, I Qaohoc, (;;) ^^a-l v. lllythe, 12 Fed. li.'i.. 
 
 L. R. 1. 457. 
 
 (m) The EmncUo, 163 Fed. Rep. (q) The Edwin lLtuU>/, H Fed. 
 
 435. Rep. GOG.
 
 12 NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 But where a schooner in a leaky condition, in order to avoid 
 
 sinking in doej) water, cast off from a wharf alongside which 
 
 she was lying, and before she was got under command drove 
 
 against another vessel, it was held that the collision was not 
 
 an inevitable accident (r). In the case of a ship improperly 
 
 attempting to pass another ashore in a narrow channel, it was 
 
 held that in attempting to pass the ship ashore, she did so at 
 
 her own peril (.s) . In this country it has been held that a ship 
 
 driven from her moorings by another which came foul of her 
 
 in a gale of wind, could not escape liability to a third ship 
 
 against which she drove, because she omitted to let go a second 
 
 anchor (/). 
 
 Ncjrligoufe iu If a vesscl engaged in rendering salvage service to another 
 
 a t^alvor negligently runs into the vessel she is assisting, she is liable 
 
 for the damage ; but she does not thereby forfeit her right to 
 
 a sum which has been previously agreed upon as remuneration 
 
 for the salvage service, unless the negligence is very gross. 
 
 In such cases the Court regards error or negligence in the 
 
 salvor less severely than in ordinary cases of collision {//). If 
 
 the salvor, without negligence on her own part, is injured iu 
 
 a collision with the ship she is assisting, caused by negligence 
 
 of tlie latter, she can recover for her loss (x). 
 
 or a tug. It is an implied term of the ordinary towage contract, that 
 
 each vessel shall be conducted with proper care and skill. 
 
 The general rule is, that the tug is bound to obey the orders 
 
 of the tow ; but both as between themselves and as regards 
 
 other ships the tug and her tow are each under the ordinary 
 
 obligation to show proper skill and care in avoiding collision. 
 
 Their respective duties and liabilities will be considered in 
 
 Chapter YIII., below. 
 
 Ncglifrencc There is sometimes difficulty in determining whether neo-li- 
 
 eumS. genee of which a ship is proved to have been guilty at or 
 
 about the time of the collision, or in some way connected 
 
 with the collision, is negligence contributing to the collision. 
 
 ()■) Sherman v. Mott, 5 Beiied. 372 ; ready to let go. 
 
 but see The Chidcasaiv, 41 Fed. Rep. (u) The C. S. Butler and The Baltic, 
 
 ^-T\ L- R. 4 A. & E. 178. See also The 
 
 (s) The Mtrrimac, 14 Wall. 199. Thetis, L. R. 2 A. & E. 365; The 
 
 (<) The Fladda, 2 P. D. 34 ; and Diana, 2 Asp. M. C. 366. 
 
 see The City „f I'chiiuj, 14 App. Gas. [x) The Mud Hopper, 4 Asp. M. C. 
 
 40, as to having a second anchor 103. ^
 
 NEGLIGEXCE CAUSING THE LOSS. 13 
 
 The general rule is that a wrongdoer is liable for all the 
 reasonable consequences of his negligence. Wliether a col- 
 lision which occurs under circumstances brought about by 
 previous negligence can be said to have been caused by that 
 negligence, must be determined by tlie particular circum- 
 stances of the case (//). 
 
 But where the negligence is an immediate cause of the loss, Ncgli-cnce 
 it is material in an action to recover damages for that loss, iT^^'^ft not 
 although it is in no way a cause of the collision in whicli the ^^^ colUsion. 
 loss occurred. " The cause of action in colHsion cases is not 
 merely the fact of the ships having come into impact with one 
 another, for that by itself is no cause of action, but that 
 damage, in the sense of injury, was caused to the property of 
 the plaintiffs by reason of that collision " (z). Thus where a 
 collision is caused entirely by the negligence of ship A., and 
 there would have been no damage to either ship but for an 
 improper act of B., both ships are held to be in fault. It is 
 no answer to the claim of a plaintiff, whose negligence caused 
 the collision, for the defendant, whose negligence caused tlie 
 loss, to say : True it is, there would have been no loss but for 
 my improper act ; but you are the person who caused the loss, 
 for if your ship had not been improperly navigated there 
 would have been no collision and no loss. Unless the neo-li- 
 genee of the one ship would, but for the negligence of the 
 other, have caused no loss, the former ship is liable at least for 
 lialf the loss of the other. 
 
 In The Margaret {a) a dumb barge by her own negligent The M,m,ar,i. 
 navigation came into collision with a schooner fast to a proper 
 mooring buoy. The schooner was wholly free from bhiino in 
 respect of the collision, but her anchor, wliicli was Jiano-ino- 
 from her hawse pipe, with tlie stock above the water, pierced 
 and sank the barge. This was an improper position for the 
 anchor, and contrary to a bye-law made under a local Act in 
 force in the Thames. But for the improper position of the 
 schooner's anchor the barge would have suffered no injury. 
 The collision was at niglit, and it does not appear that tliose 
 
 (y) Greenland v. Chaplin, 5 Ex. (:) Per Breli, L. J., The Mnn/nM, 
 
 24.S ; CfUtlin v. Hills, 8 C. B. 123, 6 P. D. 76. And see per Liiidloy, 
 
 aro>e out of the same collision. Cp. L. J., The Jteriiina, U P. D. .'JS, ,ss. 
 The U'urstanhy, (1896) P. 297. {a) G P. ]>. 76.
 
 tioii retiiota 
 specltitur. 
 
 14 NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 on the barge saw the schooner's anchor before the collision {b). 
 It was held that both craft were in fault; and that the 
 schooner was liable for half the loss of the barge. In the 
 Court below it had been held that the barge could not recover 
 anytliing, she being alone in fault for the collision. This 
 decision was varied by the Court of Appeal on the ground 
 above stated— namely, that though the negligence of the 
 schooner did not contribute to the collision, it did contribute 
 to the cause of action, namely, the loss to the owners of the 
 barge {c). 
 Coma proxima C)n the otlicr hand, the maxim causa proxinia non remota 
 spcctdfi!)- applies to distinguish negligence for the conse- 
 quences of which a defendant is liable from that which is 
 merely collateral and immaterial upon the question of 
 liability (d). Negligence such as will attract liability cannot 
 be estabHshed merely by showing that, but for a previous 
 improper act of the defendant, the collision would not have 
 occurred. The act complained of " must have some proper 
 connection, as a cause, with the damage which followed, as its 
 effect "(^'). Wliether this proper connection exists between 
 the act complained of and the loss is, it seems, a question of 
 fact, and ordinarily a question for the jury (/'). 
 
 A ship, in bad weather, was in a difficult position in Dover 
 Bay getting hei; anchors, which were foul, in order to get to 
 sea, and did not take the assistance of a tug, as she ought to 
 have done. She consequently drove against the pier, and the 
 tug, which she then took to tow her clear, parted the tow rope, 
 in consequence of the heavy sea, and she drove against and 
 injured the plaintiff's groyne and sewer outfall. It was held 
 that the damage was caused by her negligence in not taking 
 a tug in the first instance {(/). 
 
 (/;) This appears to be the faot (d) See per Selborne, C, 6 App. 
 
 which Gorell Barnes, J., relied upon Gas. 219 ; and Lord Blackburn, iOld. 
 
 to distinguish The Monte Rosa, (1893) p. 226. 
 
 P. 28, from The Matyinnt. (e) Per Selborne, C., tibi snpra. 
 
 {c) Cp. The Seotid, 6 Asp. M. C. ( /') See Taffy . War man, 2 C. B. 
 
 541; The Diimtanhormigh, (1892) P. N. " S. 740; o C. B. N. S. 573; 
 
 363, note; and dist. The Hornet, ibid. Milwaukee Rail. Co. Y.Kellogr/, 4 Otto, 
 
 361 ; Silh V. Brown, ^Ciiv. k F. GOl, 4G9. 
 
 and The Gipsij Iiing, 2 W. Rob. o37, (y) The Gertor, 7 A.sp. M. C. 4 72. 
 
 so far a.s they are inconsistent with In an American ease, Hhjfield\. Pen- 
 
 The Margarit, would not, it seems, fold, 66 Fed. Rep. 362, the stranding 
 
 be now followed. of a schooner was held to have been
 
 NEGLIGENCE CAUSING THE LOSS. 
 
 15 
 
 The question as to what are the consequences of a negligent 
 or wronsfful act for which the wrongdoer is liable was much 
 discussed in the case of Clark v. Chambers {//). The rule 
 accepted bj the Court (/) was, that an action would not lie 
 where the loss, although arising from an unlawful or negligent 
 act of the defendant, did not immediately flow from it, and 
 was not the reasonable, probable, or likely result of it. But 
 a negligent act may be the proximate cause of loss, although, 
 but for the wrongful act of a third party, there would have 
 been no loss (/r). 
 
 In Spaig/tf v. Tedeastle (/), the question was whether the 
 owners of a ship in tow, which had negligently permitted lier 
 tug to go too close to a bank, were prevented by the doctrine 
 of contributory negligence from recovering from the owners 
 of the tug damages for injury sustained by the subsequent 
 fault of the tug in altering lier course so as to put the ship 
 ashore on a bank. It was held that, though those in charge 
 of the tow had negligently allowed the tug to take the tow 
 too close to the bank, yet, since the tug could with proper 
 care, notwithstanding the negligence of the tow, have kept 
 the tow clear of the bank, and had by an improper alteration 
 of the helm caused the tow to go ashore, the tug was liable. 
 
 The question whether a particular act of negligence was a No ditference 
 cause of the loss, so as to make the person charged with K^^'^^?j|^'jf 
 negligence responsible for the loss, must, it would seem, be and Admi- 
 answered in the same way, whether it is the act of a plaintiff ^vlmVism-o-ii- 
 or of a defendant ; whether the negligence of other parties gence. 
 contributed to the loss or not ; and whether the action is at 
 common law or in Admiralty (w). " There is no difference 
 
 caused by a rival tug wilfully pre- 
 venting the tug engaged in getting 
 the tow line on board from slaving 
 the Hchooner. 
 
 [h) a Q. B. D. 327 : see the rule 
 affirmatively stated by the Master of 
 the Rolls ill li" London, 4'r. RaUa-uij 
 and Trimtees of Gower's Walk Schools, 
 24 Q. B. D. 326, at p. 329. 
 
 (i) Per Pollock, C. B., in Greenland 
 V. Chaplit,, f) Ex. 243, 248 ; and by 
 the Exchequer Chamber in Sharp v. 
 Powell, L. R. 7 C. P. 253. Sec also 
 Lawrence v. Jenkins, L. R. 8 Q. B. 
 
 274 ; Snceshy v. Lancashire and 
 Yorkshire Rail. Co., L. R. 9 Q. B. 
 2tj3. 
 
 (/•) Enghhart v. Farrant, (1897) I 
 Q. B. 240; Mel)owall\. Gt. H'cilern 
 Mail. Co., (1902) 1 K. B. G18. In 
 The Jackson, 58 Fed. Rep. G07, two 
 ships were held liable for damage to 
 a third, altliouirh one could with 
 ordinary care liave avoided the coii- 
 .scquence of the negligence of the 
 otlier. 
 
 (/) C App. Cas. 217. 
 
 [m) See per Campbell, C, The
 
 16 NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 between the rules of law and the rules of Admiralty to this 
 extent, that where any one transgresses a navigation rule, 
 whether it is a statutory rule or whether it is a rule that is 
 imposed by common sense, what may be called the common 
 law, and thereby an accident happens of which that trans- 
 oression is the cause, he is to blame, and those who are 
 injured by the accident, if they themselves are not parties 
 causing the accident, may recover both at law and in 
 Admiralty " (^0- The only case which seems to point to 
 there being any difference between the rules of law and 
 Admiralty as to what is negligence causing the loss is The 
 Fenham (o), in which there are expressions of Lord Romilly 
 to the effect that infringement of a statutory rule of naviga- 
 tion is to be taken as a cause of the collision, unless the 
 person charged proves the contrary. Those expressions may 
 well apply to such an infringement as that in The Fenham 
 (absence of lights), but are not to be extended to every 
 infringement of every rule of navigation (/?). 
 Contributory It lias bccu Suggested that the class of cases of which 
 no-iiigenco. J)ai-;ie8 V. MciHii is the best known example, have no applica- 
 tion in Admiralty ; and there are cases which appear to give 
 some support to the contention. The facts of Da vies v. 
 ]\rann (</), the well-known "donkey case," were shortly 
 tlicse : — The owner of a donkey, which had been negligently 
 left hobbled and unguarded on a highway, sued the defen- 
 dant, by the negligence of whose servant in driving along 
 tlio liighway at too rapid a speed the donkey was run over 
 and injured. It was held that the donkey-owner could 
 recover, his negligence notwithstanding. The suggestion is, 
 that in a case of collision between ships, negligence, such as 
 that of the donkey-owner in Bavies v. 3Iaini, would render 
 the shipowner liable, although no collision would have 
 occurred if the other vessel had been navigated with ordinary 
 care. The Fenham {r) and Ha// v. Le Neve («) have been 
 cited as authorities to this effect. In The Fenham a steam- 
 
 Friends, 4 Moo. P. C. 314 ; jy«r Lord [p] Fer Lord Blackburn, 9 App. 
 
 Blackburn, Cai/zer v. Carron Co., 9 Cas. 882. 
 
 App. Cas. 873,' 880. {q) lO M. & W. 546. 
 
 (m) Fer Lord Blackburn, 9 App. (?) L. R. 3 P. C. 212. 
 
 Cas. 880. (s) 2 Sbaw's Scotch App. Cas. 
 
 (o) L. R. 3 P. C. 212. 395.
 
 CONTRIBUTORY XEGLIGENCE. 17 
 
 ship fouled a brig which was not carrying lights as required 
 by the regulations of 1863. In the absence of proof to the 
 contrary, the Privy Council held that the absence of lights 
 caused the collision. In delivering judgment Lord Eomilly 
 said, " The burden lies on her to show that the non-com- 
 pliance with the regulations was not the cause of the col- 
 lision." In Half V. Le Nere (.s), a vessel brought up at night 
 in an improper place and with no light exhibited was run 
 into by another ship. It was held that the vessel at anchor, 
 as well as the other vessel, was in fault. In both these cases 
 the negligence of the plaintiff (caiTying no light, and bring- 
 ing up in an improper place) was not unlike that of the 
 donkey-owner in Davies v. Mann, and it was contended in 
 The Fenham that with ordinary care the defendant could 
 have avoided the collision, notwithstanding the negligence of 
 the plaintiff in carrying no lights. In both cases the legal 
 consequence of the negligence was different from that in 
 Dr/ries v. Mami. Again, in an Irish case (t), it was doubted 
 whether in Admiralty the doctrine of Davies v. Mann had 
 any application. In America it seems to have been held 
 that, in cases of unequal fault, the gross fault is the cause of 
 the loss, and that the slight fault is immaterial — " did not 
 contribute " (;/). In one case (.r) it was said expressly that 
 the common law doctrine of contributory negligence did not 
 apply in Admiralty. So where a collision made imminent 
 by the gross fault of A., might have been avoided by B., the 
 loss was divided between A. and B. (y). 
 
 But it is clear that there is no difference between the rules 
 of law and of Admiralty (::) as to what amounts to negligence 
 causing collision ; and that, before a vessel can be held to be 
 in fault for a collision, negligence causing or contributing to 
 the collision must be proved. Thus, in Cayzer v. Carron Co., 
 The Margaret (a), a vessel infringed a statutory rule of navi- 
 
 («) 2 Shaw's Scotch App. CaH. The Maria Martin, 12 Wall. 31. 
 '^95. (^z] See />«>• Lord Blackburn, (7«vz^r 
 
 {i) The Meteor, Ir. Rep. 9 Eq. 567. v. CxrroH Co. [The .VargarH), 9 App. 
 
 {i() The Lord (yXeiU. 66 Fed. Rep. Cas. 873, 882. In fhr Khtdire (.j 
 
 77 ; The Willamelte, 70 Fed. Rep. App. Cas. 876, 892), it was assumed 
 
 874 ; The Al/a«, 3 Otto, ;:;02. by Lord Blackburn that Bavins v. 
 
 {x) The JJaylesford, 30 Fed. Rep Mann applied in Admiralty. 
 G'ia. (a) 9 App. Cas. 873; followed iu 
 
 {y) The Pegasus, 19 Fed. Rep. 46; H.M.S. Sans Pareil, (1900) P. 267. 
 
 M. C
 
 18 NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 g^ation, which required her to wait under a point in the river 
 until the other ship passed, and was in that respect guilty 
 of negligence ; and without that negligence, other circum- 
 stances heing the same, the collision would not have 
 liappened ; yet it was held that this negligence was not a 
 cause of the collision. The decision in such a case will be 
 the same, with regard to the liability of the ship in question, 
 either for the whole or half of the loss, whether the other 
 ship is in fault or not. In The Margaret the one ship was 
 held to be in fault, because with ordinary care she could 
 have avoided a collision, notwithstanding the negligence of 
 the other ; and it was for this reason that the negligence of 
 the latter was held not to be a cause of the collision. So 
 in The Monte Rosa (b), a tug by her own fault steered a 
 course which brought her into collision with the anchor of a 
 steamship, which the latter was, contrary to the Thames 
 rules, carr}dng over her bows not stock awash, and was 
 holed by the anchor. It was held that, since the tug could 
 with ordinary care have kept clear of the steamship, she 
 was alone in fault, and could recover nothing. The Lord 
 Saumarez (c), an early case, is to the same effect as The 
 Margaret. There a vessel recovered full damages, thougli 
 in a fog she was canying too great a press of sail, and was 
 proceeding at too great a rate of speed. The decision pro- 
 ceeded upon the same grounds — that the defendant could 
 with ordinary care have avoided the collision, notwith- 
 standing the negligence of the plaintiff. 
 
 JIai/ v. Le Neve and The Fenham are not inconsistent with 
 The Margaret and The Lord Saumarez. The facts in those 
 cases differ from those in Davies v. Mann in this — that the 
 negligence of the plaintiffs in the former cases was such that 
 the defendants could not with ordinary care have avoided its 
 consequences ; whereas in Davies v. Mann the defendant could 
 
 Dist. The Ovin^dean Grange, (1902) Fed. Rep. .510 ; The Titan, 23 Fed. 
 
 P. 208; and note that there was no Rep. 413; Atidnsv. Tlie Saratoga, 1 
 
 appeal by The Oviiif/dean GraiKje in Fed. Rep. 730, are American Vases 
 
 that case. The Edqwater, 6-5 Fel. similar to The Marqnrct. 
 
 Rep. 527; The Portia. 64 Fed. Rep. {b} (18!t3) P. 23.' 
 
 811; T/ie C/ar«, 55 Fed. Rep. 1021; (c) 6 Not. of Cas. 600; cf. The 
 
 The Britannia, 34 Fed. Rep. 546, on Argo, Swah. 462 ; The Swanland, 
 
 app. 46 Dav. 130; The Francis, 44 2 Sp. 107.
 
 CONTRIBTTTORY NEGLIGENCE. 19 
 
 with ordinary care have avoided the donkey ((/). But tliou^h 
 it may be possible to reconcile some of the " both to blame " 
 cases with Darie.s v. Mau)i, it would probably be fouud 
 impossible to reconcile all of them. Many Admiralty 
 cases {e) have been decided without sufficient consideration 
 of the question whether the negligence found against each ship 
 was negligence contributing to the collision. For example, in 
 The Marcia Tribon, an American case, a schooner in tlie day- 
 time ran down a sloop brought up in an improper place. Both 
 ships were held in fault, and the loss was divided (,/'). There 
 are many recent American cases to the same effect {(/) . 
 
 Confusion has been caused by the language used in some 
 of the cases with regard to contributory negligence. In 
 Radlci/ V. London and North Western Railwaif Co. {//), it is 
 stated by Lord Penzance that, " The plaintiff in an action 
 for negligence cannot succeed, if it is found by the jury 
 that he has himself been guilty of any negligence or want 
 of ordinary care which contributed to cause the accident." 
 But " though the plaintiff may have been guilty of negli- 
 gence, and although that negligence may in fact have con- 
 tributed to the accident, yet if the defendant could in the 
 result by exercise of ordinary care and diligence have avoided 
 the mischief which happened, the plaintiff's negligence will 
 not excuse him," i.e. the defendant. Banes v. Mann and 
 Tuff v. War man (/) are cited as establishing this. On the 
 other hand, in Doivcll v. General Steam Narkjation Co. (/•), 
 Lord Campbell, C. J., said — " There " (in Davies v. 3Iann), 
 " although without the negligence of the plaintiff the accident 
 would not have happened, the negligence is not supposed to 
 have contributed to the accident within the rule upon tliis 
 
 (d) Thwell V. General Steam Navi- Fed. Rep. 338, are similar cases. 
 gation Co., 5 E. & B. 195 ; and (ff) Cf. The liichwond and T/ie E. 
 Morrison v. General Steam Naviyation Heipershausen, 63 Fed. 1020 ; The 
 6'o., 8 Ex. 733, are cases with regard Ancrly, 58 Fed. 794; The Marion, 
 to absence of lights. In the former, 56 Fed. 271; The Premier, 51 Fed. 
 the ship without lights was held in Rep. 766 (bad riding light and exces- 
 fault ; in the latter, not. sive speed, or bad li>ok-out in the 
 
 (e) E.g., The United Stales, \'l other ship). 
 
 L. T. 33, where one ship was in (//) 1 App. Gas. 754 
 
 fault under the rule in Darii-x v. (i) 5 C. B. N. S. 573 ; see the 
 
 Miinn, and yet the other was held to judgment of Cresswoll, J., 26 L. J. 
 
 be also in fault. C. P. 263, 267. 
 
 (/■) 2 Hprague, 17 ; The S. Shaw, (k) 5 E. &c B. 195. 
 6 Fed. Rep. 93 ; The Milligan, 12 
 
 c2
 
 20 NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 subject ; and if the accident might have been avoided by the 
 exercise of ordinary care and skill on the part of the defen- 
 dant, to his gross negligence it is entirely ascribed, he, and 
 he only, proximately causing the loss," It is not easy to 
 reconcile these views with regard to the negligence of the 
 plaintiff in Darios v. Mann. The question whether a specified 
 act of negligence is a cause of the accident is a question of 
 fact and not of law (/.) Barnes v. Mann and the cases 
 following it seem to show that even where, as matter of 
 fact, an act of negligence of A. did contribute to the acci- 
 dent, the other party (B.) will (as defendant) be liable for 
 the whole loss, or (as plaintiff) will be unable to recover, if 
 he could with ordinary care have avoided the accident, not- 
 withstanding the negligence of A. (tu). 
 
 The difficulty may be put in another way. Did Davies v. 
 Mann decide that, assuming contributory negligence in the 
 plaintiff, he could recover, notwithstanding ; or that, though 
 there was contributory negligence in fact, there was none in 
 law ? Radley v. London d^" North Western Raihcay Co. points 
 to the former as the correct view of the case ; The Margaret (n) 
 looks the other way. There Lord Blackburn appears to have 
 considered that if the plaintiff's negligence did in fact con- 
 tribute to the collision he would be liable ; and that in Davies 
 V. Mann there was no contributory negligence. 
 
 But the difficulty is rather one of words than of substance : 
 for, with perhaps one excej^tion, the cases agree in this, that 
 negligence in one party is immaterial, if by ordinary care 
 the other could, notwithstanding that negligence, have 
 avoided the accident (o) . 
 
 (;) See per Lord Blackbui-n, 9 (o) Cf. Pollock on Torts, 6th ed. 
 
 App. Gas. 879. But .see contra, 441 seq. Contributory negligence of 
 
 per Williams, J., Tuff' v. War man, the plaintiff does not prevent him 
 
 2 C. B. N. S. 740, 758. The from recovering ; he does not re- 
 
 Sms Fareil, (1900) P. 267, is cover because the negligence of the 
 
 a remarkable instance of the rule defendant was not the proximate (or 
 
 in Davies v. Mann ; although decisive) cause of the loss. The ex- 
 
 Vaughan "Williams, L. J., thought ception mentioued above is The Vera 
 
 that, o-ssdng to an admission in Cruz (No. 1), 9 P. D. 88. In that 
 
 the Com-t below, the rule did not case Butt, J., appears to have ques- 
 
 apply : ihid. p. 288. tioued the dictum of Lord Penzance, 
 
 («0 Cf. The Argo, Swab. 462. .ni/jra, p. 19. If the law be as there 
 
 (w) See also Spaight v. Tedcantle, stated it would, he thought, put an 
 
 6 App. Cas. 217, 219, per Lord end to the doctrine of contributory 
 
 Blackburn. negligence altogether ; since, in
 
 CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. 21 
 
 The result of the cases, therefore, seems to be that {/>) — Result of the 
 (1) a ship. A., raaj recover full damages against the other, 
 B.. where the collision was caused entirely b}' the negligence 
 of B.; including the case where the collision would not have 
 occurred but for negligence of A., provided B. coidd with 
 ordinary care have avoided it ; (2) subject to rule (3) A. can 
 recover nothing, if with ordinary care exercised up to the 
 moment of collision she could have avoided it ; (3) A. can 
 recover half damages, although with ordinary care exercised 
 up to the moment of collision she might have avoided it, if 
 B. by the exercise of like {q) care might have avoided it ; 
 (4) in the last case B. recovers half damages. In applying 
 these rules the effect of 57 & 58 Viet. o. 60, s. 419, must not 
 be overlooked ; a ship " deemed to be in fault " for infringe- 
 ment of the regulations, can in no case recover more than 
 half damages, and in every case is liable for at least half 
 damages. 
 
 The above statement of the case in which the loss is divided The case of 
 is put forward with some doubt. Lord Blackbui-n has stated ^'""^^ ^ ^^''"**-'- 
 the Admiralty rule as follows (/•) : — " It may well be that 
 
 every case where there is contribu- (p) This statement differs in words, 
 
 tory negligence on the part of the but, except as to (3), not in substamte 
 
 plaintiff, there is, ex hypothesi, negli- from that contained in some earlier 
 
 gence on the part of the defendant. editions of this work. As to (3) there 
 
 It is submitted that what was meant seems to be no authority for the 
 
 by Lord Penzance was ordinary care suggestion that the negligence of 
 
 and diligence on the part of the one party can throw upon the other 
 
 defendant "in the result," i.e., the duty to exercise more than ordi- 
 
 taking into consideration the negli- nary care, or that under ordinary 
 
 gence of the plaintiff and the cir- circumstances extraordinary care is 
 
 cumstances existing after or bj^ required, and that its absence is to 
 
 reason of it ; or, as expressed by Lord be treated as negligence. There 
 
 Blackburn in another case, "proper may, of course, be circumstances (as 
 
 care, subsequently exerted"; Hpaight at a launch) where the utmost pos- 
 
 V. Tedcastle, 6 App. Gas. 217, 226 ; sible precautions are no more than 
 
 see also per Lord Watson, Cai/zer v. ordinary care requires. Cf. The 
 
 Can-on Co., 9 App. Gas. 873, 886; Ovinffdcan Grnn(/e, {1902)1'. 208 ; aud 
 
 jo«- Wightman, J., Tuff v. Warman, per Lindley, L. J., The Bernwu, 12 
 
 5 G. B. N. S. 573 ; per Lord Camp- P. D. 58, 89 ; and per Lord Esher. 
 
 bell, .mpra, p. 19. Cf. per Lord M. R., ihid. p. 61, for statements of 
 
 Watson in Wakelin v. London and thelaw as to contributory neghgence. 
 
 South Western Rail. Co., 12 App. Rule (2) was adopted and applied by 
 
 Cas. 41 : " If by the use of ordinary Barnes, J., in The Monte Rosa, (1893) 
 
 caution he (the plaintiff) niiifht have P. 23, 30. Gp. The AUair, (1897) 1 
 
 avoided the injury, and did not, he P. 105. 
 
 is not entitled to recover damages." (?) Like in degree or character, or 
 
 The decision of Butt, .1., in The Vera simultaneous ; see infra, p. 21. 
 
 Cruz became ineffectual by reason of [r] This dictum occiirs in a dis- 
 
 The Vera Cruz (No. 2), 10 App. Cas. sentiug opinion of Lord Blackburn 
 
 59. in flattery's Case, 3 App. Cas. II 55,
 
 22 NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 both parties are guilty of a neglect of duty, and that,' if 
 either had used reasonable care and skill, the collision would 
 have been avoided. In such a case the maritime law, 
 which is followed in the Admiralty, apportions the joint 
 damage" (-s). It is not easy to reconcile this dictum with 
 Cayzer v. Carron Co. or with The Monte Rosa {supra, p. 18), 
 in neither of which cases were the damages divided, though 
 in both it would seem that " if either had used reasonable 
 care and skill " the loss would not have happened. In both 
 the negligence that was prior in point of time was held not 
 to have contributed to the loss. If the definition of the case 
 of " both to blame " suggested upon the last page is con-ect, 
 it confines it within very narrow limits. Putting aside the 
 case of one or both ships being deemed to be in fault under 
 the statute, it seems that the negligence on the part of both 
 ships, which causes the loss to be divided, must be acts or 
 omissions either concurrent in time, or identical in character, 
 or equal in degree of fault — in the words of Lindley, L. J. {t) 
 — " as much want of reasonable care on A.'s part as on B.'s." 
 A few such cases may be found in the books. A schooner [a) 
 in New York harbour, contrary to the local regulations, 
 brought up off the mouth of a slip. She was requested by a 
 steamship about to back out from the slip to move, but 
 refused. The steamship attempted to get under way and 
 fouled her. It was held that both ships were in fault. It 
 woidd seem that here more than ordinary care was required 
 on the part of the steamship ; and that, having voluntarily 
 undertaken the risk of moving, the utmost precautions on her 
 part were no more than reasonable {x) . Two ships at anchor 
 
 1206 — one of the "level crossing" not do all she might have done to 
 
 railway casts which have given rise avert the consequences of the other's 
 
 to much difference of j udicial opinion. fault. ' ' 
 
 Of. the opinicm of BrowTi, J., in («) The BunHtanboroiigh, (1892) P. 
 
 The Nereus, 23 Fed. Rep. 457, where 363, note, seems to have been decided 
 
 Cayzer v. Carron Co. was discussed : in accordance with this dictum. 
 
 "Where the earlier cause and the {t) The Bernina, 12 P. D. 58, 89. 
 
 later cause are both proximate and Cf. per James, L. J., in The Mar- 
 
 direct, both vessels are liable; for yaret, 6 P. D. 76, "both parties are 
 
 it is imreasonable that a fault in one equally to blame." 
 
 vessel tending directly to a specific (m) The Wester nland, 24 Fed. Rep. 
 
 collision should go blameless, merely 703. 
 
 because it was the first fault, or {x) Cf. The George Roper, 8 P. D. 
 
 merely because the other vessel did 119. The Cachapool, 7 P. D. 217
 
 CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. 23 
 
 both Started their anchors, drove near each other, and even- 
 tually came into collision. It was held that both were in 
 fault, since either might have taken a tug and avoided the 
 collision (//). Two tugs (s) were racing for a job. Oue 
 forced the other into collision with the third ship. It was 
 held that both were in fault. The case of both ships having 
 no look-out, or of two ships bringing up or mooring at the 
 same time too close to each other (r/), or rounding a blind 
 corner without knowing whether there are other craft in the 
 way or not (b), may be suggested as cases where the fault is 
 equal; and T/ie Odngdoan Grarujc (c) seems to have been 
 dealt with by Sir Francis Jeune, P., as coming \vithin this 
 category. But until the decision in Cayzcr v. CarroH Co. 
 there had been little or no discussion in any of the cases as to 
 the exact limits of the rule of division of loss, and, perhaps, 
 the law on the point is not yet finally settled. The statutory 
 rule which imputes fault to a ship which infi-inges the regu- 
 lations adds largely to the number of " both to blame " cases, 
 by reason of the impossibility in such cases of proving that 
 the collision was caused by the negligence of the other ship 
 alone \d). 
 
 The real difficulty is that the common law recognizes the 
 possibility of only one cause of loss, namely, the negligence 
 of the plaintiff or the negligence of the defendant ; whereas 
 the Admiralty rule recognizes two possible causes, namely, 
 the negligent acts of both. Although it has been stated in 
 many cases that there is no difference between negligence at 
 
 may be distiuguished oii the ground there was no appeal by The Ovingdeau 
 
 that the launch there could not Grange. 
 
 reasonably be postponed. [d) The eflfect of the statutory rule 
 
 {y) The Arran, Cook, V. Ad. Rep. probably caused the matter not to be 
 
 Quebec, S.'iS. fully discussed in The Snudhill, (1894) 
 
 {z) Latham v. HamiltoH and Merri- App. Cas. 646. There A., one of 
 man Co., 63 Fed. Rep. 856. In The two steamships proeeediug' in the 
 Jesse Spauld'wg, oO Fed. Rep. 583, samedirectiou nearly abreast, wrong- 
 one of the tugs which attempted to fully starboarded across the course of 
 cross the other before she was clear, the other, B. If B. had not been so 
 and forced her into collision with the intent on cutting out A., and had at 
 third ship, she was held alone in fault. once reversed, there would probably 
 Cf. The Chattahoochee, 173 U. S. .540 have been no collision. Roth sliips 
 (both ships going too fast hi fog). were held in fault, upon what groiiud 
 
 («) TJie Greenpoint, 31 Fed. Rep. does not clearly appear. The statute 
 
 231. ^ was not relied on, but the qurstiou 
 
 [b] The Gamma, 103 Fed. Rep. whether the <»Ilisioii might not have 
 703. been avoided by ordinary care on B.'a 
 
 (c) (1900) P. 267. Observe that part was not discussed.
 
 24 NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 common law and in Admiralty, it appears that (apart from 
 the rule of division of loss) the legal consequences of a negli- 
 gent act may be different when it results in a collision 
 between ships from that which would follow in any other 
 ease. 
 Negligence of Where a collision is caused by negligence in those on board 
 pilot°bringJ^ both ships, and the negligence in ship A. is negligence of her 
 into operation officers or crew for which her owners are liable, while the 
 division of negligence in ship B. is negligence of a compulsory pilot for 
 o'thers'w ^ \^ which her owners are not liable, the question arises whether 
 also in fault, the owners of B. are prevented by the doctrine of contribu- 
 tory negligence, or by the practice of the Court of Admiralty, 
 from recovering more than half their loss. It seems to be 
 settled that they are entitled to recover half their loss, without 
 deducting anything in respect to the loss caused to the other 
 ship by the fault of the pilot ; but that they are entitled to 
 recover no more than half their loss (e). Thus the fault of 
 the pilot affects the shij) to some extent ; whether it affects 
 the ship in a case where she is not herself in collision, so as to 
 prevent her owners from recovering damages against the 
 owners of another ship by whose negligence she is injui'ed, is 
 not clear (/'). Notwithstanding a decision to the contrary {(j), 
 the better opinion seems to be that she is not so affected. In 
 a recent case Sir Francis Jeune, P., was prepared to hold that 
 this resulted from Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, s. 633 (h). 
 Negligence The question whether a particular act of negligence, not 
 
 causino" the . . . . o o ' 
 
 loss, or merely directly causing the collision, but connected with it, is negli- 
 collateral. gence contributing to the collision, seldom arises in collision 
 cases. It has, however, occasionally been discussed, and it 
 will be convenient here to indicate generally the form in which 
 it may occur. 
 Defective If a ship is neghgently allowed to be at sea in a defective 
 
 or inefficient state as regards her hull or equipment, and a 
 collision occurs, which probably would not have occurred but 
 for her defective condition, the collision will be held to have 
 
 {e) See The Hector, 8 P. D. 218, also Biidman v. Dublin Fort and 
 
 222. Docks Board, Ir. Rep. 7 C. L. 518. 
 
 (/) See SpaAght v. Tedcastle, 6 [g) The Energy, supra. 
 
 App. Gas. 217, and observations of (h) The Adam W. Spies, 70 L. J 
 
 Lord Blackburn (p. 223) on The Ad. 25. 
 Energy, L. R. 3 A. & E. 48 ; see
 
 CAUSING THE COLLISION, OR MERELY COLLATERAL. 
 
 25 
 
 been caused by the negligence of her OAA-ners. Thus a collision 
 caused by the giving way or inefficiency of the steering 
 gear (0, the clamping of the reversing gear so that it cannot 
 instantly be worked (/•), the parting of chain cable or 
 moorings (/), the coming home of an anchor that is too light 
 to hold the vessel (m), the failm-e to employ a tug when 
 necessary (n), or the inefficiency of the tug (o), improper trim 
 such as to render her unmanageable and dangerous, may be 
 held to be caused by the negligence of her owners in permitting 
 her to be navigated in a condition dangerous to other ships. 
 In such cases of defective equipment it is open to the owners 
 to show that the defect in the gear was latent (p), or that 
 they took reasonable care to send the ship to sea in a safe and 
 efficient state {q) ; and if they satisfy the Court that such was 
 the case they will not be liable. 
 
 If a ship is by her own fault disabled or unmanageable, Ship di^ablLtl 
 and a collision occurs in consequence, the question arises "'"^ """ 
 whether she is to be held in faidt for the collision ; in other by her owii^ 
 words, whether her original negligence is negligence con- ^*'^'' 
 tributing to the collision. The cases upon the point are 
 conflicting. Where a ship by her own negligence got ashore, 
 and in coming off unavoidably did damage, it was held that 
 her owners were liable (r). So where a vessel having lost her 
 lights in a collision with one ship was afterwards in collision 
 with another ship, it appears to have been the opinion of the 
 Court that, if the first collision was caused by her o\vn fault 
 and the second collision was caused by the absence of proper 
 lights, she must be held to be in fault for the second colli- 
 sion (s) . On the other hand where a vessel was sunk in the 
 
 {tj The Virgo, 3 Asp. M. C. 285 ; 
 The Warkworth, 9 P. D. 20; The 
 Livia, 1 Asp. M. C. 204 ; The Peru, 
 1 Pritch. Ad. Dig. 3rd ed. 1412; 
 The M. M. Caleb, 10 Blatchf. 467; 
 Thr Allen Green, 60 Fed. Rep. 459. 
 See also l^hc European, 10 P. D. 
 99 (steam .steering gear ' ' taking 
 charge ")• 
 
 (k) The Mexico, 84 Fed. Rep. 504. 
 
 \t) See The William Lindsay, L. R. 
 5 P. C. 338. 
 
 (m) The J. H. Rulter, 35 Fed. Rep. 
 365. 
 
 (n) The Gertor, 7 Asp. M. C. 472. 
 
 (o) The Ocean Wave, MamhaU v. 
 
 Moran, L. R. 3 P. C. 205; Thr 
 Belgic, 2 P. D. 57, note ; The Julia, 
 Lush. 224 ; The Ratata, (1898) App. 
 Cas. 513. 
 
 {p) The Virgo, 3 Asp. M. C. 285. 
 
 {q) Moffalt V. Batemnn, L. R. 3 
 P. C. 115. 
 
 (r) Lords Bailiff Jurats of Itomney 
 Marsh v. Corporation of the Trinity 
 House, L. R. 5 Ex. 204 ; ibid. 7 Ex. 
 247. 
 
 (s) The Kjobenhavn, 2 Asp. M. C. 
 213. The facts were such as to 
 render a decision upon the pobit 
 unnecessary.
 
 26 NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 Thames in a collision caused by her own negligence, and 
 another vessel six hours afterwards struck on the wreck and 
 was injured, it was held by the Com-t of Appeal, in the 
 absence of proof of negligence subsequent to the first collision, 
 that her owners were not liable for the second collision. " It 
 seems clear to me," said Brett, L. J., "that no greater 
 liability can exist against the defendants than if their steam- 
 sliip had sunk without negligence" (t;. There is no doubt 
 that both in the case of a ship disabled, and a ship sunk, 
 whether by her own previous negligence or not, special and 
 additional care and precautions are required on the part of 
 those in cliarge to avoid doing injury to other ships (u). But 
 that a ship sunk or disabled in a collision caused by her own 
 negligence should afterwards, and without having been guilty 
 of any fm*ther negligence, be held liable for a subsequent 
 and distinct collision, would seem to be contrary to the 
 principle above stated, that a wrongdoer is liable only for the 
 reasonable consequences of his negligence. 
 
 It may happen that two or more collisions are so imme- 
 diately and directly the result of one negligent act that the 
 wrongdoer will be liable for the damage done in each collision, 
 though after the first collision, the others were inevitable, and 
 though, but for the first collision, the others would not have 
 happened (x) . Thus a ship, by her own negligence adrift in 
 a crowded dock or harbour, would, it is submitted, be liable 
 for all the damage done by her in successive collisions with 
 other craft before she was brought up and secured. In such 
 a case it would be immaterial that, after the first collision, the 
 others were inevitable, or that, but for the first collision, the 
 others would not have happened. The reasonable consequence 
 of sending a ship adrift under such circumstances is that she 
 will strike and injure other craft to leeward. 
 
 (0 The Douglas, 1 'P. B. 151,160. Cas. 4th ser. (Rennie), 93G ; The 
 
 lu thi^^ case Lords Bailiff Jurats of Uoiiylas, uhi supra. See fiu'ther as 
 
 liomney Marsh v. Corporation of the to the duty of those in charge of 
 
 Trinity House does not appear to sunken ships, iyifra, pp. 87 seq. 
 
 have been cited. (.t) Such a case occurred in The 
 
 (u) See Seccombe v. Wood, 2 Moo. Creadon, o Asp. M. C. 585, which 
 
 & Rob. 290 ; liroicii v. Jfallei, 5 C. B. came before the Court on limitation 
 
 5^1 9 ; White v. Crisp, 10 Ex. 312; of liability. 
 Kidson v. M'Arthur, 5 Ct. of Sess.
 
 DAMAGE WITHOUT COLLISION. 
 
 '27 
 
 If a collision occurs between two ships, A. and B., bv the Throf or 
 fault of one of them, and A. or B., or both A. and B., whilst rmpIiS. 
 in collision, or in consequence of the collision, drive against 
 and injure a third ship, C, C. can recover against tlie ship in 
 fault for the first collision. But the ship that fouls her is not 
 liable unless she was in fault either for the first or the second 
 collision (//). If two ships, A. and B., are both in fault for a 
 collision between one of them and a third ship., C, C. can 
 proceed in Admiralty against either A. or B., or she can pro- 
 ceed against both of them. It seems that she can recover the 
 whole of her loss against either of them (s). If C. is in tow 
 of A. or B. the case is different ; for the ship in tow is 
 generally responsible for the fault of her tug {a). 
 
 Where by the negligent navigation of one ship a collision Dama-jc, i.ut 
 occurs between two others, or another ship is damaged, either "" ^"^^''i'^"- 
 by collision or in any other way, the owners of the ship in 
 fault are liable at law, and the ship, it seems, is liable in 
 Admiralty {b) . Thus, a steamship that sank another craft by 
 the swell raised by her excessive speed was held liable (c). 
 Where, in order to avoid a colKsion with A., made imminent 
 by A.'s fault, a tug, B., was compelled to cast off her tow, C, 
 and C. went ashore, it was held that C. could recover against 
 A. (d) . In order to avoid A. lying ashore in a fairway with- 
 out a light, B. was obliged to put herself ashore ; it was held 
 that B. could recover against A. (e). The value of an anclior 
 and chain slipped to avoid collision, made imminent by the 
 other ship's fault, has been recovered in an Admii-alty action 
 in rem (/) and at law (g). 
 
 (y) The Hibernia, 4 Jur. N. S. 
 1244; The Sisters, 1 P. D. 117 ; The 
 Moxey, Abbot, 73. 
 
 {z) In The Milan, Lu^ih. 388, the 
 owuers of cargo ou board one of 
 two ships, both of which were in 
 fault, recovered only half their loss 
 against the other ship. In The 
 Bernina, 12 P. D. 58 ; 13 App. Cas. 
 1, this point was left open. As to 
 the liability of joint wrongdoers at 
 law, see p. 95. 
 
 [a) See below, Ch. VIII. 
 
 {b) The Wheatsheaf, 13 L. T. 612 
 The Industrie, L. R. 3 A. & E. 303 
 The Energy, L. R. 3 A. & 15. 48 
 The Sisters, 1 P. D. 117 ; LuxJ'ord v 
 
 Large, 5 C. & P. 421 ; The Niobc, 13 
 P. D. 55 (the action appears to have 
 been in rem). 
 
 (c) The Batavier, 9 Moo. P. C. 280 ; 
 Luxford V. Large, ubi supra. 
 
 (d) The Wheatsheaf, ubi supra, 
 {e) The Industrie, ubi supra. 
 
 If) The Fori Victoria, (1902) P. 
 25 ; Johanssoi v. Thi Lloimt, 4 Fed. 
 Rep. 573. So of a tow cut adrift 
 {semblf) : The Mount Hope, 84 Fed. 
 Rep. 910. 
 
 (y) Majoribanks v. Jioyd, Times, 
 11th Dec. 1873 (The Ahnom's cable 
 fouled The Astclfs when getting 
 under way in tlio Ilooghly, and 
 The Aslell slipped;.
 
 28 
 
 NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 Whether 
 nefjligeuce of 
 the plaintiff 
 is to be taken 
 into account 
 in estimating 
 damages. 
 
 Alteration of In The Seaton (/?) two steamships were proceeding on 
 ing risk of i)arallel courses, one on the quarter of the other and over- 
 colhsion. taking her. The sternmost ship altered her course, when 
 
 three miles off the ship ahead, so as to make her course 
 converge A\dth that of the other and bring about risk of 
 collision. After this she never altered her course, and struck 
 the ship ahead. The leading ship appears either to have done 
 nothing until she was struck, or to have taken a course which 
 was clearly wrong. The overtaking ship was held solely in 
 fault (/). 
 
 In common law actions juries have sometimes been per- 
 mitted to take a so-called " equitable " view of the circum- 
 stances of the case ; and, where there have been faults on both 
 sides, to award a smaller sum for damages than they would 
 have awarded had there been no fault on the part of the 
 plaintiff. These cases (/>•) cannot be treated as authorities for 
 the proposition that negligence of the plaintiff which did not 
 either wholly or in part cause the loss is material upon the 
 question of damages. It is wholly immaterial, and the rule 
 is so stated by Pollock, C. B., in Greenland v. Chaplin (J). 
 
 Closely connected with the question, whether a specific act 
 of negligence caused the loss, is the question whether a 
 particular item of loss can be recovered as damages caused by 
 the negligent act. Tlie same principle applies in either ease — 
 that the wrongdoer is liable for all the reasonable consequences 
 of his negligence. The cases connected with the question as 
 to the quantum of damages will be considered in Chapter V. 
 below. 
 
 Wilful injury Where, as has sometimes happened, one ship is wilfully and 
 * " ^'^' maliciously {in) driven against another, the wrongdoer would 
 
 What can be 
 recovered as 
 damages. 
 
 (A) 9P. D. 1. 
 
 (i)_ Q?<. whether in tViis case the 
 leading ship was not also in fault. 
 It would seem that, with ordinary 
 care, she could have avoided the 
 consequences of the defendant's negli- 
 gence. See snpra, pp. 16 seq 
 
 (k) Raisin v. Mitchell, 9 Car. & P. 
 613 ; Smith v. Bobson, 3 Scott. 
 N. R. 336 ; 3 Man. & G. o9. The 
 latter report does not agree with 
 the former as to the reasons given 
 
 by the jui-y for their verdict. See 
 some remarks of Sir J. Patteson on 
 this case in Netherlands Steamboat 
 Co. v. Styles, 9 Moo. P. C. 286, 
 297. 
 
 (0 6 Ex. 243. 
 
 (w) For an instance of such a case, 
 see L. R. 1 A. & E. 64 ; The Ida, 
 Lush. 6 ; Shjfield v. Penfold, 66 Fed. 
 Rep. 571; Gaffner v. Pigott, 11 G 
 Fed. Rep. 486.
 
 BURDEN OF PROOF. 29 
 
 probably be held liable for the entire loss, notwithstanding 
 negligence in the other ship in not avoiding the collision. 
 
 To enable the plaintiff in a collision action to recover Proof of 
 damages, he must prove atBrmatively that his loss was caused "^"^•.»-'^"''<'- 
 by the negligence of the defendant or of some person for 
 whose acts he is liable. The general rule was thus stated by 
 Lord TVensleydale {)/) : " The ])arty seeking to recover com- 
 pensation for damage must make out that the party against 
 whom he complains was in the wrong. The burden of proof 
 is clearly upon him, and he must show that the loss is to be 
 attributed to the negligence of the opposite party. If at the 
 end he leaves the case in even scales, and does not satisfy the 
 Court that it was occasioned by the negligence or default of 
 the other party, he cannot succeed." So in the case then 
 before the Court, it being proved that the plaintiff ship liad 
 no light, the inference was that, but for the absence of the 
 light, the collision probably would not have occun'ed, and the 
 plaintiff failed to recover (o). 
 
 Tlie plaintiff must therefore make out at least a j))-i)im fav'w Burdeu of 
 ease. The burden of proof lies so far on him (»), and this P^^"^= ;^>iwrt 
 
 ... Ml' fncie iiesfli- 
 
 bui'den is still on the plaintiff, if the defendants admit that ?ouce. 
 tlieir vessel is also to blame for the collision {q). \\\\i it does 
 not follow that it lies on him throughout the whole case. 
 Having made out a prima facie case of negligence on tlie 
 part of the defendant, the burden of proof is shifted, and 
 the defendant will be liable unless he proves that liis 
 negligence in no way contributed to the loss(r). "Where 
 certain inferences of fact have been established b}' numerous 
 cases, they become to a great extent very nearly of the same 
 
 («) &ee Morgan v. Sim, The London, Marpcsia, L. R. 4 P. C. 212; 
 
 11 Moo. P. C' 307, 312. See Hnrns The lienmore, L. R. 4 A & E. 132 ; 
 V. Anderson, 14 C. B. N. S. 49!i, for Thr Ahraham, 28 L. T. 77.5 ; Thr 
 a case where the plaintiff failed Albert Edward, 44 L. J. Ad. 4 9. 
 throuo'h absence of sucli proof: and {q) The Cadebi/, (1909) P. 2r)7. 
 
 op. Wakelin v. L. (f S. W. It'iU. Co.. [r) The Lii/o, 2 Hap. Ad. 356. 360; 
 
 12 App. Cas. 41. The tiistem, 1 P. D. 117 ; The Citii of 
 {o) In The Fenham, L. R 3 P. C. Antwerp, and The Friedrieh, L. R. 2 
 
 212, a similar presumption nro8e. P. C. 25; Caijzer v. Cnrron Co. {The 
 
 See the remarks of Lord Blackburn Mnrejuret), 9 App. Cas. 873. See 
 
 on this case, Cai/zer v. Carron (Jo., Daniel v. Metropolitan Rail. Co., 
 
 9 App. Cas. 873,' 882. L. R. 3 C. P. 216; ibid. 591, as U) 
 
 ( />) I'he Jiolina, 3 Not. of Caw. 208, what \n sufficient evidence of nejfli- 
 
 210; The Carron, 1 Sp. 91; The gence ; S. C. t«i</. 5 H. L. 45. 
 London, 11 Moo. P. C. 307; The
 
 30 NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 CoUisionwith authority as if they were propositions of law"(s). This is 
 
 shipatanchor. ,, , .,,.... t i.i. t 
 
 notably the case m colhsion actions, in the common case oi 
 a collision in daylight between a ship under way and 
 another at anchor in a proper place, the burden is upon the 
 other ship to show that she was not in fault (t), for when a 
 steamship runs down a vessel at her moorings in broad 
 daylight, that fact is by itseli prima facir evidence of fault (u), 
 but if the collision were at night the plaintiff would have 
 to prove in the first instance that the lights on his ship were 
 burning efhcieutly (x). 
 
 Again, instances of a shifting of the burden of proof after 
 a simple i^rima facie case of negligence has been made 
 are the cases of a ship ashore (//), a fishing boat fast to her 
 nets (s), a ship in stays hove to (a), lying dead in the water {h), 
 or otherwise not under command, and, without negligence on 
 her own part, unable to keep out of the way. It has been 
 pointed out in America by the Supreme Court that a ship in 
 tow in collision with another tow is in a wholly different 
 position, as regards the bui'den of proof of negligence in one 
 or both tugs, from that of a ship at anchor suing another 
 under way {o). 
 
 The general rule that a vessel under way is prima facie in 
 fault for a collision with a ship at anchor applies, although 
 the latter is brought up in an improper place, or has no 
 riding light, provided the former could with ordinary care 
 have avoided her. "It is the bounden duty of a vessel 
 under way, whether the vessel at anchor be properly or 
 improperly anchored, to avoid, if it be possible with safety to 
 
 (s) Per Mellish, L. J., L. R. 9 Fed. Eep. 703. 
 
 Ch. 713 (as to proof of damage in (;:) The Columbus, 1 Pritch. Ad. 
 
 actions to restrain nuisances). Dig. ed. 1887, 239 ; The Tivo Sisters, 
 
 [t) The Indus, 12 P. D. 46; The ibid. 248; The Bottle Imp, 28 L. T. 
 
 Bothmn, Lush. 52 ; The Otter, L. R. 286. 
 
 4 A. & E. 203; The Annot Li/le, II (a) The Eleanor and The Alma, 2 
 
 P. D. 114 ; The Ileiinll'., 13 Quebec Mar. Law Cas. 0. S. 240. But see 
 
 L. R. 379 ; The Beaver, 2 Beued. 118 ; The London, 6 Not. of Cas. 29 ; The 
 
 The Baltic, 2 Bened. 452 ; Tlie I). S. Rosalie, 5 P. D. 245, in both of which 
 
 Miller, 76 Fed. Rep. 877 ; The cases the ships hove to were held to 
 
 Meanatchi/, (1897) A. C. 351. And be in fault, 
 
 see infra, pp. 37, 38. {b) The James T. Easton, 27 Fed. 
 
 [u) Per Lord Watson, The Citi/ of Rep. 464. A tug lying in the track 
 
 Fekinc/, 14 App. Cas. 40, 43. Cp. of a ferry-boat, that refused to move 
 
 The Indus, supra; The Merchant when whistled to do so, was, in 
 
 Prince, (1892) P. 179. America, held in fault; The Roslyn, 
 
 {x) The Telegraph, 1 Sp. 427. 22 Fed. Rep. 687. 
 
 {y) The F. ^ P. M. (No. 1), 45 (c) The L. P. Dayton, WDbm.ZZT.
 
 BURDEN OF PROOF. 
 
 31 
 
 herself, any collision whatever " (V/) . Even if a ship is 
 brought up in the fairway of a river, if the other could with 
 ordinary care have avoided her, the latter will he held solely 
 to blame (c). 
 
 In T/iC Indus (./') a steamship ran into a lightsliip, and it 
 was suggested on behalf of the steamship that lier steam 
 steering-gear failed to act and that the colhsion was an 
 inevitable accident. In the absence of any evidence that 
 this was so, it was held that the prima facie evidence of 
 negligence against the steamship had not been displaced, 
 and she was held alone iu fault. 
 
 A ship that obstinately refuses to move from an anchorage 
 where she necessarily endangers other craft will be held iu 
 fault for a collision that follows (g). 
 
 A vessel's steam steering gear jammed, and, in broad How to dis- 
 daylight, she ran into a ship at anchor. There was no burdeuS* 
 proof as to why it jammed ; and there was hand gear, which rr"<'f- 
 was not used. It was proved that the owners had been 
 careful to provide good steering gear. Butt, J., held that 
 the defendants, the owners, had discharged the burden, which 
 was upon them, of proving that the collision was inevitable. 
 This decision was reversed upon appeal. Fry, Ij J., saying 
 that to sustain the defence of inevitable accident, the defen- 
 dants must " either show what was the cause of the accident, 
 and show that the result of that cause was inevitable ; or they 
 must show all the possible causes, one or other of wliich 
 produced the effect, and must further show with regard to 
 every one of those possible causes that the result could not 
 have been avoided" (h). 
 
 In common law actions for negligence, there has of late Proof of 
 
 abseune of 
 
 {d) Per Dr. Lu.shingtoTi iu The 
 Batavier, 2 W. Rob. 407 ; Hay v. 
 Le Neve, 2 Shaw's Scotch App. Cas. 
 39.T ; The Marcia Trihoti, 2 Spragruc, 
 17. And see infra. Oh. X. 
 
 [e) Mayor, <J-c. nf Colchester v Brooke, 
 7 Q. B'. 3.3i). But dist. Daltnn v. 
 Benton, 1 C. B. N. S. 672. As to 
 the rig-ht to bring' up in ji fairway, 
 see Anon. Cane, 1 Camp. -^16, note 
 The Clara, 12 Otto, 200, and United 
 Staten v. St. Lonin, cfr. Transportation 
 Co., 184 U. S. 247, show that if a 
 
 ship brings up in a place where otliera 
 cauuot with ordinary care avoid her, 
 .she will be held alone in fault. A.s 
 to obstruction of hig-hways on hmd, 
 see Harris M. Mobbs. S Ex. D. 2(i« ; 
 JFilkitis V. Bay, 12 Q. B. D. 110. 
 
 (/■) 12 P. D. 46. 
 
 (//) The Cachapool, 7 P. D. 217. 
 
 (7/) The Mereh'nit Prinrf, (\H9'1) P. 
 179, 189 ; and see The Intm. 12 P. IX 
 46, as to discharging tin' linden <>i 
 proof.
 
 32 
 
 NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 contributory 
 neorlig'ence in 
 tlie plaintiff. 
 
 been much discussion whether it is necessary for a plaintiff to 
 give evidence of absence of contributory negligence {i). And 
 in an ordinary " day " collision between a ship under way 
 and a ship at anchor, it would seem that the fact of the 
 collision raises a presumption of negligence in the ship 
 under way, which, unless rebutted by proof of negligence in 
 the ship at anchor, must result in a judgment for full 
 damages. The matter is not, however, free from doubt, for 
 even in such a case it has been said in American cases that 
 evidence of absence of negligence in the plaintiff is necessary 
 to enable liim to recover {k). When the point arises for final 
 decision it will probably be found that the opinion of Kay, 
 L. J., in Smith v. South EaMorii Rail. Co. (/) is correct, and 
 that, in order to raise a presumption of negligence in the 
 defendant, it is not necessary for the plaintiff, in the first 
 instance, to prove absence of negligence on his own part. In 
 Admiralty actions, owing to the procedure by way of 
 preliminary act, and the form of pleadings in common use, 
 the question seldom arises. 
 
 The rule that tlie mere fact of a daylight collision between 
 a craft under way and another at anchor is prima facie 
 evidence of negligence in the latter, is not without exceptions. 
 A derrick or wreck-raising craft moored in a strong and 
 narrow tidewaj^ over or alongside a wreck, although not in 
 an improper position or unlawfully obstructing the fairway, 
 nevertheless presents such an obstruction to other vessels that 
 it would not be reasonable to presume that the latter are 
 negligent merely because they foul the former. The difficul- 
 ties of the craft under way are still greater, if they are sailing- 
 vessels and the weather is boisterous, or if they are tugs with 
 
 (i) See Smith v. South Eastern Rail. 
 Co., (1896) 1 Q. B. 178; JFakelinv. 
 Londo7i and South Western Rail. Co., 
 ibid. 189, note; Dublin, Wicklow and 
 Wexford Rail. Co v. Slattery, 3 App. 
 Gas. 1155. 
 
 (k) In The Clara, 12 Otto, 200, it 
 was .said that " the plaintiff, in order 
 to recover entire damages, must prove 
 both care ou his part and vpant of it 
 on the part of the defendant"; and 
 Parsons on Ship. I. 529, is to the 
 same effect. Cf. The Michigan, 52 
 
 Fed. Rep. 501 ; The Rockaway, 19 
 Fed. Rep. 449 (-a. fog case) ; The 
 Florence P. Ball, 14 Fed. Rep. 408, 
 " tlie burden is on the libellant to 
 prove his light was burning and 
 could be seen": Middlesex Quarry 
 Co. V. The Albert Mason, 2 Fed. Rep. 
 821. The R. R. Kirkland, 48 Fed. 
 Rep. 760, seems opposed to this. 
 
 (0 (1896) 1 Q. B. 178, 189. The 
 cases as to the defence of compulsory 
 pilotage, infra, Ch. X., are to the 
 same effect.
 
 BURDEN OF PROOF. 
 
 33 
 
 a heavj train of barges in tow, and the obstruction is come 
 upon suddenly and unexpectedly (w). In such cases the 
 ship at anchor may reasonabl}' be required to do what she 
 can to assist the other to clear her. either by sheering with 
 her helm, j^aying out chain, or in any other way possible ; 
 and it might be held to be negligence on her part not to do 
 so (n). 
 
 Where the anchored vessel is lying in a fairway or 
 frequented waters, out of ordinary anchorage ground, and 
 the collision is at night or in a fog, and the questions whether 
 she was in a proper place and exhibited projier lights, or 
 sounded proper fog signals, and maintained a watch, are 
 raised by the pleadings, the burden would seem to be on her 
 to prove that she was not in fault in any of these matters (o). 
 
 In New York harbour, a ship was lying at a wharf with 
 her bowsprit projecting into a slip, contrary to the harbour 
 rules, and a ferry boat entering the slip struck the bowsprit, 
 it was held that both were in fault, the one for being moored 
 in an improper position, the other for not keeping clear of 
 her (p). And so where the moored ship at night had not 
 stowed her boom, which was left outboard over the rail {q). 
 
 So where the loss is not immediate, and other possible 
 causes intervene (as where the vessel is lying in driving ice), 
 the burden of proof may be on the ship at anchor to show 
 that the loss was caused by the collision (r). 
 
 The Mat/ Queen (.s), a barquentine running into Newhaven 
 in a S. E. gale, let go her anchor when about 150 yards ofP a 
 ketch at anchor. There was a spring flood tide running and 
 the gale was right into the harbour. The port cable parted, 
 and before the starboard anchor, which was let go, brought 
 
 (//') In American cases of this 
 nature, the craft under way have 
 been held to be free from fault ; 
 The Chaimcfii M. Depev;, 59 Fed. 
 
 Rep. 791. Cf. The 
 4P, Fed. Rep. 2G7 ; 
 35 Fed. Rep. 159 ; 
 Fed. Rc-p. 4G0. 
 (w) See JrcUs v. 
 
 /. Ji. r. Moore, 
 The Bridgeport, 
 
 Thr T'a.SHdic, 76 
 
 ArmHtrong, 29 
 
 Fed. Rep. 216 ; and cases wfra, 
 p. 1G7. 
 
 (o) This opiiii )n has been expressed 
 
 M. 
 
 in American cases ; The Armonia, 67 
 Fed. Rep. 363. 
 
 {p) The Fort Lcc, 31 Fed. Rep. 
 570 ; The Margaret J. SanJ'urd, 30 
 Fed. Rep. 714; 37 Fed. Rep. 148; 
 dist. Dallon v. Dntton, 1 C. B. N. S. 
 672 (timber projecting' from a wharf 
 over the river bed). 
 
 iq) The Industrie, 27 Fed. Rop. 
 767. 
 
 (r) The Marijlnnd, 14 Fed. Rep. 
 307. 
 
 (.s) Ad. Div. 1 May, 1000. 
 
 P
 
 34 NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 licr up, the barquenfino fouled the ketch. It was held to be 
 
 an inevitable accident, due, either to a latent defect in the 
 
 cable, or to stress of weather. No latent defect was visible 
 
 in the broken link of the chain, which was produced in Court ; 
 
 and the chain was sufficient in point of size. 
 
 Where one Where two ships are approaching each other so as to 
 
 required to involve risk of collision, the law (/) usually requires one of 
 
 keep out of them to keep out of the way and the other to keep her course. 
 
 the way. _ ^ '' .... 
 
 If a collision occurs between two such ships, there is, it is 
 
 submitted, no presumption that the ship required to keep out 
 of the way is in fault {n) ; for the duty of the other ship to 
 keep her course is no less stringent tlian that of the former 
 ship, and until she proves that she did. keep her course the 
 fact of the collision is no evidence of negligence in the ship 
 required to keep out of the way. But upon such proof being 
 given, a presumption of fault in the ship required to keep out 
 of the way arises, and unless she proves circumstances rebut- 
 ting this presumption she will be held in fault without proof 
 of any specific act of negligence on her part (;r). 
 
 Though in clear weather and under ordinary circumstances 
 the presumption is that a steamship is able to keep out of the 
 way of a sailing ship, it may happen that by no fault of her 
 own she is not able to do so. In such a case no presumption 
 of negligence on the part of the steamship will arise. In a 
 fog, for exarajile, a sailing ship has no right to rely upon an 
 approaching steamship, which she cannot see, being able to 
 keep out of her way. It is the duty of the sailing ship, 
 under such circumstances, to be in readiness to act herself ; 
 
 {t) See Arts. 17, seq., infra, p. 385. The City of Truro, 35 Eed. Rep. 317 : 
 
 [ii] See per Westbury, C., T/u City " Where, upon the whole case, there 
 
 of Antwerp, L. R. 2 P. C. 'lb \ infra, is no decisive evidence of fault on the 
 
 ]). 406; The Florence 1'. Mall, 14 part of the sailing vessel, the steamer 
 
 Fed. Rep. 408. must answer for the collision, where 
 
 [x) See the following American no circumstances appear to show that 
 
 cases : The Carroll, 8 Wall. 302, 304 ; the accident was inevitable." Cf. 
 
 The Scotia, \\ Wall. 170, 181; New The Fcnnland, 23 Fed. Rep. 551 ; 
 
 York, &;c. Mail Co. v. Rumball, 21 The Badger State, 8 Fed. Rep. 526 ; 
 
 How. 372, 385. In some cases, Farr v. The Farnley, 1 Fed. Rep. 
 
 however, the burden has been thrown 63 1 . The case is the same as between 
 
 in the first instwnce upon the steam- a free and a close-hauled sailing 
 
 ship to pidve thut the sailing ship .ship : The Eraatus Wintan, 20 Fed. 
 
 altered her course : The Seneca, 47 Rep. 245. Some of the foreign 
 
 Fed. Rep. 87 ; The J. D. Feters, 42 codes adopt highly artificial pre- 
 
 Fed. Rep. 269; The Gypsum Prince, sumptions as to which shiji is in 
 
 67 Fed. Rep. 612 ; per Brown, .1., fault.
 
 PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE. 35 
 
 and, if she simply stands on lier course and does nothln<> 
 until the collision occurs, she may be held in fault (//). 
 
 Where a sailing ship was lost with all hands in a collision 
 with a steamship, the latter was held in fault upon the facts 
 stated in her own pleadings, and upon evidence from a third 
 ship that her lights were bm-niog some time before the 
 collision (;:). 
 
 The question sometimes arises whether credible evidence Whether not 
 from witnesses on board a ship, A., that they were listening fSomor 
 but heard no fog-horn or whistle from ship B., though it was whistle nises 
 alleged by those on B. that a fog-horn or whistle was being of ueglii^euc'e? 
 sounded on their ship, which was in fact in the neighbour- 
 hood of A. for some minutes, and subsequently came into 
 collision with her, amounts to proof that no horn or whistle 
 was sounded. Such evidence frequently has to be weighed 
 against equally credible evidence from B., that the horn or 
 whistle was properly sounded on board B. The atmospheric 
 conditions under which sounds are readily transmitted are 
 peculiar ; the attention of scientific men has been directed to 
 the subject only in recent years, and the subject is at present 
 imperfectly understood (r/) . The Courts are therefore un- 
 willing to infer negligence from the fact that a fog-signal, 
 which is proved to have been sounded in the vicinity, was not 
 heard. The evidence of A. will not necessarily prove that 
 |>roper signals were not made by B. ; " the fact that the sound 
 
 (y) See The Zadok, 9 P. D. IH, two-and-a-half to sixteen- and-a- 
 
 118. half miles. Sir J. Douglas, in his 
 
 (z) The Aleppo, 35 L. J. Ad. 9. evidence before the conmiittec on 
 
 (a) Professor Tj'ndall arrived at electrical comrnuuicatioa between 
 
 the following conclusions, based lightships and the shore, 1887, states 
 
 upon elaborate experiments at sea that the most powerful syren under 
 
 and on shore in the neighbourhood certain conditions is not reliable 
 
 of the fog-syren at the South Fore- beyond one mile ; and that hot sun 
 
 land: — (1) that the condition most is bad for sound. He also states — a 
 
 unfavourable for the transmission of fact often doubted in Court— that lie 
 
 sound is " water in a vaporous form can tell within two degrees the 
 
 mingled with the air, so as to render direction from which a fog signal at 
 
 it turbid and flocculent. This acoustic sea conies. In the Chaunel Pilot, 
 
 turbidity often occurs in days of 9th ed. Art. 18, cited by Buclcnill, J., 
 
 surprising optical transparency." in The Koning Willem I., (190.j) P. 
 
 (2) "The air associated with fog is 114, 121, it is stated that "apart 
 
 as a general rule highly homogeneous from the wind, large areas of sileuco 
 
 and favourable to the transmission have been found iu diil'ereiit dircc- 
 
 of sound." (3) Rain, hail, snow, tions, and at different distances from 
 
 fog, have no sensible power to ob- the origin of the sound, even in (dear 
 
 struct sound. (1) The sound range (of weather." 
 the syren) on a calm day varies from 
 
 1)2
 
 36 
 
 NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 of the fog-horn does not appear to have reached the ears of 
 those on board The Campania is not sufficient to override the 
 positive evidence from the witnesses from the barque that it 
 was being properly sounded," and the evidence from B. will 
 not prove that those on board A. were negligent in not hear- 
 ing them (/>). " The vagaries of sound in a fog," it has been 
 said by nautical men of experience, " are of a most astonish- 
 ing character." It has been noticed also that one ship's horn 
 or whistle may drown that of the other ship, where the blasts 
 are simultaneous. 
 Defective ship ^ gj^^p jg j^q^ quc of those things dangerous in themselves, 
 
 or equipment ; , . , ., , . i •^ •^•L e • 
 
 shipowner not which entail upon their owners the responsibility ot msuriug 
 
 [nsm'efafet ^'^^^^3" ^''^- ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^ ^P°^ ^^® shipowner the duty of 
 using reasonable care to insure that his ship, when she sails 
 and while she is under way, is in a condition in which she 
 ma}^ be navigated with safety to other ships. If she damages 
 another ship in consequence of the giving way or inefficiency 
 of her gear or equipment, a prima facie case of negligence 
 arises. The presumption of negligence may, however, be 
 rebutted by showing that the defect was latent, that reason- 
 able care was in fact used to put and keep her in good 
 condition, or that the giving way of the gear was due to 
 stress of weather or other unavoidable cause {d). 
 
 In these cases the principle of Seott v. London and St. 
 Kaf/icriiie^s Doel- Co. [e) applies. It was there held that 
 "where the thing" (goods suspended over the pavement, which 
 fell and injured the plaintiff) " is shown to be under the 
 management of the defendant or his servants, and the accident 
 is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if 
 
 (A) The Campania, (1901) P. 2S9 : 
 The Zadok, 9 P. D. 114, 118; The 
 Merthyr, 8 Asp. M. C. 475 : The 
 Nador, (190i.) P. 300. The Conrts 
 in America have come to a simihir 
 conclusion ; TJie MartcUo, 4G Davis, 
 64 ; The Senator I). C. Chase, 
 46 Fed. Rep. 874 ; The Emperor, 
 ibid. 143 ; The Lepanto, 21 Fed. 
 Rep. 651. 
 
 [c) Infra, p. 68. As to unwiehlj' 
 ratts of excessive size, see The 
 Niagara, 44 Fed. Rep. 775 ; or tows 
 of excessive length, The Moant Hope, 
 and cases infra, p. 169. 
 
 (d) See p. 9, above. 
 
 [e) 3 H. & C. 596 ; Di/me v. 
 J^oadk, 2 H. & C. 722 : 33 L. J. 
 Ex. 13 Of the case in the text 
 Wiiles, J., .«aid (L. R. 2 C. P. 11) : 
 " There the defendants had in their 
 possession, and under their control, 
 something which was dangerous 
 uLilets reasonable precautions were 
 taken to prevent injury to third 
 persons." It would seem that the^e 
 remarks aj^ply to the owners of ships. 
 Cf. per Lord Halsbury, C, Smith v. 
 Baker, (1891) App. Gas. 325, 335.
 
 PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE. 37 
 
 those who have the management use proper care, it affords 
 reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the 
 defendant, that the accident arose from want of care." In 
 Mofatt V. Batcman (_/'), it was held that the principle of Scott 
 V. London and St. Katherine's Dock Co. did not enable a 
 person, who was injm-ed by being thrown out of a vehicle, to 
 recover damages without affirmative proof of negligence on 
 the part of the defendant. " There is nothing more usual 
 than for accidents to happen in driving without any want of 
 care or skill on the part of the driver " ; and therefore no 
 2)runa facie presumption of negligence having been raised 
 (this was the opinion of the Privy Council), it was held that 
 affirmative evidence of negligence was necessary. In tliis 
 case the kingbolt of the carriage, being defective, had broken, 
 whereupon the horses bolted, and the plaintiff was thrown 
 out. It was proved that the carriage was examined by a 
 blacksmith every three months ; and that the defendant, the 
 owner, had not himself examined it before starting on the 
 day of the accident. It was held that there was no negligence 
 on the part of the owner in this respect. 
 
 It is not enough to prove that the other ship omitted to do Act chargetl 
 something that would have prevented the collision, or that she JJ'eyUgent. 
 did something without which the collision would not have 
 occurred. It must be proved that the omission or act com- 
 plained of was negligent {y). If the plaintiff ship has herself 
 infringed the regulations, or has been guilty of negligence 
 which might have contributed to the collision, the burden is 
 on her to show that the collision was not caused entirely by 
 her own fault. 
 
 When one ship alleges want of lights or of a proper look- Burden of 
 out, or insufficient moorings, or any such negligence on board pe,'uii!rrly'hr 
 the other as it is impossible or difficult for her to prove by tli"'l<""'«'i''lj-'c 
 
 T i. • 1 i1 1 -I • 1 , llf tllC I'lTSOIi 
 
 direct evidence, the burden is on the latter, as it is peculiarly chmgcd. 
 in her power to prove that lier lights were sufficient, or that 
 
 {/, L. R. :>, P. C. 115; Mauzoni L. R. f) Q. B. 411 ; ihid. 6 Q. B. 
 
 V. J)ov>jlas, 6 Q. B. D. l4o, is a very 751); 39 L. J. Q. B. 200; ibid. JO 
 
 similar case. The question as to Q. B. 285 ; Daniel v. Metropolitun 
 
 what is prima facie proof of iie<rli- Itail. Co., L. R. 3 C. P. 211); ihiiL 
 
 gence was much discussed in tliat 591 ; ihid. 5 H. L. 45. 
 case, and also in Kearney v. Loud'n, {ij) The Thumis, 2 Asp. M C. 512. 
 
 Briyhton and Houth Coast Rail. Co.,
 
 of negligence 
 
 38 np:gligence. 
 
 there was no such negligence (/^). "The burden of proof 
 should under all circumstances be thrown on those who have 
 a peculiar knowledge of the subject and peculiar means of 
 proving it which do not belong to the other party " (/), 
 Specific acts Many of the innumerable acts and omissions which cause 
 collision have been the subject of decision in the Courts with 
 reference to the question of negligence. Infringement of the 
 collision regulations, carelessness, want of look-out, and dis- 
 regard of the ordinary rules of seamanship, are amongst the 
 most frequent causes of collision. Cases illustrating specific 
 acts of negligence, both infringement of the regulations for 
 preventing collisions at sea, and neglect of the ordinary 
 practice of seamen, are considered in Chapter XIV. ; the 
 cases as to " the ordinary practice of seamen " being collected 
 under Art. 29, which expressly refers to the necessity of 
 observing that practice. 
 
 (h) The StvanhmJ, 2 Sp. 107: TJ/f 1.3 L. T. 413; The Conoho, 24 Fed. 
 John Early and The Wmiam Tell, Eep. 7-')8. 
 
 ii) The Swanland, 2 Sp. 107, 109.
 
 39 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 STATUTORY PRESUMPTION OF FAULT. 
 
 I'l' has beeu already stated that under eertaiu circiiiustauc(.'s Statutory 
 au arbitrary rule of law requires the Courts to hold a ship iu of'^iUi'/h'"" 
 fault for a collision, although no negligence on her part con- ''i.***^' ^'^ "'- 
 tributing to the collision is proved. And it will be seen below tlu- reguhi- 
 that this rule applies, not only where negligence is not proved, *'°^" 
 but whore it did not exist, and where those in charge of the 
 ship were, as regards negligence, absolutely free from blame. 
 The circumstances which bring this stringent enactment into 
 operation are as follows : — First, where, on the part of the 
 ship sued, there has been an infringement of any of the col- 
 lision regulations, which might by possibility have contributed 
 to the collision ; and, secondly, where the ship sued did not 
 stand by to assist the other with which she had been in 
 collision. 
 
 By 57 & oS Vict. c. (iO, s. 419 {4), it is enacted as .57 & 5S Vict. 
 
 p n C. 60, 8. ll'J 
 
 loliows : — /4\ 
 
 " Where, in a case of collision, it is proved to the Court before which, 
 the case is tried that any of the collision regulations have been 
 infringed, the ship by which the regulation has been infringed shall bo 
 deemed to be in fault, unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court 
 that the circumstances of the case made dejiarture from the regulation 
 necessary." 
 
 To understand the effect of this enactment it will be neccs- Hi-tory <>f 
 sary to refer to previous legislation upon the subject, liy „,u,u tho 
 14 & 15 Vict. c. 79, s. 2S, and afterwards by 17 & 18 Vict. r;;;;J';;;^^;;^„,,^ 
 c. 104, s. 298, it was enacted, in effect, that if a collision was of siatutuiy 
 occasioned by the non-observance of any of the rules as to u,ivij,Miiou. 
 lights or navigation contained in or made under tlioso Acts, 
 the owner of the ship by which the ruh^ was infringed should 
 recover no damages for injury to his ship, unless it was proved
 
 40 
 
 STATUTORY PRESUMPTION OF FAULT. 
 
 tliat the departure from the rule was necessary (a). The 
 effect of these enactments was to abrogate the rule of the 
 Admii-alty, that a wrong-doing vessel shall recover half her 
 loss if the other ship is also in fault, in the case of a vessel 
 which had unnecessarily infringed the statutory rules. In 
 each case the question had to be tried whether the infringe- 
 ment was negligence contributiug to the collision. In Tnjf' v. 
 Wannan (h) and other cases (c) it was held, upon the con- 
 struction of these enactments, that though the plaintiff had 
 infringed the regulations, and by his negligence had brought 
 the ships into danger, yet if the defendant could by reasonable 
 care have avoided the collision, the plaintiff could recover. 
 Where one ship. A., was in fault for not keeping a look-out, and 
 the other, B., was in fault for infringing the statutory rule, 
 it was held that A. could recover half her loss, and that B. 
 could recover nothing (d). But it was held that sect. 298 did 
 not prevent the owner of cargo on board a ship infringing the 
 statutory rule from recovering half his loss (c). The effect of 
 these enactments, so far as they abrogated the Admiralty rule 
 of division of loss, was probably not apprehended by the 
 legislature (,/'). 
 
 The next alteration in the law was made by 2o & 26 Vict, 
 c. 63, s. 29 (//). The effect of this enactment was to restore 
 
 (a) The sections ran as follows : 
 14 & 15 Vict. c. 79, s. 28: -'If in 
 any case of collision between two or 
 more vessels it appear that such col- 
 lision was occasioned by the non- 
 observance of either of the foregoing 
 rules with respect to the passing of 
 steamers, or" (the rules as to ships' 
 lights made under the powers of the 
 Act) . . . "the owner of the vessel 
 by which any such rule has been 
 infringed, shall not be entitled to 
 recover any recompense whatever for 
 any damage sustained by such vessel 
 in such collision, unless it appears to 
 the Coui't before which the case is 
 tried that the circumstances of the 
 case were such as to justify a de- 
 parture from the rule," &c. Tlie 
 subsequent Act, 17 tfe 18 Vict. c. 104, 
 s. 298, was as follows : " If in any 
 case of collision it appears to the 
 Court before which the case is tried 
 that such collision was occasioned by 
 the non-observance of any rule, &c. 
 
 . . . the owner of the ship by which 
 such rule has been infringed shall 
 not be entitled to recover any recom- 
 pense whatever for any damage sus- 
 tained by such ship in such collision, 
 unless it is shown to the satisfaction 
 of the Court that the circumstances 
 of the case ninde a departure from 
 the rule necessary." Under the 
 latter Act, 7'he Jnhana, Sw. 20, was 
 decided. 
 
 (b) 2 C. B. N. S. 740 ; on app 5 
 C. B. N. S. 573. 
 
 (c) Ilorrison v. General Steam Navi- 
 733 ; The Vivid, 10 
 The Aliwal, IS Jur. 
 
 296 ; The Telegraph, ibid. \-21 . See 
 also TliC Juliana, Sw. 20 ; Tl(e Fain/, 
 1 Sp. 298 ; The WamfeU, 1 Sp. 271. 
 
 (d) The Aurora, Lush. 327. 
 {e) The Milan, Lush. 388. 
 (/) The Su-anland, 2 Sp. 110. 
 
 {g) "If in any case of collision it 
 appears to the Court before which 
 the case is tried that such collision 
 
 qation Co., 8 E.x. 
 Moo. P. C. 472 ;
 
 HISrORY OF LEGISLATION. 
 
 41 
 
 the Admiralty rule as to tlie division of damages where both 
 ships are in fault, and a vessel guilty of an infringement of 
 the statutory regulations was enabled to recover in the 
 Admiralty Court (as she could previously to 14 & 15 Vict, 
 c. 79) half her loss against a defendant vessel which was also 
 in fault. The question whether a ship which had infringed 
 a regulation applicable to the case was guilty of negligence 
 contributing to the collision had still to be tried in every 
 case (h). 
 
 The appli(;ation of the doctrine in Ti{ff' v. Wanndii pre- 
 vented the above statutes from having the effect desu-ed by 
 those who framed them. Attention appears to have been 
 called to the subject by the decision in The Fcnham (/) ; and 
 36 & 37 Vict. c. 85, s. 17, which, in effect, is identical with 
 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, s. 419 (4), the enactment now in force, 
 was pjassed in consequence. The change in the language of 
 this enactment was made with the following objects : — First, 
 to take away the ratio decidendi in Tiiffx. Wdrnuin ; secondly, 
 to render it unnecessary to have resort to an artificial rule as 
 to the inference to be drawn from evidence (/r) ; thirdly, to 
 enable the Courts to adjudicate upon collision cases without 
 the necessity of determining upon conflicting evidence the 
 question of fact, (often a nice one,) whether or no an infringe- 
 ment of a regulation, applicable to the case, and that might 
 by possibility have contributed to the collision, did, in fact, 
 contribute to the collision (/) ; and, lastly, to increase the 
 
 was occasioued by the uon-observ^- 
 ance of any regulation made by or 
 in pursuance of this Act, the ship by 
 which such regulation has been in- 
 fringed shall he deemed to be in 
 fault, unless it is shown to the satis- 
 faction of the Court that the circum- 
 stances of the case made a departure 
 from the rule necessary." The 
 wording of this section seems to 
 have been suggested by a passage 
 in the judgrnent of Cockbnm, C. J., 
 in Taffy. Wurman, iibl suprn. 
 
 (A) Under this Act the following 
 cases were decided : The Fcnham, 
 L. R. 3 P. C. 212 ; The Bo'igainvilh: 
 L. R. 5 P. C. 316; The Taleslme, 13 
 W. R. Ill ; Th" I'cHH.sylvunia, i»fi'a, 
 23 L. T. 55. 
 
 (t) See /7cr Lord Blackburn in The 
 
 Khedice, .5 App. Gas. 876, 892 ; and 
 perhaps by The liotiyabivUle and The 
 J. C. Stevenson, L. "R. 5 P. C. 316 
 (1872, 1873). 
 
 {k) As in The Feiiham, L. R. 3 
 P. C. 212. These two reasons for 
 the alteration in the law are given 
 by Lord Blackburn in The Khtdiir, 
 .5 App. Gas. 893. 
 
 (/) The Fanny M. Givvill, 13 App. 
 Gas. 45.), note ; 2 Asp. M. G. .')6.") ; 
 in Gourt below, ibid. 178 : L. R. 4 
 A. & E. 417, 122; cited by Lord 
 Blackburn in The Khedive, 5 App. 
 Gas. 870, 893 ; approved and fol- 
 lowed by the Privy Gouncil in The 
 Lapicing, 7 App. Gas. 512 ; Thr 
 Jlihcrnia, 2 Asp. M. G. 454 ; The 
 Itondane, 9 Asp. M. G. 106 ^a steam- 
 ship held in fault fur not stojjping
 
 42 
 
 STATUTORY PKKSUMPTION OF FAULT. 
 
 Cases as to 
 infringement 
 of the regu- 
 lations. 
 
 stringency of the regulations (w). The statute, therefore, 
 imposes on a vessel that has infringed a regulation which is 
 priind facie applicable to the case, the burden of showing 
 affirmatively that such infringement could not, by possibility, 
 have contributed to the collision {)i). The Court must there- 
 fore inquire into the facts, in order to ascertain whether the 
 infringement could joossibly have contributed to the collision, 
 for it is not sufficient to find that it did not contribute. 
 
 The principle above stated was approved by the House of 
 Lords in T//e Dithc of Bttccleuch (o), which case demonstrated 
 that evidence was inadmissible to show that a breach of the 
 regulations did not affect the collision, and that the owner of 
 a ship which has infringed a regulation must prove, as 
 above stated, the impossibility of it having done so. The 
 same point was discussed in The BeUanoch (p), which was 
 regarded as being less clear on the point than T/ie Duke of 
 Biicclcuc/i, but as was pointed out in T/w Connthian {q), it 
 cannot have been intended by the Court in that case to alter 
 the law as settled in The Fanny M. Curcill and The Dahc of 
 Buccleuch (o), and the above principle was followed by the 
 Court of Appeal (q). 
 
 The following are some cases in which the effect of an 
 infringement of the regulations has been discussed : — 
 
 In The Englishnian (r), a trawler had a light at the mast- 
 head, but no side lights, as she ought to have had. No one 
 on board the other ship saw her before the collision. The 
 
 and reversing, tlumgh whether the 
 collision would have besn avoided by 
 her doing so was conjectural). 
 
 {m) /V'- Lord Watson, The Khedive, 
 5 App. Gas. 876, 901. 
 
 (;/) The Ansehn, (1907) P. 151 : 10 
 Asp. 43S. In Canada the course of 
 legislation upon this subject has 
 followed that of England. 31 Vict. 
 c. 58, s. 6 (Canada), was to the same 
 eflFect as- 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 298, 
 and in The Eliza Keith and The Lamj- 
 ■shaw, 3 Quebec, L. R. 143, it was 
 held that a ship that had infringed 
 the Canadian statutory rules could 
 recover nothing, though the other 
 ship was also in fault ; but that the 
 cargo -owner could recover half his 
 loss; cf. The Milan, 'Lush. 388. See 
 also the following Canadian cases : — 
 The Aurora, 2 Stuart's V. Ad. Rep. 
 
 52 ; The Aruhian, ibid. 73 ; The 
 Gerjiinny, ibid. 158 : The Quebec and 
 Ihc Charles Vhaloner, 19 Low. Canada 
 Jurist, 201. The subsequent Cana- 
 dian statute, 43 Vict. c. 29 (following 
 the English Act, 25 & 2d Vict. c. 63), 
 restores the Admiralty rule as to 
 division of loss where the statutory 
 rules are infringed. 
 
 (o) The Dtile of Buccleuch, 15 P. D. 
 86 ; on appeal, (1891j App. Cas. 
 310. 
 
 {p) TheBcllanoch, (1907) App. Cas. 
 269. 
 
 {q) The Corinthian, (1909) P. 260. 
 
 (r) 3 P. D. 18. In The Viola, 59 
 Fed. Rep. 632, a similar American 
 case, both ships were held in fault. 
 See also TJie Chusan, 5 Asp. M. C. 
 476, and The Arrjo, 9 Asp. M. C. 74.
 
 HISTORY OF LEGISLATION. 43 
 
 latter was lield alone in fault upon the ground that there was 
 no look-out, and that therefore the absence of the side lio-hts 
 on the trawler could not have contributed to the collision. 
 
 In The Lajm-ing (s), a steamship Tinder way was held in 
 fault under the statute for having, some four minutes or more 
 before the collision, hauled down her masthead light, although 
 her side light was seen by the other vessel for some time 
 before the collision. So in T//c Talbot {t), a ship in the 
 !Mersey was held in fault for having a wrong light at her 
 masthead, although the Court was uncertain whether it misled 
 the other ship. 
 
 In The Imhro {ii), a sailing ship lying becalmed, and nearly 
 broadside on to a steamship coming up channel, was hold in 
 fault, under the statute, because she had a white liglit lashed 
 to her taffrail, and visible to an approachiog steamship. 
 
 In T/ie 21(11)1 {x) a sailing ship was held in fault under the 
 statute for not exhibiting a stern light to an overtaking 
 steamship. In The Ansclw, a steamer was held in fault for 
 omitting to give the three short blast signal, under Art. 28 
 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, to 
 indicate her course {y). 
 
 In The Gannet [z) a steamship had a riding light forward, 
 and another light in her main rigging 120 feet from licr 
 stern. It was held that the second light was not " at or near 
 the stern " (Art. 11), and that its wrong position miglit have 
 caused the collision. She was therefore held in fault. 
 
 Where a regulation which is material to the case is proved 
 to have been infringed, as, for example, where one of the 
 lights of the ship sued, which was open to tlio other ship, 
 is proved to have been insufficient to satisfy the statute (cO, 
 the onus is on the ship carrying the improper liglit to show, 
 if she can, that the departure from the regulations was 
 necessary (/>). In the absence of such proof she will be 
 held to bo within the penalty of sect. 17 {e). If she alleges 
 
 (v) 7 App. CaH. 512. 80 ; mpra, n. (o). 
 
 (0 (1891) P. 184. (4) The Mcmiioii, 62 L. T. 81 ; soo 
 
 («) 11 P. D. 73. per Lord Herschcll, at p. 8.3, iuf'ni, 
 
 {z) 11 P. D. 132. p. 46. 
 
 (V) (1907) P. IT)! ; 10 Asp. 438. [c) Sec T/ic Hihirnia, 2 Asp. M. C. 
 
 (s) (1890) P. 230. 4r)4 ; The Arlduiv, Emery \. Cichcro, 
 
 {a) TheDukeof Buccleuch,lbV.'D. 9 App. Cas. 136; The Vera Cruz, 9
 
 4-i STATUTORY PRESUMPTION OF FAULT. 
 
 the other ship to be also in fault, it lies on her to prove, 
 if she can, that it was not her fault alone that caused the 
 collision (d). 
 
 A vessel sailing from Dieppe some days before the Regu- 
 lations of 1880 came into force was held in fault for a 
 collision, because she was not sounding and was not provided 
 with a mechanical fog-horn. There was no proof that a 
 mechanical horn could not have been procured at the port 
 from which she sailed (r). But where a foreign ship came 
 into the Mersey without having on board a second riding 
 light, as required by the Mersey Rules, and a collision 
 occurred before the master, who had gone ashore to get one, 
 had returned to the ship, it was held that the circumstances 
 made a departure from the regulations necessary within the 
 meaning of 36 & 37 Vict. c. 85, s. 17 (/). 
 
 In T/w Brcadalbaitc (g) a brig was being overtaken by a 
 full-rigged ship. The brig did not shoAV astern either a 
 white light or a flare, in compliance with the regulations, 
 but her binnacle light was visible over her stern. It was held 
 by Sir II. Phillimore that the infringement of the regulations 
 could not by possibility have contributed to the collision, and 
 that the brig was not therefore to be deemed to be in fault 
 under the statute. There is some difficulty in reconciling this 
 decision with the cases above cited. The collision appears to 
 have been partly caused by the crippled condition of the ship 
 owing to some of her canvas being carried away ; perhaps for 
 that reason the absence of the stern light may have been 
 considered immaterial. 
 
 Regulations in force in the Mersey sea channels (//) required 
 two riding lights to be exhibited, the forward, or bow light, 
 not more than 20 feet above the ship's hull, and the after one 
 at double the height of the former. A vessel was held in 
 fault under the statute because her after light was, at most, 
 
 P. D. 88, ivfra, p. 45. T/w Fenham, (/) The CaJypf^o and The Missh- 
 
 L. R. 3 P. C. 212, is a similar case sippi. Ad. Ct. 7th, Sth, and 9tli 
 
 under 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, s. 29. March, 1878. Cf. The Chilimi, 4 
 
 (rf) The Arklow, 9 App. Gas. 136. Asp. M. C. 473 ; The Travc, 68 Fed. 
 
 (c) The Ltive Bird, 6 P. D. SO. Rep. 390, where the use of a mouth 
 
 Cf. The Mnrtello, 46 Dav. 64 ; The fog horn was excused. 
 
 Energy, 42 Fed. Rep. 301 ; The (r/) 7 P. D. 186. 
 
 Catalonia, 43 Fed. Rep. 396 ; The (h) Under 37 & 38 Vict. c. 52. 
 Louisburg, 75 Fed. Rep. 424.
 
 INSTANCES OF ITS APPLICATION. 45 
 
 18 feet above the deck, whilst the forward light was V2 feet 
 above the deck, and another vessel because both her lights were 
 nearly the same height, about 20 to 22 feet above the deck (/). 
 
 Where a tug A., lashed alongside a ship B. at anchor, 
 which she was about to assist into dock and ready to hold if 
 her anchor came home, had not up the second towing lights 
 required by the Mersey Rules, B. wms held liable for a 
 collision between herself and a third ship (/.•). 
 
 The cases above cited show that the words of sect. 419 (4), Tho regula- 
 " any of the regulations," are not to be construed literallv ; I'^^'i.whi.h is 
 that it IS not an infringement of any regulation that will nmst be one 
 bring the section into operation, but only an infringement of l""*case.*" 
 a regulation " which w^as in tho circumstances applicable " (/). 
 In T/ie Fanuij M. Carii/l it was held that The Pent was not 
 in fault because her screens were seven inches short of the 
 statutory length (tbree feet), it being clear that her lights 
 were not in fact seen across her bow. 
 
 A regulation such as Art. 23, of which the object is not 
 only to prevent collision but to minimise its effects {>»), may, 
 it seems, be infringed after the collision becomes inevitable, 
 or where it is from the first inevitable. For such an infringe- 
 ment the ship would probably be " deemed to be in fault " 
 under the statute, though c.r /t//pot/ief;i it could not have 
 contributed to the collision. 
 
 The question remains whether an infringement of the Iufrin<rement, 
 regulations, even to the smallest extent, -will bring a ship ^vin b,'i,f.r .[""^ 
 within the penalty of the statute. In a case under 17 & 18 •'*'''l' ^^i'''>" 
 
 T7- i. lA^'i iijTiji 1 1 •/ ^^"^ penalty nf 
 
 Vict. c. 1U4, it was doubted wnetlier the penal section (sect. sect. 419 (4). 
 298) of that Act applied where the helm was ported a little, 
 but not sufficiently to avert collision {n). Under tho present 
 enactment it could scarcely be contended that an insufficient 
 alteration of the helm, or an infringement, even to tlie 
 smallest extent, of one of the steering rules which was 
 applica1)le to the case, could not, by possibility, have contri- 
 
 (0 The Vera Cruz (No. 1), 9 P. D. {!) Rr Lord Wiitson, 7'W Vonr- 
 
 *88. This fiase was reversed upon 'waarln and The Kliedire, ') App. Ciis. 
 
 another point, 9 P. D. 90. The 870, 901. 
 
 llenmd, A^p. M. C. ")09 ; The [m) See per Lor 1 Watson, ') A])]). 
 
 Talbot, (1891) P. 184, are «imilir Gas. 903, 904. 
 Mersey cases. {)i) The Buthnia, Lush. .V_'. 
 
 (/.•) The Devonian, (1901) P. 221.
 
 46 
 
 STATUTORY PRESUMPTION OF FAULT. 
 
 A regulation 
 is not in- 
 fringed until 
 there is an 
 opportunity 
 of complying 
 with it. 
 
 The Voor- 
 waarts and 
 17te Khedive. 
 
 Luted to the collision (o). In such a case the statute would, 
 as pointed out by Lord Blackburn in The VoonvaartH and The 
 Khedive {p), exclude the application of the doctrine of Davies 
 V. Mann (q), which was applied in Tn/fv. Warman. 
 
 But a regulation is not infringed, within the meaning of 
 the statute, if those in charge of the vessel did not in fact 
 know, and could not, with ordinary care, have knowu, that 
 the regulation had come into operation. If by a wrong 
 manoeuvre one vessel suddenly causes risk of collision to 
 another, the latter will not be held in fault unless there is 
 time for those in charge of her, being seamen of ordinary 
 care, skill, and nerve, to appreciate the situation, and unless 
 also there is opportunity for them to comply with the regula- 
 tion. " When a sudden change of circumstances takes place, 
 which brings a regulation into operation, though the thing 
 prescribed by the regulation is not done by the person in 
 charge, yet the regulation can hardly be said to be infringed 
 by him, till he knows, or ought to have known, and but for 
 his negligence would have known, of the change of circum- 
 stances " (r). 
 
 Although the literal interpretation of the statute has been 
 departed from in determining what is an infringement of the 
 regulations within its meaning, the penalty is strictly enforced 
 when infringement is proved. In the same case in which the 
 above dictum of Lord Blackburn occurs, the House of Lords 
 held that there may be an infringement of the regulations, 
 although those in charge of the ship do all that could be 
 expected of seamen of ordinary skill and nerve, and although 
 they have been guilty of no act which at common law, and 
 apart from the statute, would amount to negligence. 
 
 The circumstances in this case, The Vooricaarls and The 
 Khedive («) , were as follows : — The two vessels, ocean steam- 
 ships of 3,000 and 3,740 tons respectively, were approaching 
 
 (o) See The Arratoon J pear, 15 
 App. Gas. 37, 41. Seewfr(i,-p.ol. 
 
 {p) 5 App. C;hs. 870, 892. 
 
 (q) 1(1 M. & W. 546. 
 
 (r) Per Lord Blackburn, T/w 
 Vooru aarts and The KliedUe, 5 
 App. Cas. 876, 894 ; The Emmy 
 Haase, 9 P. D. 81. Cf. per Brett, 
 
 M. R., in The Beryl, 9 P. D. 137 ; 
 The Nqapoota, (1897) App. Cas. 391 ; 
 The Mcanatchy, (1897) App. Cas. 
 3r)l ; The Grenadier v. The August 
 Korff; 74 Fed. Rep. 974. 
 
 (.s) 5 App. Cas. 876. Cf. The Jay 
 Gould, 19 Fed. Rep. 7C5.
 
 INFRINGEMENT OF THE REGULATIONS. 47 
 
 each other at night without risk of collision on nearly opposite Tlie Voor- 
 and parallel courses the green light of each heing visible to S''o.°L. 
 the other on her starboard bow. At this time both vessels 
 were going at full speed. When the vessels were somewhat 
 less tban a mile apart The Vooru-anrt^ ported and showed her 
 red light to Tlio Khedive. This was a wrong manojuvre, and 
 caused risk of collision. Thereupon the captain of The Kheiltvr, 
 without easing his engines, put his helm hard-a-starboard, 
 and at the same moment gave the order to stand by the 
 engines. One minute and a half afterwards he put Jiis 
 engines full speed astern. The collision occurred a minute and 
 a half after this. The engines at the moment of the collision 
 were going full speed astern. Tliey ought to have been stopped 
 and reversed as soon as the red light of The Vooniriarfs 
 appeared, at the moment when the order to put The Khedive's 
 helm hard-a-starboard was given. The absolutely right 
 manoeuvre was therefore not adopted by The Khedive, and it 
 was held by the House of Lords that, the " crossing " rule 
 having been infringed without necessity. The Khedive was in 
 fault under the statute. In the Court of Appeal it had been 
 held that though the captain of The Khedive was wrong in not 
 stopping and reversing atitbe moment when The VoonvaavtH 
 red light was seen, yet that his error did not prove him to be 
 deficient in ordinary care, skill, or nerve, and that, therefore, 
 the collision not having been caused by negligence of those 
 on board The Khedive, the owners of The Vooncaavts were 
 alone liable. In the House of Lords it was held tliat, The 
 Khedive having been witliin the operation of tlie crossing 
 rule, and there being no special circumstances to justify a 
 departure from the regulations, she was by tlie wor.ls of the 
 statute to be deemed to be in fault, and that the question 
 whether or no her captain had been in fact guilty of negli- 
 gence was immaterial. The Vooncaarix, which by porting 
 had brought about risk of collision in the first instance, and 
 had kept her engines going at full speed up to tlie moment 
 of collision, was held in fault both in the Court of Appeal 
 and in the House of Lords. 
 
 From this case it would appear that the House of Lords 
 considered that the purpose of the legislature Avas to substitute 
 a rigid adherence to the regulations for the discretion which
 
 48 STA.TUTORY PRESUMPTION OF FAULT. 
 
 a seaman was, under the previous law, at liberty to exercise ; 
 and that a justification for the harshness of the new enact- 
 ment was to be found in the number of collisions which 
 would be avoided if a rigid and almost mechanical adherence 
 to the regulations was substituted for the uncertainty which 
 is inseparable from an application depending upon the dis- 
 cretion of seamen (f). 
 
 The facts of T/ic Khedive did not call for a decision as to 
 the effect of the statute, where the infringement of the regu- 
 lations was, though unsuccessful as regards averting collision, 
 not only not negligent, but the only or the best chance of 
 T/ie Benares, escaping collision. In TJie Benares (ii) the Court of Appeal 
 was called upon to decide this point. It was held that in 
 such a case. The Vooncaaiis and T/ie Khcdke did not apply, 
 and that a ship will not be held in fault under the statute 
 because her captain does not comply with the letter of the 
 regulations, if such non-compliance is the only chance of 
 escaping collision. In such a case the Court held that 
 departure from the rules is "necessary in order to avoid 
 immediate danger" within the meaning of Art. 23 of 1880 
 (the present Art. 27), and that therefore the penal clause of 
 the statute did not apply. The facts in The Benares were 
 peculiar, the collision having been caused mainly by The 
 Be/iares not having a red light exhibited on her port side, and 
 having very shortly before the collision exhibited a green 
 liglit on that side. The following passage is from the 
 judgment of Brett, M. R. : — " When The Benares green 
 liglit, and the green light alone, was seen, The Gerardn did 
 no wrong by starboarding, for it was impossible, as it was 
 then disclosed, for her to see how immediate was the then 
 danger of collision. The vessels, however, eventually came 
 so close to each other that the actual position of things was 
 discovered, the port side of Tlie Benares without a red light 
 becoming visible to those on The Gerarda. Under these 
 circumstances what was the master of TJie Gerarda to do ? 
 
 {t) Whether it is desirable, or L. J., in The Memnon, 59 L. T. at 
 
 possible, by Act of Parliament to p. 291 ; fi Asp. M. C. 488. 
 
 fttter the exercise of a seaman's (x) 9 P. D. 16, followed in The 
 
 discretion in the throes of a collision Sapphire and The Gird/eness, Ad. Ct. 
 
 seems doubtful. See per Lindley, Feb. 27th, 1884.
 
 INFRINGEMENT OF THE REGULATIONS. 49 
 
 Bj Art. 1^ (.r), if there was nothing else in the circum- Th« Bmares. 
 
 stances, he ought to have stopped and reversed. But the 
 
 rules of navigation are contained, not in one article, but in 
 
 all the articles, and Art. 23 is as much to he observed as 
 
 Art. 18. The na^dgation of vessels is to be conducted with 
 
 a regard to both of them. As I understand one part of The 
 
 Khedive, if The Benares had put The Gerordci^s officer in such 
 
 a position that every reasonable man would have done what 
 
 the officer of The Gerarda did, yet if the Court could not 
 
 come to the conclusion that the case was brought within 
 
 Art. 23, The Gerarda would be held likewise to blame. But 
 
 in this case the question is whether it is brought within 
 
 Art. 23 and taken out of Art. 18 ? Was the necessity of the 
 
 case such, and were the circumstances so special, that they 
 
 rendered a departure from Art. 18 necessary ? We are 
 
 advised that these vessels were so placed that at the time 
 
 when, under ordinary circumstances. Art. 18 would have 
 
 been applicable, the position was such that the only chance of 
 
 escape was for The Gerarda to starboard and continue full 
 
 speed ahead. There was, therefore, a necessity within the 
 
 meaning of Art. 23 for a departure from the rule laid down 
 
 in Art. 18, and the facts take the case out of Art. 18. But 
 
 then it has been argued that the danger referred to in Art. 23 
 
 is not the danger to either of the vessels approaching each 
 
 other, but [to] some outside danger. The decision of the 
 
 House of Lords in The Khedive gives no countenance to any 
 
 such contention as this, and there is nothing in that case to 
 
 show that the present case is not within the meaning of 
 
 Art. 23." Bowen, L. J., says : " In truth, unless some 
 
 reasonable [y) force is given to Art. 23, and to the exception 
 
 it contains, a captain will have to sail with his eyes open into 
 
 the jaws of death. If he obeys Art. 18, let us assume that it 
 
 is certain death for his passengers and crew, that he has only 
 
 one chance still open to him, and that by disobeying the 
 
 particular rule. Such a case would surely be one in which 
 
 a departure from the rules becomes necessary ; otherwise a 
 
 captain's duty would be to obey Art. 18, and go cheerfully 
 
 (x) Of the Regulations of 1880. in Art. 23 (of 1880) was a risk other 
 
 (y) This refers to the argument than that of colliHion alone, 
 of counsel that the risk referred to 
 
 M. E
 
 50 
 
 STATUTORY PRESUMPTION OF FAULl. 
 
 The Benares, to the bottom of the sea with his ship and all on hoard, 
 sooner than take the one chance of safety still remaining to 
 him. Such an interpretation of the regulations was never, in 
 my opinion, intended by the House of Lords. I am of 
 opinion that a departure from Art. \^ is justified when such 
 departure is the one chance still left of avoiding danger 
 which otherwise was inevitable." 
 
 The Memnon. In The llemnon (z), on the other hand, it was held that 
 necessity for departure from the rules had not been established; 
 and the principle which should guide the Court in deter- 
 mining whether in any case the evidence establishes such 
 necessity is clearly stated. In that case, the steamships San. 
 Salvador and Memnon were approaching one another on 
 nearly crossing courses, and T//e San SalvuJor having The 
 Memnon on her starboard bow, it was the duty of the former 
 to keep out of the way of the latter, and of the latter to keep 
 her course. The San Salvador took no step to avoid collision 
 until within three ship's lengths of The Memnon, when she 
 starboarded, and thereby rendered collision imminent, and she 
 was, accordingly, without difficulty found to blame. The 
 Memnon kept her course and speed until the San. Salvador 
 starboarded, when she stopped her engines. At the trial, the 
 Trinity Brethren advised Butt, J., " That the officer in 
 charge of The Memnon was not justified, as a sailor, in 
 supposing, until he was within three ship's lengths of The 
 San Salvador, that The San Salvador would keep out of the 
 way, and could do so without difficulty." In the Court 
 of Appeal the assessors agreed with this opinion, but in 
 answer to a further question advised the Court, " that if TJie 
 San Salvador had kept the course which she was keeping, 
 without porting or starboarding, she would have gone a 
 length and a half astern of The Memnon^ Notwithstanding 
 this, the Court of Appeal, affirming the judgment of Butt, J., 
 held that The Memnon was to blame for not stopping sooner 
 in compliance with the regulations, on the ground that the 
 officer in charge of her was not justified in assuming, under 
 the circumstances, that " The San Salve/dor would do what 
 was right," and this decision was, in turn, affirmed by the 
 
 (z, 6 Asp. M. L\ 488.
 
 INFRINGEMENT OF THE REGULATIONS. 51 
 
 House of Lords. Lord Herschell, in addressing the House, Tiit Menuim. 
 said : " "When once it is shown that it was brought home, or 
 ought to have been brought home, to the mind of the master 
 of a vessel, that the courses upon which the ships were 
 approaching, and the circumstances, involved risk of collision, 
 the onus is thrown u^jpn him of justifying his not doing that 
 which the rule prescribes. . . . The question whether a 
 departure was necessary or not must, no doubt, be detei-mined 
 by the Court ; but it must be determined upon the point 
 being raised, and upon some evidence being tendered to the 
 Court, to show that to have followed the rule would have 
 either created that very risk of collision, which it was the 
 purpose of the rule to avoid, or have increased instead of 
 diminished the risk of collision." This case must be distin- 
 guished from The Otto and The Thorsa {a), where it was held 
 that the one ship was justified in expecting the other to do 
 the right thing (porting or ceasing to starboard), and there- 
 fore in not stopping and reversing, until the collision became 
 inevitable. 
 
 The breaking down of a mechanical fog-horn has been held Breaking 
 to make a departure from the regulations necessary, and a ^"^^ ^^' 
 ship sounding a mouth-horn under such circumstances was 
 held not to be in fault under the statute {h). 
 
 It appears that what the law requires in respect of the Ships' lights 
 fixins: and mechanical details of sliips' lights is a reasonable ^ reasouable 
 
 o 1 O comphanco 
 
 compliance with the regulations. A very small departure with the 
 from the letter of the regulations on these [)oints is not an required, 
 infringement within the meaning of the statute. Tliis was 
 the view taken by the Court in The Fire Queen (c). There an 
 obscuration by the starboard cathead of the green light to 
 the extent at the distance in question of an arc of 2| or .'i 
 degrees was held not to be an infringement : " What we 
 must look to," said Butt, J., "is whether there is a reasonable 
 compliance with the regulations." The learned judge held 
 also that the obscuration did not and could not have con- 
 tributed to the collision ; but the value of the decision upon 
 
 {a) IVihon v. Ctirrie, The Otto and (c) 12 P. D. 147. Of. The General 
 
 The Thorsa, (1894) App. Gas. 116. Birch, 6 Quob.'c L. R. 300, us to 
 
 {b) The Chilian, 4 Asp. M. C. 473 ; shape of lantern ; The Sana Fareil, 
 
 The Trave, 68 fed. Rep. 390. (1900) P. 267, 270. 
 
 b2
 
 52 STATUTORY PRESUMPTION OF FAULT. 
 
 the first point is not, it is submitted, thereby lessened. 
 
 Having regard to the class of people for whose guidance the 
 
 regulations are framed, and by whom they are worked, and 
 
 also to the circumstances under which they are worked, it is 
 
 difficult to suppose that the legislature could have intended 
 
 anything more than a reasonable compliance with the 
 
 regulations as to lights and sound signals. In The 
 
 Glamorganshire {(/), it was held that carrying the side lights 
 
 in the rigging, where it is impossible for them to be fixed 
 
 with mathematical acciu-acy, does not bring the ship within 
 
 the penalty of the statute. So where lights have to be shifted 
 
 from riding, towing, or fishing to under-way lights or rice 
 
 versa, a ship would, probably, not be held in fault imder the 
 
 statute because the change of lights was not instantaneous. 
 
 As regards the steering and sailing rules, the decision in 
 
 The Khedive {e) shows that a stricter view is taken. 
 
 Whether The regulations are "for preventing collisions at sea," and 
 
 the statute -^ would seem that, if that were their only obiect, where a 
 applies where ... . . ./ j ' 
 
 the collision is collision is from the first inevitable, the regulations do not 
 
 inevitable • 9,pply, and therefore cannot be infringed. The point arose 
 in The Biickhurst {/) , but the facts of that case made a 
 decision of the point unnecessary. It seems, however, to have 
 been the opinion of Sir R. Phillimore that the statute may 
 apply, though the collision is inevitable. In The Voorivaarfs 
 and The Khedive the opinions of the majority of the learned 
 lords, and the judgments of the Court of Appeal and Ad- 
 miralty Division assume that the collision was not inevitable 
 when The Voorwaarfs first showed her red light. But Lord 
 Blackburn {g) appears to have been of opinion that the 
 collision was then inevitable, and that the manoeuvre of The 
 Khedive, though well adapted to lessen the force of the colli- 
 sion, being contrary to the regulations, placed her in the 
 wrong under the statute. As pointed out above, there is 
 some difficulty in supporting this view of the effect of the 
 statute, if the only object of the regulations is the prevention 
 of collisions. But in The Khedive Lord Watson stated that 
 
 {d) 13 App. Gas. 454. The Gannet (e) »S'«^r«, p. 46. 
 
 and The Philadelphia)!, infra, p. 363, (/) 6 P. D. 152. 
 
 are decisions as to the position of [9) ^ ^PP- Cas. S95. 
 Ii"-ht8.
 
 INFRINGEMENT OF THE REGULATIONS. 53 
 
 the object of the " stop and reverse " rule is " to obviate the 
 risk and minimize the results of collision " {/i) . A regulation 
 having this object may well be infringed, where the collision, 
 but not the damage, is from the first inevitable. 
 
 It is submitted that n^ Khedice does not decide that a or where the 
 ship will be held in fault for a step taken in the agony of a jfinX"'"'' 
 collision and due entirely to the imminence of the danger (/"). "J-'^\n.y ..f tl.e 
 In the case, for example, of a sailing ship going about— ''''"'''''° ' 
 " altering her course "—under the bows of a steamship, where 
 the latter has approached her so close as to frighten her into 
 doing something, the question arises, whether the sailing ship 
 will be held in fault under the statute ? If she does not alter 
 her course until the collision is inevitable it would seem that 
 the statute does not apply at all {k). If she stands on until 
 the risk is so great that human nature can go no further, and 
 then bears up or goes about, it would seem reasonable to hold 
 that her change of course at such a moment is not an infringe- 
 ment of the regulations, but rather an act caused by the 
 imminence of the peril and the fault of the other ship. 
 
 It seems that the statute would be held not to apply where or wh.re 
 a ship is unable to comply with the regulations, although such pre^><>u« 
 inability is consequent upon, though not caused by, previous reuVefr"* 
 negligence on her part. If, for example, a ship loses one of J'^P^'';"-e 
 
 1 -J T 1 i. • IT • 1 irorii the 
 
 ner side lights m a colhsion caused by her own fault, and re-uhitiou.s 
 before she can replace it a second collision is caused by the "'"''^^'^''y- 
 absence of her side light, it seems that she would not be held 
 in fault under the statute. Her inability to comply with the 
 regulations could hardly be said to be caused by the negligence 
 which caused the first collision (/), and unless she has an 
 opportunity of complying with the regulations, she cannot be 
 said to have infringed them {m). But a vessel will not escape 
 the consequences of an infringement of the regulations, though 
 she was in fact unable to comply with them, if such inability 
 
 (A) 5 App. Gas. 903, 904. And deliberately elected to depart from 
 
 see 9 App. Ca'*. fi.51, 6.52. As to the regulations. 
 
 whether 57 & o8 Vict c. 60 authc- (^) gg^ 4^ 52. 
 
 nzes regulations to be made with ,/ ^^ _,,^ ' ^% 1 ,, ^^ , - , 
 
 this object, see below, p. 318. (^) ^*^^ ^'^'^ Douglas, i V. D. lol. 
 
 (i) The captain of The Khedive 
 
 (m) Supra, p. 46.
 
 54 
 
 STATUTORY PRESUMPTION OF FAULT. 
 
 Whether a 
 tug will be 
 held in fault 
 for an in- 
 fringement 
 by her tow. 
 
 Mere negli- 
 gence, apart 
 from the 
 regulations, 
 is not within 
 the penalty of 
 the statute. 
 
 Regulations 
 of which an 
 infringement 
 
 was caused by want of a proper look-out, or other immediate 
 negligence {n). 
 
 A tug with a ship in tow has, under the statute, been held 
 in fault for a collision between herself and a third ship, where 
 the infringement was by the tow alone. A sailing ship with 
 her side lights burning had in tow a pilot boat from which 
 she had taken a pilot. The latter had her masthead light 
 bui'ning. The sailing ship was held in fault for a collision 
 with a third ship (o). So, in The Devonian {p), a ship at 
 anchor was held in fault because her tug, fast alongside and 
 ready to tow, had not up her towing lights. These decisions 
 appear to rest upon the doctrine that a tug and her tow are 
 in law for some purposes treated as one ship {q). The same 
 question as to the effect of the statute arises where it is sought 
 to make a ship in tow liable for an infringement of the regu- 
 lations by her tug (/•). 
 
 The object of sect. 419 (4) is to enforce the observance of 
 the regulations, and not the rules of seamanship generally. 
 Neglect to keep a look-out, or to observe any precaution 
 required by the ordinary practice of seamen, as mentioned in 
 Art. 29, would not, it is submitted, bring a ship within the 
 penalty of the statute (-s). Nor, it is submitted, would failure 
 to depart from the regulations, where such departure is neces- 
 sary within the meaning of Art. 27. In the rare case of the 
 regulations applying to one ship and not to the other, it is 
 doubtful whether sect. 419 (4) could be applied (t). Whether 
 the infringement of a regulation which could not by possi- 
 bility have contributed to the collision, although it may have 
 augmented the damage, would bring the ship within the 
 penalty of the statute has not been decided. 
 
 The sanction of sect. 419 (4) extends to other regulations 
 besides those made under sect. 418 of M. S. Act, 1894. 
 
 (w) See T?ie Emmy Haase, 9 P. D. 
 81. 
 
 (o) Mary Hounscll, 4 Asp. M. C. 
 101 ; 4 P. D. 204. And see The 
 Giraffe, 1 Pr. Ad. Dig. (3rd ed.) 
 234, 235. 
 
 (/;) (1901) P. 221. And see The 
 Sans Fareil, (19L0) P. 267, 270. 
 
 {q) Infra, p. 167. 
 
 (r) See further as to this, infra, 
 pp. 167 seq. 
 
 (s) Though in The Sans Pareil, 
 supra, this was questioned. By 
 American Courts, neglect of such 
 precautions has been called an in- 
 fringement of the Act of Congress 
 embodying the regulations : The 
 Farragut, 10 Wall. 334 ; The Atlas, 
 10 Blatchf. 459, 466. But see The 
 Havanna, 54 Fed. Rep. 411. 
 
 [t) These questions were discussed 
 in The Sans Fareil, supra.
 
 INFRINGEMENT OF LOCAL RULES. 55 
 
 Collision regulations for particular localities have been made briugs tlie 
 
 by certain Acts which either incorporate the penal clause of Se'stTtutl" 
 
 the Merchant Shipping Acts or contain themselves a similar 
 
 clause. Thus it was also held that under 87 & 38 Vict. e. 52, 
 
 an infringement of the statutory rules in force in the sea 
 
 channels and approaches to the River Mersey had the same 
 
 effect as an infringement of the sea regulations (ii.) And a 
 
 ship infringing rules made under 28 & 29 Vict. c. 125, s. 7 
 
 (Dockyard Ports Eegulation Act, 1865), would, it seems, be 
 
 deemed to be in fault under the statute. The Solent Na\dga- 
 
 tion Act, 18S1 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 219) (local), contains 
 
 (sect. 8) a provision to the effect that a ship infringing any 
 
 regulation made under that Act shall be deemed to be in 
 
 default, unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court 
 
 that the infringement was necessary. 
 
 But the statute does not apply to an infi'ingement of Effect of an 
 
 rules, such, for example, as the Thames rules (.r), made under •''^•■'"^^''""■"t 
 y . T T of local rules. 
 
 a local Act, which does not incorporate the penal clause of 
 the Merchant Shipping Acts. A ship infringing these rules 
 will not be held in fault unless the infringement did, in fact, 
 contribute to the collision. 
 
 Whether an infringement of rules of navigation made Local rules 
 under 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, s. 421 (1), will bring the ship "e;i|.^'72i"'"^ 
 within the penalty of sect. 419 (4) is not altogether clear. 
 Under the previous Merchant Shipping Acts, a ship in the 
 Humber {//), and two in the Mersey (s), were held in fault for 
 breaches of local rules. In those cases the rules in question 
 were clearly " made under " the Merchant Shipping Acts, 
 and so were within the express words of 86 & 37 Vict. c. 85, 
 8. 17. The words of 57 & 58 Vict. e. 60, s. 419 (4), are 
 different ; " the collision regulations," of which an infringe- 
 ment is there spoken, are regulations made by his Majesty 
 under the power given to him by sect. 418 of the same Act. 
 It would seem, therefore, that the penal section (sect. 419 
 
 («) The Lady JJownshire, 4 P. D. Jloiifc liusa, (1893) P. 23. 30. lu 
 
 26 ; The Vera Cruz, 9 P. D. 88. Tkv The Siransea, aud The Comlor, 4 P. D. 
 
 Devonian, (1901) P. 221, is a similar 115, this question was considered but 
 
 decision under the Mersey Channels not decided. 
 
 Act now in force, CO & Gl Vict. (;/) The Jiipvn, 10 P. D. 65. 
 
 c. 21. (z) The Fire Queen, 12 P. D. 117; 
 
 {x) The Harton, 9 P. D. 44; The The Talbut, (1891) P. IBI.
 
 56 
 
 STATUTORY PRESUMPTION OF FAULT. 
 
 Power under 
 sect. 418 to 
 make the sea 
 regulations 
 apply else- 
 where than 
 at sea. 
 
 67 & 58 Vict, 
 c. 60, s. 422. 
 Presumption 
 of fault where 
 the ship fails 
 to stand by 
 and assist. 
 
 (4 ) ) does not refer to regulations made under the power of 
 
 sect. 421. By that section, however, it is enacted that such 
 
 local regulations are to "be of the same force as if they were 
 
 part of the collision regulations." Whether these words 
 
 incorporate the penal provisions of sect. 419 is doubtful. In 
 
 the case of so highly penal an enactment, it seems that 
 
 express words are necessary to bring it into operation. The 
 
 question is further complicated by the opening words of the 
 
 collision regulations : " These rules shall be followed by all 
 
 vessels upon the high seas, and in all waters connected 
 
 therewith, navigable by sea-going vessels." Where, as in 
 
 the case of the Humber and the Mersey, the local Act or 
 
 rules expressly incorporate some or all of the collision 
 
 regulations of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, it would 
 
 seem that an infringement of any one of them so incorporated 
 
 is an^infringement of " the collision regulations " within the 
 
 meaning of sect. 419 (4). There can, however," be no doubt 
 
 that under the power given by sect. 4lS (1) "to make 
 
 regulations for the prevention of collisions at sea," those 
 
 regulations are valid elsewhere than at sea (a), and therefore 
 
 an infringement of them would, it is submitted, bring 
 
 sect. 419 (4) into operation. 
 
 The other case where damages may be recovered without 
 proof or existence of negligence on the part of the ship sued, 
 is when she fails to stand by and assist the ship with which 
 she has been in collision. By 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, s. 422, 
 it is enacted as follows : — 
 
 " (1.) In every case of collision between two vessels it shall be the 
 duty of the master or person in charge of each vessel, if and so far as 
 he can do so without danger to his own vessel, crew, and passengers 
 (if any)— 
 
 (a) To render to the other vessel, her master, crew, and passengers 
 
 (if any), such assistance as may be practicable and as may 
 be necessary to save them from any danger caused by the 
 collision ; and to stay by the other vessel until he has ascer- 
 tained that she has no need of further assistance ; and also 
 
 (b) To give to the master or person in charge of the other vessel the 
 name of his own vessel, and of the port to which she belongs. 
 
 («) The Anselm, (1907) P. 151 
 (regulations held to apply in the 
 
 Para estuary of the River Amazon ; 
 Regulations — Preliminary) .
 
 INFRINGEMENT OF LOCAL RULES. 57 
 
 and also the names of the ports and places from which she 
 comes and to which she is bound. 
 
 " (2.) If the master or person in charge of the other vessel fails to 
 comply with this section, and no reasonable cause for such failure is 
 shown, the collision shall, in the absence of proof to the contrary, 
 be deemed to have been caused bj- his wrongful act, neglect or 
 default. 
 
 "(3.) If the master or person in charge fails without reasonable 
 cause to comply with this section he shall be deemed guilty of a 
 misdemeanor (6), and if he is a certificated ofiBcer an inquiry into 
 his conduct may be held and his certificate cancelled or suspended." 
 
 " Standing by " was first made a statutory duty by 25 & 26 
 Vict. c. 63, s. 33 (c). Previous to that Act, however, the 
 temptation for a ship to run away from another with wliich she 
 has been in collision by her own fault, in the hope of escaping 
 detection, as well as the duty of each ship after a collision to 
 render assistance to the other, were distinctly recognized by 
 the Admiralty Court. Failure, however, to stand by a ship 
 injured in a collision was only punished by compelling the 
 defaulting ship, although she was free from blame in other 
 respects, and successful in the suit, to pay the costs of the 
 suit (f/). 
 
 However free from blame a ship may be in other respects, 
 the law requires each to stand by the other. If either ship 
 fails to do so, in the absence of proof to the contrary {e) — 
 which depends purely on the facts of the case — she will be 
 held to be in fault for the collision. 
 
 The " person in charge " mentioned in sect. 422 is the On whom the 
 master, unless at the time of the collision the ship is in the^d|[ty"to'' 
 charge of a compulsory pilot, in which case the owners are "^^^^^ V- 
 not liable for the subsequent misconduct of the master, 
 because the exemption of the latter arises at the moment 
 when the liability of the pilot for the collision attaches (./"). 
 If the master is below, the duty to stand by lies on the mate 
 
 (i) Punishable by fine of 100/. or (d) The Celt, 3 Hag. Ad. 'in. 
 
 imprisonment for .six months : 57 & 58 (<?) For an example of a case iu 
 
 Vict. c. 60, 8. 6>50 (1). which the facts amounteJ to " proof 
 
 (c) It was introduced into the to the contrary," see TAe yry^Y, (1909) 
 
 .statute by Lord Kingsdown. See P. 333. 
 
 The Hannibal and The Queen, L. R. (/) The Suxsex, (1904) P. 236; 9 
 
 2 A. & E. 53, 50; 168 Hansard's Asp. 578, approving r/ie Qi/ax, L. R. 
 
 Pari. Deb. 281. 2 A. & E. 364.
 
 58 
 
 STATUTORY PRESUMPTION OF FAULT. 
 
 What is rea- 
 sonable cause 
 for failure of 
 stand by. 
 
 Failure to 
 stand by does 
 not affect 
 right to 
 salvage. 
 
 or other person in charge of the deck, until the master comes 
 on deck ; if life or property is still in danger, it is then 
 transferred to the master {g). Where a collision occurred 
 between a ship in tow and a third ship, it was said by Sir R. 
 Phillimore that the law required the tug to stand by the 
 ships in collision {h). 
 
 The penalty for not " standing by " is strictly enforced. 
 A ship must obey the law although there is some risk to 
 herself, and the other appears to be in no danger. A steam- 
 ship was held in fault for not standing by, or sending a boat 
 to, another with which she had been in collision, although, 
 being in narrow waters, and herself of great length (450 feet), 
 she could not do so without risk of going ashore, and although 
 she had hailed another ship, better able to assist, to do so (?). 
 
 A barque was held in fault for not standing by, though 
 her fore compartment to the collision bulkhead was full of 
 water, and she was five or six feet by the head. The collision 
 was in the channel, four or five miles from land, and the 
 weather was bad [k). 
 
 Where the ship is unable literally to comply with the law, 
 and, without fault on her own part, parts company with the 
 vessel with which she has been in collision, those on board 
 her must do their best to render assistance. In such a case, 
 if the collision is at night, and she sees rockets or other 
 signals of distress from the other vessel, it is her duty to 
 return them by similar signals, or in any way within her 
 power. In The Emmy Haase {I) a vessel so neglecting to 
 return signals of distress was held in fault for the collision. 
 
 It would seem that the right of a ship to salvage remune- 
 ration, where she renders assistance to another with which 
 she has been in collision by no fault of her own, is not 
 
 ( g) Ex parte Ferguaon and Hutchin- 
 son, L. E. 6 Q. B. 280. 
 
 (1i) See The Hannibal and The 
 Queen, L. R. 2 _A. & E. 53; the 
 three last-mentioned cases were 
 decided under 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, 
 s. 33. 
 
 (i) The Adriatic, 3 Asp. M. C. 16. 
 The present Act is more stringent 
 than former Acts (25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, 
 s. 33; 34 & 35 Vict. c. 110, s. 9). 
 
 Other cases under the Act of 1862 are 
 The Lttcia Jantina and The 3Iexican, 
 Holt, 130; The Queen of the Orwell, 
 7 L. T. 839; The Eliza and The 
 Orinoco, Holt, 98. For the law in 
 America, see Boston Towboat Co. v. 
 Winslow, 76 Fed. Rep. 595. 
 
 {k) The Valleyo, Ad. Div. 27th 
 April, 1887. 
 
 [I) 9 P. D. 81.
 
 NOT STANDING BY. 59 
 
 affected by the statute. It was so held in the case of a tug, 
 whose tow was damaged in a collision with a third ship, for 
 which the latter was in fault (;>?). 
 
 The " standing by " section of 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, was Collision with 
 held to apply in the case of a collision with an open fishing- ^"'"^• 
 boat {)i). 
 
 These enactments raising a statutory presumption of fault Application of 
 against (1) a ship which infringes the regulations, and (2) a S"; V"' [■^' 
 ship which tails to render assistance, apply to all ships, •'^I'ip^- 
 whether British or foreign, and whether the collision occurs 
 in British or foreign waters or on the high 8eas(o). There 
 is no express decision on the point ; but it was in several cases 
 assumed that 36 & 37 Vict. c. 85, s. 17, applied to a British 
 ship in collision with a foreign ship, Avhether in British 
 waters (p) or on the high seas (q) ; and to a foreign shij) (r) 
 under the same circumstances. Both sect. 419 (4) and sect. 422 
 would probably be held to be rules of evidence or procedure, 
 applicable to foreign ships as part of the lex fori {a). A 
 Queen's ship was held in fault under 36 & 37 Vict. c. 85, 
 s. 17 {t) ; but it is clear that sect. 419 (4) does not apply to a 
 King's ship {u). 
 
 Enactments similar to these provisions of the Merchant 
 Shipping Act are in force in several of the British colonies (r). 
 
 (w) The Hannibal and The Queen, Div. 16th Jan. 1885, where the col- 
 
 L. R. 2 A. & E. 53. lision was on the high seas ; The 
 
 («) Ex parte Ferguson and Hutchin- Love Bird, 6 P. D. 80, whore, from 
 
 son, L. R. 6 Q. B. 280. the name of the ship deemed to be 
 
 (c) The Magnet, L. R. 4 A. & E. in fault {The Fansewitz), it would 
 
 417. See per Sir E. Phillimore in seem that she was foreign. The 
 
 Reg. V. Keyn, 2 Ex. D. 63, 85. The collision was at the entrance to the 
 
 doubt expressed by the Privy Coimcil Skager Rack. 
 
 in The Fanny M. Carvill, 2 Asp. (s) See as to this, pp. 199, 200, 
 
 M. C. 565, 569, appears to be not infra. In Boivell v. General Steam 
 
 well founded. The question was Nav. Co., 5 E. & B. 195, sect. 28 
 
 raised in The Koning TFillem I., of 14 & 15 Vict. c. 79, was held to 
 
 (1903) P. 114; but the facts rendered be a rule of evidence. See further 
 
 a decision unnecessary. ««/'•«, p. 206, as to the application 
 
 {p) The Vera Cruz (No. 1), 9 P. D. of these sections to foreign ships. 
 
 88. (t) The Hochung and The Lapwing, 
 
 (q) The British Princess and The 7 App. Cas. 512. 
 
 Sedmi Dubrovacki, Ad. Ct. March, («) II.M.S. Sana Pareil, (1900) P. 
 
 1878 ; The Englishman, 3 P. D. 18 ; 267. In The Astrakhan, (1909) Fo. 
 
 The Voorwaarts and The Khedive, 5 129, the question was raised, but 
 
 App. Cas. 876 ; and see infra, not decided, whether sect. 419 (4) 
 
 p. 200. applied to a vessel of war of the 
 
 (r) TJie Magdeburgh and The Henry King of Denmark. 
 
 Willard (an American ship), Ad. (y) Canada, 43 Vict. c. 29 ; boo
 
 60 
 
 STATUTORY PRESUMPTION OF FAULT. 
 
 Liability 
 where ship 
 deemed to be 
 
 In America there is no such law as sect. 419 (4) (x) ; but a 
 recent Act of Congress (4th Sept. 1890) has enacted a 
 " standing by " law similar to sect. 422. 
 
 Where a ship is deemed to be in fault under the statute, 
 the owner will usually be liable at law, and the ship herself 
 in fault under jq Admiralty proceedings in rem. But where the infringe- 
 ment is proved to have been the act of persons who are not 
 the owner's servants, the liability is not so clear. In such a 
 case, if the ship is under charter or demise, it seems that the 
 ship may be liable in proceedings in rem (//), while the owner 
 is not liable at law. If the infringement is the act of a 
 compulsory pilot, neither the ship nor her owners are liable (s). 
 In The Milan [a] it was held, that fault presumed by law 
 did not affect owners of cargo, so as to prevent them from 
 recovering from the owners of the other ship {b). 
 
 But the statute affects with the usual consequences of 
 negligence persons on board the ship deemed to be in fault, 
 whose duty it was personally, or by their agents, to comply 
 with the regulation which has been infringed. Thus, it was 
 held that the master of a schooner brought up in the Mersey 
 with one of her riding lights in an improper position was, 
 under the statute, guilty of negligence contributing to the 
 
 The Clara Eilhim, 2 Quebec L. R. 
 56 ; The Govino, 6 Quebec L. R. 57 ; 
 Queensland, 4 6 Vict. No. 12 ; South 
 Australia, 44 & 45 Vict. No. 237 ; 
 Victoria, 28 Vict. No. 255 ; New 
 South Wales, 25 Vict. No. 7 ; New 
 Zealand. 41 Vict. No. 54 ; Prince 
 Edward's Island, 30 Vict. c. 13, s. 2. 
 [x) The Supreme Court has de- 
 clared that it will not " accept 
 blindly an artificial rule which is to 
 determine in all cases whether the 
 navigator is liable to the charge of 
 negligence in causing any damage 
 that may happen": The Farragut, 
 10 Wall. 334. But the burden is 
 on a vessel which has infringed the 
 regulations to prove that the in- 
 fringement could not have contri- 
 buted to the collision : The Fenn- 
 sylvania, 19 Wall. 125; The Ariadne, 
 2 Bened. 472 ; The Ice King, 52 Fed. 
 Rep. 894 ; The Bolivia, 49 Fed. Rep. 
 169 ; The Jesse W. Knight, 45 Fed. 
 
 Rep. 590 ; The Fennsylvania, 12 
 Fed. Rep. 914 ; The Frovidence, 98 
 Fed. Rep. i:^3. If, however, such 
 proof is forthcoming, a ship will 
 recover full damages although she 
 did not comply with the regulations : 
 Chamberlain v. Ward, 21 How. 548, 
 567 ; The Gray Eagle, 9 Wall. 505 ; 
 The Continental, 14 Wall. 345 ; The 
 Sunnyside, 1 Otto, 208 ; The City of 
 Washington, 2 Otto, 31. There are 
 several decisions of the State of New 
 York Courts to the same effect. 
 
 (,v) See The Ijemington, 2 Asp. 
 M.'C. 475 ; The Tasmania, 13 P. D. 
 110 ; infra, pp. 81 seq. 
 
 [z] The Hector, 8 P. D. 218 ; and 
 see ante, p. 67. 
 
 (a) Lush. 388 ; decided under 
 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, 8. 298. 
 
 (i) This was so held before Thoro- 
 good V. Bryan, 8 C. B. 115, had been 
 overruled by The Bernina, 13 App. 
 Gas. 1.
 
 NOT STANDING BY. 61 
 
 collision ; and tliat his widow, suing under Lord Campbell's 
 
 Act, could not recover damages for bis deatb (c). 
 
 Where a ship is deemed to be in fault under the statute, Rulcof divi- 
 
 although there is no proof of negligence causing the coUision, where ship 
 
 the rule of division of loss applies [d). deemed to be 
 
 '^ "^ 111 fault. 
 
 (e) T/ie Vera Cruz (No. 1), 9 P. D. {d) The Lapwing, 7 App. Cas. 
 
 88. Thii? case was reversed upim ol2 ; The Khedive, 7 App. Cas. ~9h : 
 another point. 10 App. Cas. 59. and see infra, p. 132.
 
 62 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 LIABILITY. 
 
 Persons 
 liable : tlie 
 actual wrong- 
 doer. 
 
 Liability of 
 master. 
 
 The person primarily liable in damages to the sufferer by 
 collision is be by whose negligent act the loss was occasioned. 
 The shipowner navigating his own vessel, the master, mate, 
 pilot or other person in charge of the ship, who gave a 
 wrong order to the helm (a), the helmsman who directed 
 the ship's course wrongly, the seaman on the look-out who 
 negligently failed to see and report the approach of the other 
 vessel, may all be sued as wrong-doers, and are liable for 
 damages (b). 
 
 Thus, when an action was brought against a pilot on board 
 a King's ship for injury to the plaintiff's ship by the King's 
 ship, it was held by Lord Kenyon that, though the pilot 
 might be obliged to act in obedience to the order of the 
 lieutenant in command of the King's ship, yet the pilot 
 would be liable, if the collision happened by his personal 
 misconduct. Upon proof, however, that the collision occurred 
 by reason of an alteration of the helm ordered by the 
 lieutenant, the plaintiff was non-suited (c). 
 
 It has been said that the master is liable for the negligent 
 and wrongful acts of his crew as well as for his own acts (d). 
 His liability as carrier, unless specially limited, may extend 
 so far ; but in no reported case has he been held liable in tort 
 
 (a) See Stort v. Clements, 1 Peake, 
 107. 
 
 (J)) Stort V. Clements, uhi supra ; 
 Smith V. Voss, 2 H. & N. 97 ; Law- 
 S072 V. Dumlin, 9 C. B. 54, were 
 actions against pilots. As to the 
 practice of the Admiralty Division 
 in personal actions, see below, 
 p. 295. 
 
 (e) Stort V. Clements, 1 Peake, 107. 
 
 (d) Story on Agency, §^ 314 — 317 ; 
 Molloy, 1. 2, c. 3, s. 13. Cf. I'ilk v. 
 Venore, 1 Molloy, 359 (ed. 1769), as 
 to the liability of the master for 
 embezzlement by the crew. And in 
 America it has been so held : JJenison 
 V. Seymour, 9 Wend. 9.
 
 LIABILITY. 63 
 
 for wrongful acts of the crew (e). For wilful injury to 
 another ship by pilot or crew he clearly is not liable ( /•). 
 
 As regards the responsibihty of the master when a pUot is 
 on board, whether by compulsion of law or by the master's 
 or owner's choice, it seems clear that for a coUision caused by 
 the fault of the pilot the master is not answerable, if the pilot 
 has been placed in charge of the ship properly and in the 
 ordinary eoui'se of navigation (g). 
 
 The statutory Hmitation of liability (//) does not apply to No limitation 
 protect an owner, or a part owner, by whose actual fault or 'f |'=^^'''fy "^ 
 with whose privity the collision occurred. Such an owner is wroug-dller. 
 liable for full damages ; and if the proceeds of the sale ot the 
 ship arrested, or if the statutory amount of the owner's 
 liability, is insufficient to recompense the sufferer by the 
 collision, the owner by whose actual fault or privity the loss 
 was occasioned is liable for the deficiency («). 
 
 In the case of a collision with one of his Majesty's ships, 
 by the fault of those on board her, the actual wrong-doer is 
 the only person against whom there is a right of action (/.■). 
 
 The actual wrong-doer, being commonly a seafaring man of Liability of 
 small means, can seldom give adequate redress, and may be owuer'^" 
 not worth suing. In such cases the substantial remedy is to 
 be sought, either in Admiralty against the ship, or in a com- 
 mon law court against the employer of the actual wrong- doer. 
 It will be convenient to consider his liability first (/). 
 
 (e) See Aldrich v. Simmonds, 1 statute limiting- owner's liability- 
 Stark. 214 ; Oafclei/ v. Speed;/, 4 Asp. (i) See T/ir Triune, 3 Hag. 114. 
 M. C. 134 ; niaikie v. Stembridge, 6 In this case (decided under 53 Geo. 3, 
 C. B. N. S. 894. The coutrary has c. lo9\ after decree condemning the 
 been held in a Victorian Court : owner (who intervened in the suit) 
 Clancij \. Harrison, 4 Victoria L. R. and his ship and freight, the ship 
 4 37 (L.) ; Stacpoole \. BHridge, 5 was sold, and the procetds were in - 
 Victoria L. R. 302 (L.). During sufficient to pay the full amount 
 the -sixteenth and seventeenth cen- of damages and costs. A monition 
 taries, the ma.-^ter was almost always was decreed against the owner, who 
 defendant in Admiralty suits for was in charge of the ship at the 
 collision and other matters for which time of the collision, to pay the 
 the ship was arrested ; atd on proof deficiency, and, upon his failing to 
 of negligence the sentence went do so, he was attached, 
 against him personally. (k) Infra, p. 94. 
 
 (./) Hoiicliery. Noidstrom, 1 Taunt. (/) Whether by the civil law the 
 
 568 ; McManuK v. (Jricket.t, 1 East, shipowner was liable for a collision 
 
 106 
 
 caused by the fault of the master 
 (9) Kent's Comm. vol. 3, ^ 176. or crew seems to be a disputed 
 
 As to the respective duties of master point. Byukershoek, Qua.'st. Jur. 
 
 and pilot, see below, p. 229. Civ. 1. 4, c. 23, contends that ho is 
 
 [h) See below, p. 146, as to the not liable: ti {mayinlru) iiuUm muu-
 
 64 
 
 LIABILITY. 
 
 The ship- 
 owner is 
 liable, not 
 qua owner, 
 but only as 
 employer of 
 the actual 
 wrongf-doer. 
 
 The act com- 
 plained of 
 must be an 
 act of the 
 servant 
 within the 
 scope of his 
 employment. 
 
 In most cases the owner of the ship is the employer of those 
 on board and in charge of her, and is liable for their negli- 
 gent acts. So generally is this the case that it has been held 
 that, in the absence of proof to the contrary, those in charge 
 of a ship will be presumed to be in the employment of her 
 owners (w). And prima facie the owners are the persons so 
 described upon her register. But the register is not con- 
 clusive evidence of ownership ; and if it is shown either that 
 the actual owner is a different person from the registered 
 owner, or that the registered owner is not the employer of the 
 person causing the collision, the presumption as to the liability 
 of the registered owner is rebutted. 
 
 The liability for damage by a ship does not attach to her 
 owner qnd owner. It is only as master or employer of the 
 persons whose negligent act caused the damage that he incurs 
 any liability. " The owner would not be liable merely 
 because he was owner, or without showing that those navi- 
 gating the vessel were his servants " («). 
 
 It is further necessary, in order to fix the shipowner with 
 liability, that the negligent act complained of was an act of 
 the servant acting within the scope of his employment. 
 In the ordinary case of a collision occurring in the course of 
 the employment of the ship for the owner's benefit no diffi- 
 culty arises upon this point. But when the ship is employed 
 in a manner not authorized by the owner the question arises 
 whether those on board are acting within the scope of their 
 employment by the owner. In an American case (o) where 
 the defendant's servants, acting as volunteers, in shifting a 
 
 datum non est aliorum naves dolo vel 
 culpa obruere ; quod si fecisset, ipse, 
 quod dedit liiat, non exercitor ; so also 
 Bynk. Observationes Jur. Rom. 
 1. 4, c. 16. On the other hand, 
 Voet, ad Pandect. 14, 1, 7, makes 
 the shipowner liable : quod si deli- 
 querit [magister) si quidem in ipso 
 officio cui erat propositus, dum forte 
 datd opera vel culpa atque imprudentid 
 ■manifestd in navigium alienum impegit 
 suuni .... exercitores ex quasi delicto 
 teneri constat. Huberi Prselect. Jur. 
 Civ. 14, 1, 8 ; 3 Kent's Comra. 161 ; 
 to the same effect. Cf. also per 
 Ware, J., The Rebecca, Ware, 188; 
 The Phehe, ibid. 263, 268. The 
 exercitor (the person for whose benefit 
 
 the ship was worked), and not the 
 dominus (general owner), was gener- 
 ally liable for the acts of the master. 
 
 (;«) See Joyce v. CJapel, 8 C. & P. 
 370 ; Hibbs v. Ross, L. U. 1 Q. B. 
 534, and cases there cited ; Frazer v. 
 Cuthbertson, 6 Q. B. D. 93, 98 ; 
 Chasfeawieuf \. Bclange, 7 App. Cas. 
 127 ; Smith V. Bailey, (1891) 2 Q. B. 
 403. 
 
 (w) Per Lord Cairns, C, River 
 Wear Commissioners v. Adamson, 2 
 App. Cas. 743, 751 ; and per Lord 
 Blackburn, Simpson v. Thompson, 3 
 App. Cas. 279, 293 ; Hibbs v. Ross, 
 ubi supra. 
 
 (o) Morrcl v. Rheinfrank, 24 Fed. 
 Rep. 94.
 
 OF SHIPOWXER FOR ACTS OF CREW. 65 
 
 SCOW, caused her to damage a canal boat, it was held that the 
 defendants (who were dock owners coaling a steamer) were 
 not liable. 
 
 Where a master, without any instructions from his owner Salvage 
 as to towing disabled ships, undertook to assist a disabled ship ^•^'""'^e. 
 into port, and whilst attempting to get her in tow negligently 
 ran into and injm-ed her, it was contended that the owner 
 was not liable, because the master in assisting the disabled 
 ship was not acting within the scope of his employment. It 
 was held that he was so acting, and that his owner was 
 liable (jj). 
 
 Wilful, malicious, or criminal acts of the master and crew Owners not 
 can seldom be within the scope of their employment so as to Ij-tifu/ma. 
 make the shipowner liable. Thus, for a collision caused by licioiis, and 
 the master and crew maliciously driving their ship against S'tS "°** 
 another, the owner will not be liable {q). So where those on servants, 
 board a ship wilfully cut another ship adrift, and the latter 
 suffered damage in consequence, it was lield tliat tlie owners 
 of the former were not liable at law, and that their ship could 
 not be sued in Admiralty (r) . 
 
 The following case shows that the decisions in these cases 
 depend entu-ely upon the wrongful character of the act, and 
 that casting adrift a craft alongside is not necessarily always 
 wrongful. A flat alongside a steamship for coaling purposes 
 was holed by a floating log, and reasonably expected to sink 
 immediately. The mate of the steamship, for the safety of 
 his own vessel, set the flat adrift, and the flat drove against a 
 
 (p) The Thetis, L. R. 2 A. & E. ness. For an instance of a wilful 
 
 365. attack upon another ship by a tug, 
 
 (q) The Druid, 1 W. Rob. 391 ; see L. R. 1 A. & E. 64. 
 
 McManus v. Crickett, 1 East, 406 ; (r) The Ida, Lush. 6 ; the ship 
 
 Croft V. Alison, 4 B. & Aid. 590. was foreign, and the collision was in 
 
 In The Hebte, Sw. 411, this defence a foreign river; and see as to this 
 
 was pleaded. There is some diffi- ca,m,per Sir R. Phillimore, L. R. 
 
 culty in reconciling these with later 3 A. & E. 47. Cf. Tlie Diodossit, 
 
 cases (carriage accidents) : Limpus (1897) App. Oas. 97 ; Campbell v. 
 
 V. General Omnibus Co., 1 II. & C. 526 ; Fentist/lvanUi Ituil. Co., 85 Fed. Rep. 
 
 Page v. Dcfries, 7 B. & S. 137 : but 462 ; 'The Chickasaw, 41 Fed. Rop. 
 
 the character oi' the acts in the car- 627. In IValthum v. Mulyar, Moore, 
 
 riage cases is substantially different 776, the Admiralty Court was pro- 
 
 from that in the ship cases. In hibitod where it proposed to exercise 
 
 Beards. London General Omnibus Co., jurisdiction in tlio case of a ship 
 
 (1900) 2 Q. B. 530, where the con- whose crew, against tlu; owuith' 
 
 ductor was driving, it was held that orders, had piratically seized another 
 
 he was not about his owners' busi- ship. 
 
 M. F
 
 66 
 
 LIABILITY. 
 
 Owner's lia- 
 bility where 
 the ship is 
 under charter. 
 
 ship at anchor. The steamship owners were held in America 
 not to be liable for damage to the anchored ship (s). 
 
 But owners are liable for the acts of their servants done in 
 the course of their service and for their master's benefit, 
 though no express command or privity of the owner be 
 proved (t). And owners are answerable for the manner in 
 which their servants navigate their ship, though the wrongful 
 act of the servant is one against w^hich the owners have given 
 express orders {u). 
 
 Infringement of the regulations is a misdemeanour, and 
 damage caused thereby is deemed to have been caused by the 
 wilful default of the person in charge of the deck (.r). But 
 owners are not relieved from liability for the acts of their 
 servants in such cases (//) ; nor are they the less liable because 
 the negligence of their servants is criminal, and amounts to 
 manslaughter (s) . 
 
 Where a ship is being worked by a charterer or hirer, who 
 appoints and pays the officers and crew under a charter-party 
 or agreement which is in effect a demise of the vessel, the 
 owner is not liable at law for damage she may do while in 
 the possession of the charterer. But if the owner remains in 
 possession, either by himself or his agents, he is liable, 
 though the ship is under charter to another. Where a ship 
 was chartered for six months at 20/. a week for the carriage 
 of passengers and goods as the charterer should direct, he 
 paying all disbursements and the wages of officers and crew, 
 and the owners keeping the ship in repair, it was held that 
 the owners were liable for a collision caused by the fault of 
 those on board {a) . 
 
 In DahjeU v. T//rcr{b), H., the lessee of a ferry, hired 
 a tug with her master and crew to assist in working the ferry 
 
 (s) The Chickasaw, 41 Fed. Rep. 
 
 627. 
 
 (/) See per WiUes, J., Barwick v. 
 English Joint-Stock Bank, L. R. 2 
 Ex. 259, 265. 
 
 (m) Limpus V. London General Omni- 
 bus Co., 1 H. & 0. 526 ; Betts v. De 
 Vitre, L. R. 3 Ch. 429. 
 
 (x) 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, ss. 27, 28. 
 
 ly) It was so held under the pro- 
 visions of a former Act : The Seine, 
 Swab. 411. See also Foulton v. 
 London and South Western Rail, Co., 
 
 L. R. 2 Q. B. 534 ; Grill v. General 
 Iron Screw Collier Co., L. R. 3 C. P. 
 476. 
 
 [z) See The Franconia, 2 P. D. 8, 
 163 ; Reg. v. Keyn, 2 Ex. D. 63. 
 
 (a) Fenton v. Dublin Steam Racket 
 Co., 8 Ad. & Ell. 835. The decision 
 went upon the words of the charter- 
 party ; but it was proved that the 
 owners had appointed and had 
 power to dismiss the crew and 
 officers. 
 
 (h) EU. Bl. &E11. 899.
 
 OF SHIP UNDER CHARTER. 67 
 
 for a day. A person who had contracted with H. for a 
 season ticket was injured, wliilst on board the tug, by the 
 negligence of her crew, who were the owners' servants. It 
 was held that he could recover against the owners, and that 
 his right against them for the negligence of their crew was 
 independent of his right against H. upon the contract. 
 
 It has been doubted whether the owners of a ship which is 
 manned by a master and crew who are the owners' servants, 
 but who by the charter-party are bound to obey the orders of 
 a third person who is not the owners' servant, are liable at 
 law for damage done by the ship while acting under the 
 immediate orders of such third person. Upon principle it is 
 difficult to see why the owners, by placing their servants 
 under the control and orders of a thii-d person, sliould escape 
 liability for their wrongful acts. And in Fletcher v. Brad- 
 dick ic) Sir J. Mansfield held the owners liable in such a 
 case. 
 
 But where a vessel was one of a fleet of transports engaged 
 in the service of the Grovernment upon an expedition of war, 
 it was held by Cockburn, C. J., that it was an incident to 
 such an emploj^ment that all the vessels should obey the 
 orders of those in command of the expedition ; and that if 
 one of them damaged another of the fleet, whilst acting in 
 strict obedience to such orders, her owners would not be 
 liable [d) . 
 
 When a harbour corporation chartered a tug to tow ships 
 to their dock, it was held that they were liable for its default 
 whilst doing " corporation work " (e). 
 
 Where a Thames barge was lent by her owner to a person, 
 who navigated her with his own men, it was considered 
 clear by Best, J., that the owners were not liable for damage 
 done by her (/) . 
 
 The shipowners, or employers of the master or actual Owner can 
 
 recover over 
 against actual 
 
 (c) 2Bos. &P.N.R. 182. This case Tasnnmia, 18 V. D. 110, 117. wrong- oer. 
 
 is not satisfactory. The decision went (d) Ilodykiiisott v. Fcniic, '1 C. B. 
 
 partly upon the ground that the N. S. 415. This statement of the 
 
 duty of tlie officer did not extend to law was approved by the Court, 
 
 seeing to the working of the ship. [e) The liatnta, (1899) App. Cas. 
 
 The officer was in the service of the 513. 
 
 Government who were the charterers. (/) Scott v. Scott, 2 Stark. 438; 
 
 The case was, however, cited without hut it seems that in Admiralty she 
 
 comment by Sir J. Hannen in The would be subject to arrest. 
 
 f2
 
 68 
 
 LIABILITY. 
 
 Owner not 
 liable for the 
 negligence of 
 one to whom 
 the ship is 
 demised. 
 
 Owner liable 
 by statute for 
 damage to 
 pier, &c., by 
 persons other 
 than his 
 servants. 
 
 wrong-doer, by whose fault a collision occurs, can recover 
 against him any damages which they have been compelled 
 to pay, or any loss which they have suffered by his 
 negligence {g). 
 
 It has never been held that the duty to use due care and 
 skill which is incumbent upon every person in the conduct 
 of that which, if misconducted (//), may be harmful to others, 
 attaches to a shipowner whose ship is being navigated by a 
 person who pays the owner for the use of her, but navigates 
 her himself or by his servants (?"). On the contrary, it seems 
 clear that in such a case the shipoT\Tier is under no such duty, 
 though his ship is chartered or hired for the purpose of 
 navigation, t-nd is in the course of employment for the 
 owner's benefit. The duty above referred to attaches only to 
 those who have the actual conduct of the ship and to their 
 employers ; if it attached to the owner qua owner, it is clear 
 that he could not free himself from it by contract (^•) ; but, 
 as stated above, mere ownership creates no liability for 
 damage done by the ship (/). 
 
 By the Harbours, Docks, and Piers Act, 1847 (10 Vict, 
 c. 27), s. 74, the owner of a ship which damages the harbour, 
 dock, pier, quays, or works is answerable to the undertakers 
 for the damage done by such ship, or by any person 
 employed about her. This statutory liability is larger than 
 the common law liability of the shipowner; for it exists 
 whether the actual wrong-doer is his servant or not. The 
 ship herself is also liable in Admiralty, and a maritime lieu 
 is, it seems, created by the statute for the amount of the 
 damage {m) . It has been held that, notwithstanding the 
 words of the statute, the shipowner is not liable for injury to 
 a pier by his ship in case of violent tempest or act of God (n). 
 
 {g) Green v. New River Co., 4 T. R. 
 589 ; Bleioitt v. Hill, 13 East, 13. 
 
 [h) As to this duty, see per Den- 
 man, C. J., Mayor of Colchester v. 
 Brooke, 7 Q. B. 339, 377 ; per Lord 
 Stowell in The Dundee, 1 Hag. Ad. 
 120; per Lord Blackburn in The 
 Voorwaarts and 2'he Khedive, 7 App. 
 Gas. 795, 812 ; and River Wear Com- 
 missioners V. Adamson, 2 App. Gas. 
 743, 767. 
 
 (i) But the principle has been 
 adopted in the Harbours, Docks, 
 
 and Piers Act, 1847, mentioned in 
 the next paragraph of the text, and 
 in some local Docks Acts. 
 
 {k) Hole V. Sittinffhourne Rail. Co., 
 6 H. & N. 488 ; per Lord Blackburn, 
 Dalton V. dingus, 6 App. Gas. 740, 
 820 ; Bower v. Peate, 1 Q. B. D. 321 ; 
 Hughes V. Percival, 8 App. Gas. 443. 
 
 (/) Supra, p. 64. 
 
 \m) See The Merle, 2 Asp. M. G. 
 402. 
 
 («) River Wear Commissioners v. 
 Adamson, 2 App. Gas. 743, over-
 
 Of persons other than owners. 69 
 
 And the statute provides (sect. 74) that the shipowner shall 
 not be liable where the damage was caused entii-ely by the 
 fault of a compulsory pilot in charge of his ship. 
 
 The liability for damage done by a ship springing, as we Liability of 
 have seen, not fi-om ownership, but from the rule of law by Tk"""^ °"'*''' 
 
 , , ^ "^ than owners ; 
 
 which a man is liable for the wrongful acts of his agent 
 
 acting within the scope of his employment, it is evident 
 
 that, on the one hand, an owner may be liable, though the 
 
 relation of master and servant does not exist between him and 
 
 the person who does the mischief, and, on the other hand, 
 
 that the principal or employer of the wrong-doer will be 
 
 liable, whether he is also owner of the ship or not. A 
 
 ship worked by a partnership is an instance of the latter case, ot partners ; 
 
 Each member of the partnership is liable for the negligent 
 
 acts of the other partners, and for the acts of agents of the 
 
 partnership done in the course of the business of the pai-tner- 
 
 ship. In this case, unless the partner sued is an owner of 
 
 the ship, it seems that his liability is unlimited (o). 
 
 In Sfeel v. Lester (p) the actual owner, who was also 
 registered as managing owner (ryj, had agreed with the 
 skipper that the vessel should be worked entirely by him, the 
 owner having no control over her, the crew to be engaged 
 and the voyages to be determined at the absolute discretion 
 of the skipper. The owner was to receive one-third of the 
 net profits earned by the ship. It was held that, whether 
 the skipper was the owner's servant, or his partner (/•) in the 
 adventure, navigating ship for the joint benefit of himself 
 and the owner, the owner's liability for the collision was the 
 same. 
 
 Where the person whose negligence causes the collision of charterer. 
 is the servant or agent of a charterer of the ship, the liability 
 for damages falls on the charterer. But, except in the rare 
 case of an actual demise of the ship, it seldom happens that 
 the ofiicers and crew are in the employment of the charterer 
 
 ruling The 3Icrle, tibi supra, and nard v. Aaron, 31 L. J. C. P. 331. 
 
 Bennin v. Tovell, L. R. 8 Q. B. 10. In Webster v. Lisharoon, G4 Foil. Rep. 
 
 (o) See infra, p. 158. 143, a very similar American case, it 
 
 (p) 3 C. P. D. 121. was held that the shiji was liable in 
 
 {q) Under 38 & 39 Vict. c. 88. rem, but not the owner in /ursoiiam. 
 
 (r) As to such an agreement not See also T/ic I'hcbc, Wiiro's Reports, 
 
 constituting a partnership, see Bur- '2G3.
 
 70 
 
 LIABILITY. 
 
 Liability of 
 the ship in 
 Admiralty. 
 
 and not of the owner. Wlien a ship is demised to a charterer, 
 the charterer takes the benefit of the statute limiting ship- 
 owners' liability (.s). 
 
 A person who contracts with a shipowner for the use of 
 his ship, with her officers and crew, for a specified time or 
 purpose, does not thereby become liable for the negligence of 
 those on board her. Thus, where harbour commissioners 
 contracted with a tug-owner that his tug should tow vessels 
 into the harbour at a specified price, it was held that they 
 were not liable for the negligence of the crew of the tug (t). 
 As between charterer and owner, the former may be liable 
 for damage to the ship by the negligence of those on board, 
 whether they are his servants or not, by reason of the obliga- 
 tion arising out of the contract to return the ship in the 
 condition in which he received her, wear and tear and 
 accidents excepted {u). 
 
 Thus far we have considered the liability at common law of 
 the actual wrong-doer and of persons answerable for his acts. 
 The injured person, we have seen, has at common law no lien 
 upon the wrong-doing ship, but only a right of action against 
 the person in fault, and, if he was the servant or agent of 
 another, against his employer (w) . We now proceed to 
 discuss the liability in Admiralty of the ship by the negligent 
 navigation of which the damage was occasioned. In dealing 
 with this branch of the subject it is almost impossible to 
 avoid personifying the ship and speaking of her as the actual 
 wrong-doer. The habit is in some respects convenient and is 
 inveterate, and it would be useless to struggle against it. 
 But it must not be forgotten that in speaking of a ship as a 
 wrong-doer or "in fault " for a collision, we are using a 
 figure of speech which is apt to be misleading (y) . There 
 
 (s) See infra, p. 158. 
 
 {t) Cuthbertson v. Parsons, 12 C. B. 
 304. And see the observations of 
 Tenterden, C. J., in Laugher v. 
 Pointer, 5 B. & C. 547, cited by 
 Butt, J., in The Quickstep, 15 P. D. 
 196, 200. 
 
 (m) See Coupe Co. v. Maddick, (1891) 
 2 Q. B. D. 413. 
 
 [x) See per Lord Blackburn, River 
 Wear Commissioners v. Adainson, 2 
 
 App. Cas. 743, 768. 
 
 {y) The judgment in The Sisters, 
 1 P. D. 117, is an instance of the 
 confusion arising from the practice 
 of personifying the ship. A collision 
 occurred by the fault of those on 
 board ship A. in driving another, B., 
 to alter her course, so as to strike 
 and injure a third ship, C. C. sued 
 A., and in the judgment the action 
 is thus described : — " The suit is not
 
 LIABILITY OF SHIP IN ADMIRALTY. 71 
 
 are, indeed, to be found in the books eases whioli give some 
 countenance to the doctrine that in Admiralty the ship is the 
 real defendant ; that the ship is sued, because it is she that 
 has done the wrong, and she that pays the recompense. But 
 it is submitted that this view of the liability of the ship in 
 Admiralty is not well founded, and that at the present day it 
 would not be followed. It probably would never have been 
 put forward but for the loose language frequently used with 
 reference to negligence in the conduct of ships, wliicli 
 attributes the negligence not to the persons who navigate, 
 but to the ships themselves. The process of Admiralty 
 Courts against the ship seems clearly to have originated, not 
 in any such idea as that involved in the law of deodand (;:) 
 or in the noxal action of the civil law, but simply as a ready 
 and effectual means of compelling the wrong-doer to appear 
 and defend the action, or to make recompense (a). 
 
 Some countenance is lent to the doctrine that the ship is 
 liable without regard to her ownership by cases {b) in which 
 the shipowner has, by seizure and sale of his vessel in 
 Admiralty, been held liable in damages for a collision caused 
 by the fault neither of himself nor of his servants, but of 
 persons in charge of his ship who were not his servants. 
 Some of these cases have been reversed on appeal ; but there 
 is at least one (c) recent decision of the Court of Admiralty 
 giving effect, at the expense of the innocent owner, to the 
 principle that it is the ship that does the wrong. Whatever 
 ground there may be for the opinion that by the maritime 
 
 brought against the actual wrong- where there is mere negligence: 
 
 doer, but it is brought against the Law Magazine, vol. 3, p. 188. 
 vesselwhich caused the actual wrong- («) See per Dr. Lushington in T/w 
 
 doer to do the wrong." " Mellona, 3 W. Rob. 16; and the 
 
 (2) In Holmes' Common Law, judgment of GoreU Barnes, J., in 
 
 pp. 26 seq., and an article, 10 i\jnori- The Ripon City, (1897) P. 226, 240._ 
 can Law Review (p. 432), the writer (A) The Ticonderoga, Swab. 21ji ; 
 
 suggests a connection between the The Lemington, 2 Asp. M. C. 475, 
 
 liability of the ship in Admiralty and cases infra, pp. 81 scq. The 
 
 and the law of deodand ; and he opposite views as to the position of 
 
 refers to the noxce deditio of the the owner of a ship proceeded against 
 
 Roman law as embodying the same in the Admiralty Court will be found 
 
 idea. For a curious case upon the discussed in lyw Miillingar, 26 L. T. 
 
 law of deodand in connection with 'SiG, nnd The J'<ir/r»ient Jle/gr, 5P.'D. 
 
 colHsion, see Jirg. v. I'olwart, 1 Q. B. 197, 217 ; The Louyfurd, 14 P. D. 34. 
 818, where it was held that tlie jury (c) The Lemiiiylon, 2 Asp. M. C. 
 
 have no power to levy deodand where 475. See this and other cases below, 
 
 the collision is by fault amounting pp. \1^ seq. 
 to manslaughter, though they have
 
 72 LIABILITY. 
 
 law it was the ship that did the wrong (d), and the ship that 
 paid the recompense, the principles of the common law have 
 so far prevailed in the Admiralty of this country, that it is at 
 least doubtful whether at the present day, notwithstanding 
 the case above mentioned, damages could be recovered in 
 Admiralty against an innocent shipowner, where his liability 
 depended only upon the supposed principle of the maritime 
 law which fixes the fault upon the ship. 
 
 Upon this subject the language of Selwyn, L. J., in The 
 Hal ley may here be quoted. " In cases like the present, 
 where damages are claimed for tortious collisions, a chattel, 
 such as a ship or carriage, may be, and frequently is, spoken 
 of as the wrong-doer ; but it is obvious that although redress 
 may be sometimes obtained by means of the seizm*e and sale 
 of the ship or carriage, the chattel itself is only the instru- 
 ment by the improper use of which the injury is inflicted by 
 the real wrong-doer " (e). 
 
 Again, in The Parlement Beige (/), Brett, L. J., delivering 
 the judgment of the Court of Appeal, said : — " In a claim 
 made in respect of a collision the property is not treated as 
 the delinquent per se. Though the ship has been in collision 
 and has caused injury by reason of the negligence or want of 
 skill of those in charge of her, yet she cannot be made the 
 means of compensation if those in charge of her were not the 
 servants of her then owner, as if she was in charge of a 
 compulsory pilot. This is conclusive to show that the 
 liability to compensate must be fixed not merely on the 
 property, but also on the owner through the property." 
 
 From the expressions used in these judgments, it would 
 appear that the liability of the ship in Admiralty, and of the 
 owner at common law, should always be concurrent. And 
 in The Bruid {g), Dr. Lushington said, that the liability of 
 the ship and the responsibility of the owner were convertible 
 terms. But unless we are to understand " owner " to mean 
 
 {d) Cf. Anon., 1 Keb. 44, where 107, 111 ; Simpson v. Thompson, 3 
 the " misdemeanour of boat " is App. Cas. 279, as to the necessity- 
 spoken of. Cf. Hopton c. a pink, of determining who is "the actual 
 Seld. Ser. Adm. ii. 79. wrong-doer." 
 
 (e) Per Selwyn, L. J., in The (/) 5 P. D. 197, 218. 
 
 Halley, L. E. 2 P. C. 193, 201. {y) I W. Rob. 391. 
 And see The M. Moxham, 1 P. D.
 
 MARITIME LIEN FOR DAMAGE. 73 
 
 pro hdc mce owner, or in some sense other than that of general 
 owner, the dictum of Dr. Lushington is not consistent with 
 subsequent cases. It is clear that the ship may be liable in 
 Admiralty where no damages could be recovered at law 
 against the general owner (A). 
 
 Before discussing further the cases in which the ship, as Maritime lieu 
 distinguished from her owners, is liable for collision, it will itTniiturT ** ' 
 be convenient to consider the nature of the liabi^^ty of the 
 ship in Admu'alty. This liability exists in the form of a 
 lien or charge upon the ship, which arises in consequence 
 of the collision in favour of the injured party. As a 
 general rule, where a ship in the course of her employment 
 for the owner's benefit, by the fault of those in charge, 
 strikes or causes injury to (/) another ship, a charge for the 
 amount of the loss attaches to her in favour of the sufferer. 
 This charge or privilege, called a maritime lien, is enforced 
 against the ship by an action in rem in Admiralty. 
 
 The proceedings in an action in rem commence with a writ 
 of summons addressed to the owners and persons interested 
 in the ship ; this, unless the defendants have by themselves 
 or their solicitors undertaken to give bail, which is the usual 
 coui'se, is followed by an-est ik) of the ship by the marshal of 
 the Coui't. Thereupon the ship, with her gear and tackle, 
 and the freight due, become security to the plaintiff for his 
 damages and costs [l). 
 
 (Ji) Infra, pp. 81 seq. civili nullum habet fundamentum, was 
 
 (i) See «</?•«, p. 76. a practice which formerly extensively 
 
 {k) The Valentinian Regulations, prevailed uu the continent of Europe : 
 
 issued circitcr a.d. 1336 — 1343, for Huberi Positiones jm-is, ii. 4 ; Hub. 
 
 the guidance of the Courts of the Pra;lectiones jui'. civ., vol. 2, 88 *ey. ; 
 
 Sea at Valencia, contain provisions and see Maine's Early History of 
 
 as to the execution of the sentence Institutions, pp. 261 seq. 
 
 of the Court by arrest and sale of {I) Subject to the marshal's 
 
 the moveable property of the de- charges : The Europa, Br. & L. 
 
 fendant, including his ships. These 210. The nature of proceedings 
 
 provisions are in some respects simi- in rem is fully discussed in the 
 
 lar to the existing process of the following cases : The Bold BuccUuch, 
 
 Admiralty ; but there is no trace in 7 Moo. P. C. 267 ; The Aline, 1 
 
 them of a lien existing before arrest. W. Rob. Ill; The Melloua, 3 
 
 See Black Book, Rolls' series, Vol. IV. W. Rob. 16; The Nymph, Swab, 
 
 pp. 475 seq. These Regulations are Ad. 86 ; Thr Farlemeut lirltji; 6 
 
 referred to by Mr. Justice Story in P. D. 197 ; The Orient, L. R. 3 P. C. 
 
 Be Lovio V. lioit, 2 Gall. 398, as 696 ; The Two Ellens, L. R. 4 P. C. 
 
 authority for the extent and character 161; The Hcinrich lijorn, 10 P. D. 
 
 of Admiralty jurisdiction. Arrest of 44, at pp. 53, 54 ; The Cella, 13 P. D. 
 
 a defendant's property or person, to 82; The liipon City, (1897) P. 226; 
 
 compel him to apjjear, licel in jure 'Taylor v. Carryl, 20 How. 583. It
 
 74 
 
 LIABILITY. 
 
 The privilege or right of the injured party against the ship 
 is inchoate from the moment of collision (»?), and is carried 
 into effect by proceedings in the Admiralty Division of the 
 High Court or other Court having Admiralty jurisdiction. 
 It is not limited to the owner's interest in the ship (n) ; nor 
 is it displaced by a sale to a bond fide purchaser without 
 notice (o), by the owner's death [p), or bankruptcy (</), or, if 
 the ship is owned by a company, by a winding-up order 
 against the company (r), or by a sale under the order of 
 a foreign Court in which the proceedings are not in rem («). 
 The lien is not barred by, or in analogy to, the Statute of 
 Limitations [t). The injured party must, however, take 
 proceedings to enforce his right within a reasonable time, 
 or he will lose the benefit of his lien (w), at any rate where 
 there are circumstances which render its enforcement in- 
 equitable. Where the defendant ship was owned by a 
 company, and many of the shares in the company had 
 changed hands since collision, this was held not to constitute 
 a sufficient change of interest to render the enforcement of 
 
 is doubtful whether the doctrine that 
 collision gives rise to a lien is older 
 than The Bold Bucdcuch. In nu 
 earlier case is the doctrine explicitly 
 stated. InBrown's Admiralty Law, 
 vol. 2, p. 143, it is stated that "the 
 torts of the master cannot be sujjposed 
 to hypothecate the ship, nor in my 
 humble judgment, in strictness of 
 speech to produce any lien on it " ; 
 even for salvage the writer thought 
 that there is no lien : ibid. p. 52. 
 From Gierke's Praxis, tit. 24, 28, it 
 appears that arrest of the defendant's 
 ship (or other goods) was an alter- 
 native to arrest of the defendant's 
 person, and was merely a means of 
 compelling appearance. The early 
 records of the Court show that it 
 was not always the ship that did the 
 damage that was arrested ; any ship 
 or goods belonging to her owner 
 were equally liable to arrest ; and 
 also, as it seems, cargo on board the 
 ship arrested. See next page, 
 note [d). 
 
 {m) The Bold Buccleiwh, 7 Moo. 
 P. C. 267. 
 
 («) See per Lord Watson, The 
 Dunlossit, (1897) App. Gas. 97, 106 ; 
 The Two Ellens, L. R. 4 P. G. 161. 
 
 (o) The Bold Buccleuch, 7 Moo. 
 P. C. 267 ; The Nytnph, Swab. 86 : 
 The Melluna, 2 W. Eob. 16. 
 
 (jy) See Phillips v. Honifray, 24 
 Ch. J). 439, and cases there cited, as 
 to an action at law in this case. 
 
 [q) The Young Mechanic, 2 Gurtis, 
 404 (Amer. case). 
 
 (r) In re Australian Direct Steam 
 Navigation Co., L. R. 20 Eq. 325; 
 In re Rio Grande do Sul Steamship Co., 
 5 Gh. D. 282 ; The Cella, 13 P. D. 82. 
 
 («) The Charles Amelia, L. R. 2 
 A. & E. 330. 
 
 {t) The Kong Magnus, (1891) P. 223. 
 In America, aliter ; The Amboy, 36 
 Fed. Rep. 925 ; and see The Alaska, 
 33 Fed. Rep. 107 ; Withcojsktj v. 
 Wier, 32 Fed. Rep. 301 ; Scull v. 
 Raymond, 18 Fed. Rep. 547. 
 
 {ii) In The Europa, 2 Moo. P. C. 
 N. S. 1, the lien was held to be 
 subsisting three years, and in The' 
 Kong Magnus, (1891) P. 223, eleven 
 years, after the collision. In the 
 latter case the ship' had been in 
 ports of the United Kingdom 
 47 times, in all 176 days, during the 
 eleven years. See also The Fairport, 
 8 P. D. 48.
 
 DAMAGE LIEN : TO WHAT IT ATTACHES. 75 
 
 the lien inequitable (.r). The Bold Bucchuch, which is the 
 
 first reported case in which the damage lien was declared, 
 
 though often questioned, has never been expressly tlissented 
 
 from, and has recently been approved by the House of Lords. 
 
 The Admiralty law of Scotland was, in the same ease, 
 
 declared to be the same as that of England upon the question 
 
 of the damage lien (y). 
 
 • The lien attaches to the hull of the ship, and also to her To what the 
 
 tackle, apparel, and furniture. Thus her sails and rigging (s), ^^ •'*^''^'"-''*- 
 
 and her equipment for a fishing voyage (a), have been held 
 
 subject to it. But it does not attach to the wearing apparel 
 
 of passengers on board her {h). The lien exists after tlie ship 
 
 has been wrecked and broken in pieces, and it may be enforced 
 
 against the fragments (c). 
 
 Cargo on board the ship arrested forms no part of the ren Cargo may be 
 to which the lien attaches ((/) ; but it is subiect to arrest in '*""^'^*^ **' 
 
 ^ \ J compel pay- 
 
 order to compel the pajTuent into Court of freight due to the ment of 
 
 shipowner {e) ; and if part has been discharged, the remainder '^ 
 will be released only upon payment of the whole of the 
 freight (/') ; and when the ship is ordered to be sold, the 
 Court will order the marshal to retain the cargo as security 
 for the fi'eight and charges, and, if no application be made, 
 to sell such part as may be necessary to pay them {jj). Such 
 freight is part of the res, although the cargo in respect of 
 which it is payable was not on board at the time of the 
 collision, if the vessel arrested was in fact then engaged in 
 earning it. Thus, where a ship was in collision on her out- 
 ward voyage with a cargo on board for the owner's benefit, it 
 
 (x) The KonffMaffnus,{1891)F. '2.23. Ad. Cas. 314; and Bynkershook, 
 
 (y) The Dimlossit, (1897) App. Cas. QujE^t. Jur. Priv. 1. iv. c. 20. 
 
 97. {e) The Victor, Lush. 72 ; T/ir Leo, 
 
 (z) The Alexander, 1 Dods. 278. Lush. 444 ; Nixon v. Jiobcrtu, 1 J. & 
 
 \a) The Dundee, iTLagg. IQ'd. H. 739. As to arrest of cargo where 
 
 {b) The William III., L. R. 3 A. no freight is due, see Thr Flora, 
 
 & E. 487. L. R. I A. & E. 45. Ai-t. 73G of the 
 
 (c) The Neptune, 1 Hagg. 227, 238 German Commercial Code provides 
 (where the lien was for wages) ; The for arrest of cargo for the same 
 Bold Buccleuch, 7 Moo. P. C. 267. purpose. 
 
 Dist. The Annie, 12 P. D. 50 (a case (/) The Roecliff, L. R. 2 A. & E. 
 
 of life salvage). 363. 
 
 [d) There is some evidence that {g) The Gettysburg, 5 Asp. :M. C. 
 formerly cargo in the wrong-doing 347. In that case the cargo was 
 ship was liable equally with the ordered to be kept for fourteen days 
 ship. See Fo//«e?c. 7b»i/jw«&H,Marsd. before sale.
 
 the lien arises. 
 
 76 LIABILITY. 
 
 was held that the cargo which she was then under charter to 
 bring home from the foreign port was liable to arrest (A). 
 But where the freight has been paid, and the ship was sub- 
 sequently, and before arrest, sold, it was held that the new 
 owner was not liable beyond the value of the ship (/) . 
 In what cases There has been much discussion as to whether the damage 
 lien attaches where the Admiralty Court has jurisdiction only 
 by statute ; whether in a particular case the right to proceed 
 against a ship in rem under 3 & 4 Vict. c. 65, or under 
 24 Vict. c. 10, involves a maritime lien. It is clear that 
 where no action lies in rem [k) there can be no lien. But 
 there may be a proceeding in rem where no lien exists ; as in 
 the case of an owner or consignee of cargo carried into an 
 English or Welsh port suing the ship for damage to the 
 goods or for breach of contract (/) or other proceedings 
 against the ship authorized by one of the above statutes {m). 
 
 Whether or no the lien attaches to a ship that, without 
 being in collision herself, by her negligent navigation causes 
 a collision between two other ships {n), has not been expressly 
 decided. So, with regard to collisions within the body of a 
 county, since the High Court of Admiralty had no jurisdic- 
 tion in such cases, it has been doubted whether the damage 
 lien attached, after the extension of the Admiralty jurisdiction 
 to these localities by statute. It was pointed out by 
 Mellish, L. J., in The Two JSlIens{o), that there are strong 
 grounds for holding that, since collision gave a maritime lien 
 when it occurred upon the high sea, it was intended by the 
 Acts which extended the jurisdiction that collision should 
 also give a lien when it occurred within a county. In a 
 
 (/*) The Orpheus, L. R. 3 A. & E. appears to have assumed that there 
 
 308. was a lien. Sed qu. 
 
 (i) The Mellona, 3 W. Rob. 16, 25. (w) As iu The Sisters, 1 P. D. 117 ; 
 
 {k) ^.^., for loss of life: The Vera The Tort Victoria, (1902) P. 25; and 
 
 Cruz, 10 App. Cas. 59 ; for cargo lost other cases supra, p. 27. In America 
 
 in a collision for which the carrying the lien has been held to arise in the 
 
 ship was alone in fault : The Jlctorin, case of a tug by whose fault her tow 
 
 12 P. D. 105. was forced into collision with a third 
 
 (l) The Heinrich BJorn, 11 App. ship: The John O. Stevens, 170 U.S. 
 
 Cas. 276 (necessaries); The Two Rep. 113. 
 
 Blhns, L. R. 4 P. C. 161 (mort- (o) L. R. 4 P. C. 161, 167 ; and 
 
 gage). per Lord Halsbury, C, in The Sara, 
 
 [ni) The Ficve Superiore, L. R. 5 14 App. Cas. 209, 216. CL The Zeta, 
 
 P. C. 482. In The Patria, L. R. 3 (1893) App. Cas. 468. 
 A. & E. 436, 459, Sir R. Phillimore
 
 DA^SIAGE LIEN : TO WHAT IT ATTACHES. 
 
 77 
 
 case where the collision was within the body of a county 
 between the ship and the Liverpool landing-stage, Gorell 
 Barnes, J., held that the lien attached (p). Probably, there- 
 fore, it attaches in all damage cases (q), whether the jurisdic- 
 tion is tliat of the old High Court of Admiralty or statutory. 
 That collision between ships is not a necessary condition of 
 the lien follows from The Veritas {supra) and T/ze Zcta (r). In 
 the latter case the damage was to a ship by collision with a 
 pier head ; and it was contended that the case would not liave 
 been within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty before its 
 extension by statute in 1840. Lord Herschell, C., says : " I 
 cannot regard it as established that in the year 1840 its juris- 
 diction {i.e. of the High Court of Admiralty) in the case of 
 damage received by a ship was limited to damage received by 
 collision with another vessel. I can find no ground, either in 
 principle or authority, for such a limitation." Conversely, 
 damage done by a ship to objects other than sliips may be 
 sued for in Admiralty in rem {s), and will, it is conceived, give 
 rise to a niaritime lien {t). 
 
 There is a question whether, in the case of a collision in a 
 
 {p) The Veritas, (1901) P. 304. 
 The learned judge doubted whether 
 it was necessary to decide the point ; 
 but it appears to have been material ; 
 and there is an express decision " if 
 it be material" : ibid. p. 314. 
 
 {q) Including cases where the 
 wrong-doing ship is not herself in 
 collision. The Diinlcssit, (1897) App. 
 Cas. 97, does not contradict this. 
 
 (r) (1893) App. Cas. 468. See 
 this case considered in T'hc Normandy, 
 (1904) P. 187. The gist of the matter 
 seems to be tort done by a ship. See 
 The Sanih, liiish. o49. 
 
 (.v) In The Swift, (1901) P. 168, 
 the damage was to an oyster bed ; 
 in The Verit.au. uhinupra, to a landing- 
 stage ; in. The Clara Killam, L. K. 6 
 A. & E. Itjl, and The Czar, 19 Lower 
 Canada Jurist, 197, to a telegraph 
 cable ; in The Excelsior, L. li. "2 
 A. & E. 2G8, to a breakwater ; in 
 The Albert Edirard, 44 L. J. Ad. 49, 
 to a mooring dolphin ; in The Chase, 
 Stuart's V. Ad. Kep. 361, tu a wharf. 
 
 Admiralty show that suits have been 
 entertained for collisions with a wear, 
 a house, a wharf, a bridge, and a 
 dredger : Selden, Ser. Admiralty, 
 ii. p. Ixxxii. In the United States 
 the Admiralty jurisdiction appears 
 to be more limited than it now is in 
 England. In The Blackheath, 195 
 U. S. 361, the Supreme Court held 
 that there was jurisdiction to enter- 
 tain an action for damage by a ship 
 to a beacon which was surrounded 
 by the sea tliough aftixed to the 
 ground, for the reason that this was 
 in its nature a niaritime cause of 
 action. But in the Cleveland R. 11. v. 
 Steamship Co., 208 U. S. 316, the 
 Supreme Court explained that the 
 above case must not bo taken to 
 extend the jurisdiction beyond the 
 facts of that case, and that the juris- 
 diction did not extend to damage to 
 structures attached to the sliore, such 
 as a pier, in otlier words, this was 
 not a maritime action. See also The 
 I'tiuyhkeepsie, 162 Fed. l\ep. 494. 
 
 The records of the High Court of (C) The Veritas, (1901) P. 304.
 
 78 
 
 LIABILITY. 
 
 Injury to pier 
 or harbour 
 works. 
 
 Foreign ship 
 detained for 
 injury to 
 British ship. 
 
 Priority of 
 damage lien. 
 
 county between two non-seagoing lighters, there can be a 
 damage lien (h). 
 
 The Kability created by 10 & 11 Yict. c. 27 upon a ship 
 that injures a pier or harbour works involves a maritime 
 lien (;^•). 
 
 If a foreign ship injures a British ship, or property of a 
 British subject, in any part of the world, she may be detained 
 if foimd within three miles of the shore of the United King- 
 dom (//) . A ship which has been so detained was, after an 
 absolute appearance by her owners in Admiralty, held liable 
 in rem for injury to a barge within the body of a county (s). 
 
 A plaintiff who obtains judgment in a damage action is 
 entitled to enforce his lien to the exclusion of another damage 
 claimant who institutes his action after judgment even on the 
 same day («) . And the damage lien takes precedence of 
 charges upon the ship arising out of contract, such as mort- 
 gages (b) and bottomry bonds, whether prior or subsequent 
 to the coUision in date {c), liens for wages, whether earned 
 before or after the collision {d), liens for pilotage (e), salvage 
 liens attaching before the collision (,/"), and probably the 
 possessory lien of a shipwright for repairs (g). But it ranks 
 after the claim of a bondholder who, after the collision and 
 before arrest, without notice of the damage lien, advances 
 upon bottomry money which is afterwards expended in repairs 
 — so far, at least, as such claim relates to the increased value 
 
 [n] See Purkis v. Flower, L. R. 9 
 Q. B. 114 ; Evemrdy. Kendall, L. R. 
 5 C. P. 248. 
 
 \x) The Merle, 2 Asp. M. C. 402. 
 This case was overruled upon another 
 point by River Wear Commissioners v. 
 Adamson, 2 App. Gas. 743. 
 
 (//) 57 & 58 Vict. c. GO, s. 688. 
 
 (s) The Bilbao, Lush. 149. 
 
 («) The Saraeen, 6 Moo. P. C. 56 ; 
 The Desdemom, Swab. 158; and see 
 The MarkUmd, L. R. 3 A. & E. 340 ; 
 The Able Holme (first action), 4 Asp. 
 M. C. 593. 
 
 (h) See The Chieftain, Br. & Lush. 
 104, 111 ; The linbij, (1898) P. 62, 
 as to the mortgagee's position. 
 
 (c) The Aline, 1 W. Rob. 111. It 
 has been held in America that the 
 damage lien takes precedence of the 
 lien for necessaries supplied prior to 
 the collision: The John G. Stevens, 
 170 U. S. Rep. 113. 
 
 {d) The Benares, 7 Not. of Gas. 
 Suppl. p. 50 ; The Linda Flor, 
 Swab. 309 ; The Buna, 5 L. T. 217 ; 
 The Elin, 8 P. D. 39, 129 ; The 
 Chinmra, cited 8 P. D. 46, 131, in 
 all which cases, however, the ship 
 was foreign. 
 
 (c) The Benares, supra. Qncere, 
 whether any such lien exists. 
 
 (/) The Veritas, (1901) P. 304. 
 
 Ig) Precedence is given to a salvage 
 lien over the shipwright's lien : The 
 Gustaf, Lush. 506 ; The Tergeste, 
 (1903) P. 26 ; but see The Aline, 
 1 W. Rob. 111. The shipwright's 
 lien is not determined by arrest of 
 the ship in a necessaries action : 
 The Aeaeia, 4 Asp. M. C. 254 ; and 
 takes precedence of wages earned 
 after the ship is in a shipwright's 
 possession for repair : The Tergeste, 
 supra .
 
 DAMAGE LIENS : WINDING-UP ORDER. 
 
 79 
 
 of the ship by reason of such repairs {h) ; and it probably 
 ranks after a salvage lien attaching after the collision (/). 
 
 Where several claimants for damages in several actions i)i Order of 
 rem in respect of the same collision obtain successive judg- ^"-eral"^*'" 
 ments against the ship, their respective liens are enforceable Jainafre 
 against the ship in the order of the judgments (/.•). A plain- 
 tiff who institutes his action after another has been instituted, 
 but before judgment, is entitled to damages rateably with tlio 
 plaintiff in the earlier action (l). 
 
 In the case of a ship owned by a company in liquidation Eifeot of a 
 the damage lien will be enforced in priority to the claims of wiudiiifr-up 
 
 ° _ . order or baiik- 
 
 the general creditors. If all parties are before the Com-t, an ruptcy iii)oii 
 order will be made in the liquidation for payment of the li'.y ' '""^'^^ 
 amount of the lien. But if parties interested in the ship, as 
 mortgagees in possession, are not before the Court and cannot 
 be brought before it, leave must be obtained in the winding- 
 up to proceed in Admiralty. An arrest of the ship by the 
 Admiralty Court after a winding-up order has been made 
 is void, unless leave to proceed in Admiralty has been 
 obtained in the winding-up (jii). 
 
 In Ireland an injunction to restrain an Admiralty action 
 in rem was refused by a Court of Bankruptcy, except upon 
 payment into Court of the amount of the claim and an 
 undertaking being given as to costs («). 
 
 A ship will be released after arrest upon money being paid Bail takes 
 into Court or bail being given to an amount sufficient to arrested.'*"^ 
 satisfy the plaintiff's claim or equal to the defendant's 
 
 {fi) The Aline, 1 W. Rob. 111. 
 As to the ground of this decision, see 
 per Parke, B., in The Bold Buceleuch, 
 7 Moo. P. C. 267, 285. And see 
 The St. Oh,f, L. R. 2 A. & E. ;i60, 
 as to repairs without consent after 
 arrest. 
 
 (i) See The Selina, 2 Not. of Gas. 
 18 ; Cargo ex Galam, Br. & Lush. 
 167 ; Att.-Gen. v. Norstedt, 3 Price, 
 
 97. 
 
 (/c) The Saracen, 6 Moo. P. C. 50. 
 As to a stay of proceedinjjs in such 
 a case to enable the defendant to 
 limit liability, see The Abie Holme 
 (first action), 4 Asp. M. C. 593. 
 
 [l) The Clara, Swab. 1. See The 
 
 Union, Lush. 128, infra, p. 204, as 
 to this being a lex fori. 
 
 (;«) In re Amtralian Direct Steam 
 Navigation Co., L. R. 20 Eq. 325 ; 
 In re Rio Grande do Sal Steamship 
 Co., 5 Ch. D. 282. See also In re 
 Traders^ Xorth Stafordxhire Carri/itig 
 Co., L. R. 19 Eq. 60, as to the riglit, 
 after winding-up order, to sell a 
 barge for tolls due before winding- 
 up : and see also as to enforcing a 
 necessaries lien in case of bank- 
 ruptcy, Haliiday V. Harris, L. U. 9 
 C. P. 608. 
 
 («) In re T. C, Ir. liop. 11 Jmi- 
 151. And see The John and Mart/, 
 Swab. 471.
 
 80 
 
 LIABILITY. 
 
 Insufficient 
 bail ; further 
 remedy 
 against 
 proceeds 
 of ship. 
 
 Assignment 
 of lien. 
 
 liability (o). In such a case the money in Court, or the 
 amount of the bail, takes the place of the ship, as a security 
 for what may be recovered in the action, and, if the bail is 
 sufficient, the ship herself is free {p). It has been held that, 
 where the amount for which bail was given was insufficient 
 to provide for damages and costs, the ship may be re-arrested 
 to satisfy the damages (q) or costs (r). Where bail is given 
 in an amount beyond the owner's statutory liability, the 
 sum recoverable is, nevertheless, limited to the statutory 
 amount («). Where excessive bail is required the amount 
 will be moderated upon an application to the Court (t), and 
 in recent years the additional expense of procuring excessive 
 bail has been ordered to be paid by the party requiring it (ii). 
 Wliere after judgment in a damage action, in which bail 
 for an insufficient amount had been given and the ship 
 released, judgment was given against the same ship in an 
 action for necessaries, and the ship was sold in the necessaries 
 action and the money paid into Court, it was held that the 
 plaintiffs in the damage action could not be paid out of the 
 proceeds of the sale of the ship to the prejudice of the claim- 
 ants in the necessaries action [x). 
 
 The assignee of a right to proceed in rem for repaii-s is 
 entitled to enforce his right against the ship, notwithstanding 
 a composition deed executed by the assignor after the arrest 
 of the ship ; and although at the date of the assignment the 
 ship was not under arrest, and the right of the assignor was 
 inchoate only (?/), It seems that the right of an assignee of 
 a lien for damage would be the same. 
 
 (o) As to the practice touching 
 bail, see Williams and Bruce, Ad. 
 Pr. 3rd ed. pp. '291 seq. 
 
 (jo) As to security to answer a 
 counterclaim where the defendant's 
 ship is not arrested, see The Abie 
 Holme (second action), 4 Asp. M. C. 
 ,591 ; 24 Vict. c. 10, s. 34. 
 
 {q) The Dictator, (1892) P. 304, 
 where the following cases were con- 
 sidered : The Kalamazoo, 15 Jur. 
 885; The Volant, 1 W. Rob. 383; 
 The Temiscoiiata, 2 Sp. 208 ; The 
 Falk, infra. The Dictator was fol- 
 lowed in The Gemma, (1899) P. 285. 
 
 (r) The Freedom., L. R. 3 A. & E. 
 
 495 ; and see The Flora, L. R. 1 A. 
 & E. 45. 
 
 («) The Duchesse de Brabant, Sw. 
 264; The Chieftain, Br. & L. 104; 
 The Staffordshire, L, R. 4 P. C. 194. 
 
 (f) Given V. The Providence, Ad. Ct. 
 1766; Marsden's Ad. Ca. 13. See 
 also The Chieftain, Br. & L. 104 ; 
 The Victor, Lush. 72. 
 
 («) As to commission on procuring 
 bail, see infra, Ch. XIII. 
 
 {x) The Falk, 4 Asp. M. C. 592. 
 
 \y) The TFasp, L. R. 1 A. & E. 
 367. The principle of this decision 
 does not appear to be affected by 
 The Heinrich Bforn, 11 App. Cas.
 
 DAMAGE LIEN. 
 
 81 
 
 The lipn for rlamaffP which attaches at the instant of Dischsu-gre of 
 collision (z) adheres to the ship until it is discharged by being 
 satisfied, by laches (a) or in any other way in which by law 
 it may be discharged (h). It seems that it may be enforced 
 after the death or bankruptcy of the wrong-doer, or of the 
 person liable at law for the acts of the wrong-doer, and, in the 
 absence of laches, it is not barred by the Statute of Limita- 
 tions or by lapse of time (c). 
 
 From the above statement as to the nature of the mari- 
 time lien for damages, it will be seen that proceedings 
 against the ship in Admii'alty provide the sufferer by 
 collision with a remedy in many cases where he would other- 
 wise be without redress ; as where the owners of the wrong- 
 doing ship are resident abroad, dead, or bankrupt, or for 
 other reasons cannot be sued personally. 
 
 The question referred to above, namely, whether the ship Whether the 
 may be liable in proceedings in rem whei"e the collision is not liable where 
 caused by the fault of the owner or his agents, and where, ^^'i' owner is 
 consequently, he could not be made liable at law, has arisen 
 in several cases. In The Druid [d), Dr. Lushington said, 
 that the liability of the ship and "the responsibility of the 
 owner were convertible terms. And in some later cases 
 the liability of the ship and the responsibility of the owners 
 have been spoken of by the Privy Council as if they were 
 always concurrent [e). In a case before the Court of Appeal 
 it was expressly said that " the liability to compensate must 
 be fixed not merely on the property but on the owner through 
 
 270. As to assignment of the lien, 
 see The Merle, 2 Asp. M. C. 402; 
 The New Eagle, 4 Not. of Cas. 426 ; 
 The Janet Wihnn, Swab. 261 ; The 
 Louisa, 6 Not. of Cas. ^'S I . 
 
 (z) The Bold Buccleuch, 7 Moo. 
 P. C. 267 ; Tire Mary Ann, L. R. 1 
 A. &E. 8, 11. 
 
 («) See per Melli.sh, L. J., The 
 Two Ellens, L. R. 4 P. C. 161, 169. 
 
 {b) It is discharged by sale of the 
 res under process of the Court : The 
 Saracen, 2 W. Rob. 451 ; by payment 
 and acceptance of the amount of the 
 claim : The iniliam Money, 2 Hag. 
 i;i6. As to whether acceptance of 
 bail, where the amount of bail is in- 
 sufficient to recompense the sufferer, 
 
 M. 
 
 discharges the lien. The Kalamazoo, 
 15 Jur. 885, and The Dictator, (1892) 
 P. 304, seem in conflict. 
 
 (0 deeper Mellish, L. J., L. R. 4 
 P. C. 170 ; The Konq Magnus, (1H91) 
 P. 223 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 64. 
 
 {(I) 1 W. Rob. 391. It appears 
 from The Tasmania, 13 P. D. 110, 
 116, that in the upiuiuu of Sir J. 
 Hannen, by "owners" Dr. Lush- 
 ington meant to include charterers. 
 
 {e) The Diana, Stuart v. Lscmoiii/er, 
 ■i Moo. P. C. 11, 19; The Amalia, 1 
 Moo. P. C. N. S. 471, 484 ; The 
 Ilalky, L. R. 2 P. C. 193 ; The 
 Orient, 3 P. C 696, 703 ; Thr .)/. 
 Moxham, 1 P. D. 107. 
 
 G
 
 82 
 
 LIABILITY. 
 
 Ship in hands 
 of agent for 
 sale. 
 
 the property " (/) . On the other hand there are decisions 
 in Admiralty holding the ship liable where the owner could 
 not be sued at law (g) . 
 
 Thus where a yacht was placed by her owners in the 
 hands of an agent for sale, and whilst in his possession, 
 and owing to his negligence in not striking her top gear, 
 she drove from her moorings and injured another ship, it 
 was held that the yacht was liable. The proceedings being 
 in rem. Dr. Lushington said that the common law doctrine as 
 to the non-liability of her owner for the negligence of an 
 independent contractor had no application (/?). At common 
 law the owner would not be liable in such a case (/) . 
 
 In The Btmlossii {k) the crew of a ship moored between two 
 others, for their own safety and to escape probable damage 
 in bad weather, cut the moorings of a ship alongside in order 
 to escape to sea. It was held by the House of Lords that, 
 assuming the act to be wrongful, the ship was not thereby 
 subjected to a maritime lien. So in The Utopia (l) the Privy 
 Council held that a sunken wreck, which by the fault of the 
 harbour authority, and not of her owners, was unlit, and 
 damaged a vessel that struck on it, was not subject to a mari- 
 time lien or liable in rem. Referring to the opinion of Lord 
 "Watson as to the character of the damage lien expressed in 
 The Castlegate (m), Sir F. Jeune, delivering the judgment of 
 the Privy Council, said (») : " The foundation of the lien is 
 the negligence of the owners or their servants at the time of 
 the collision, and if that be not proved, no lien comes into 
 existence, and the ship is no more liable than any other pro- 
 
 (/) Per Brett, L. J., The Parlement 
 Beige, 5 P. D. 197, 218. 
 
 {g) Besides the cases mentioned 
 below, it was so held in The Neptune 
 the Second, 1 Dods. Ad. 467 ; and 
 The Girolamo, 3 Hag. Ad. 169, 
 ■where the vessel was condemned for 
 the fault of a compulsoiy pilot. 
 These decisions were, however, not 
 followed in subsequent cases : see 
 The Protector, 1 W. Rob. 45 ; The 
 Maria, ibid. 95. Cf. The Lonqford, 
 14 P. D, 34 ; The Ripon City, (1897) 
 P. 226. 
 
 (/() The Ruby Queen, Lush. 266 ; 
 
 The Orient, L. R. 3 P. C. 696 ; 
 followed in Baker v. Power, 14 Fed. 
 Rep. 483, where a ship under repair 
 on a shipwright's slip broke away 
 and injured another afloat. 
 
 («) See per Lord Blackburn, River 
 Wear Commissioners v. Adamson, 2 
 App. Gas. 743, 768 ; Eglington v. 
 Normnn, 46 L. J. Ex. 557 (overruled 
 on another point by The Grgstnl, 
 :'1894) App. Gas. 508). 
 
 (A-) (1897) App. Gas. 97. 
 
 (/) (1893) App. Gas. 492. 
 
 (/«) (1893) App. Gas. 38, 52. 
 
 (») (1893) App. Gas. 499.
 
 SHIP LIABLE WHEN OWNER NOT LIABLE. 83 
 
 perty which the owners at the time of the collision may have 
 possessed." 
 
 Where a vessel was chartered to the French Government, Ships under 
 and whilst in tow of a steamship, which the charterers ordered '^^'^^^'^ 
 her to employ, hy the fault of the steamship, went foul of a 
 thii'd vessel, Pr. Lushing-ton held that, the proceedings heing 
 in rem, the maritime lien for damage attached, notwithstand- 
 ing any prior contract between the owner and a third party. 
 "It is impossible," he said, "that because a person has 
 entered into a voluntary contract by which he is finally led 
 into mischief, that that can relieve him from making good 
 the mischief which he has done." And he said that this was 
 the case though the ship has been demised by the owner 
 to another who has the appointment of the master and 
 crew (o). 
 
 The case here anticipated by Dr. Lushington afterwards 
 came before Sir R. Phillimore, and was decided in accordance 
 with the above opinion of Dr. Lushington. In T/io Loming- 
 fon [p] the vessel was chartered by her owners to a person 
 upon terms by which the charterer had the sole and absolute 
 management of her and the appointment of her crew. The 
 charterer was to pay all expenses connected with the ship, and 
 her owners were to receive one-fifth of her gross earnings. It 
 was held that the ship was liable in proceedings in rem. Sir 
 R. Phillimore said : — 
 
 " A vessel placed by its real owners wholly in the control 
 of charterers or hirers, and employed by the latter for the 
 lawful purposes of the hiring, is held by the charterers as pro 
 hdc vice owners. Damage wrongfully done by the res while 
 in possession of the charterers is therefore damage done by the 
 owners or their servants, altliough those owners may be only 
 temporary. Vessels suffering damage from a cliartered sliip 
 are entitled, prima facie, to a maritime lien u]ion tliat sliij), 
 and look to the res as a security to the restitution. I cannot 
 
 [o) The Ticondcroga, Swab. Ad. •215. of Dr. Lushington in The Mellona, 3 
 
 " There is nothing in this judgment W. Rob. 16, 21, as to the liability of 
 
 which loads to the conclusion that the ship without regard to tlie ipies- 
 
 Dr. Lusliington intended to retract tion whether the owners, at tlie date 
 
 ■what he said in The Drmd:''' per of the arrest, were the owners at tlie 
 
 Sir J. Hannen, The Tasmania, 13 date of the collision. 
 P. D. 110, 117. See also a dictum (j») 2 Asp. M. C. 475. 
 
 g2
 
 84 
 
 LIABILITY. 
 
 The Tasmania. 
 
 see how the owners of the rea can take away that security by 
 having temporarily transferred the possession to third parties. 
 A maritime lien attaches to a ship for damage done through 
 the negligence of those in charge of her, in whosesoever posses- 
 sion she may be, if that damage is inflicted by her whilst in 
 the course of her ordinary and lawful employment, authorized 
 by her owners. Whether the damage is done through the 
 default of the servants of the actual owners, or of the servants 
 of the chartered owners, the res, is equally responsible, pro- 
 vided that the servant making default is not acting unlawfully 
 or out of the scope of his authority " {q). 
 
 The liability of the owner in this case has been compared 
 to that of the holder of a bottomry bond executed before a 
 collision for which the ship is in fault. In such a case the 
 damage lien takes precedence of the bottomry lien. The 
 bondholder is, "so to speak, a part owner in interest at the 
 date of the collision, and the ship in which he and others are 
 interested is liable to its value at that date (of the collision) 
 without reference to his claim " (r). 
 
 The liability of the ship, as distinguished from that of 
 the owner, was discussed in Tlie Tmmania (.s). The con- 
 clusion arrived at in that case by Sir James Hannen was, 
 that the damage lien is not absolute ; that it does not arise 
 upon the mere fact of collision through the negligence of 
 those on board ; that it arises only where " the navigators 
 can be identified with the owners or their agents ; " and that 
 by the maritime law, " charterers to whom the government 
 of the ship is voluntarily handed over, represent the owners 
 so as to bind the ship." There is, he said, a lyrima facie lia- 
 bility of the ship, which may be rebutted by showing that the 
 
 {q) The charterer of a ship in the 
 situation of The Leniington, mpra, 
 p. 83, is held to be entitled to 
 owner's salvage reward : Tlie Scout, 
 L. E. 3 A. & E. 512 ; but the actual 
 owner is entitled to owner's salvage 
 where, notwithstanding the charter, 
 the ship remains in his or his agent's 
 possession : The Collier, L. R. 1 A. 
 & E. 83 ; The Waterloo, 2 Dods. Adm. 
 433. In France it seems that a slii[i 
 in the position of Tlie Lcmington is 
 liable to the sufferer by collision as 
 ' ' guarantie speciale ' ' : Manuel de 
 
 Droit Commercial, par P. Bravard 
 Veyrieres, 7th ed. par Ch. Denian- 
 geat, p. 343 ; and in America the 
 wrong-doing ship is lial)le, without 
 regard to her ownership, except in 
 the case of a ship in tow ; The Ariiiro, 
 6 Fed. Rep. 308. 
 
 (>•) Fcr Jervis, C. J., The Bold 
 Bucclench, 7 Moo. P. C. 267, 285. 
 Cf . the liability of the ship for wages 
 of a crew not employed by her 
 owner, Wells v. Osman, 2 Kaym. 
 1044. 
 
 («) 13 P. D. 110.
 
 SHIP LIABLE WHEN OWNER NOT LIABLE. 85 
 
 injmy was done by the act of someone navigating the ship 
 not deriving his authority from the owners ; and by the 
 maritime law, charterers in whom the control of the ship has 
 been vested by the OAvners are deemed to have derived their 
 authority from the o^vTiers so as to make the ship liable for 
 the negligence of the charterers who are pro hue vice owners. 
 From these premises he drew the conclusion, that whatever is 
 a good defence for the charterers against the claim of the 
 injured person is a good defence for the ship, as it would have 
 been if the same defence had arisen between the owners and 
 the injured person. 
 
 The facts of the case to which Sir James Hannen applied 
 these principles were these : — The plaintiff, the oAvner of the 
 smack Striver, sued the tug Tasmania, in rem, for sinking the 
 smack whilst towing her into Yarmouth harbour. The col- 
 lision was caused entirely by the fault of the master of the 
 tug. The Tasmania was owned by one Watkins, and she was 
 chartered by the Great Yarmouth Steam Tug Company at 
 30/. per week, the charterers finding a captain and the owners 
 the crew. The plaintiff, who was a director of the Tug Com- 
 pany, had been in the habit of employing the company's tugs 
 to tow his smacks upon terms published by the company, one 
 of which was that the company were not to be liable for 
 damage to smacks when in tow of their tugs. It was held 
 that the plaintiff employed The Tasmania upon the terms 
 published by the company with reference to their own tugs ; 
 that in contracts made upon the published terms there was 
 necessarily implied an agreement that the tug should not be 
 liable in rem : and that consequently The Tasmania was not 
 liable in rem, no damage lien having arisen. 
 
 Having regard to the above decisions, it seems that, not- 
 withstanding dicta to the contrary, a person injured by a 
 collision can in some cases recover against the owner of the 
 ship that has done the damage by proceedings in Admiralty 
 in rem where he could not recover at common law. But tlie 
 exact liability of the ship, apart from the question of owner- 
 ship, cannot yet be considered as settled. 
 
 In America, the liability of the ship, as distinguished from The liability 
 the personal liability of the owner, has been carried furtlior aiJiuyi.'i'i'.jr 
 than it has ever been carried by the Courts of this country, ^r-.m the
 
 B6 
 
 LIABILITY. 
 
 awner) in 
 Ajnerican 
 law. 
 
 Ship ajEfected 
 by the fault 
 of persons for 
 which the 
 owner is not 
 answerable. 
 
 By the mari- 
 time law ship 
 and owners 
 liable for 
 negligent 
 navigation. 
 
 In a case before the Supreme Court (t), Story, J., quoted 
 with approval the following passages from a judgment of 
 Marshall, C. J. : — " This is not a proceeding against the 
 owner ; it is a proceeding against the vessel for an offence 
 committed by the vessel." And again, he says : — " The 
 thing is here primarily considered as the offender, or rather 
 the offence is primarily attached to the thing." So 
 Brown, J., in the Supreme Court : — " The ship itself is to 
 be treated in some sense as a principal, and as personally 
 liable for the negligence of anyone who is lawfully in 
 possession of her, whether as owner or charterer" {u). This, 
 it will be observed, is not the view taken by the Courts 
 of this country (x). 
 
 An instance of the ship being affected by the fault of those 
 on board, for which her owners are not liable at law, occurs 
 where a collision is caused by the fault of both ships, and the 
 fault of one of them is the fault of her compulsory pilot. In 
 this case her owners can recover half, but only half, their loss 
 against the other ship and her owners (//) ; and that only 
 subject to the rule, usual in such cases, of having to bear 
 their own costs (;:). The fault of the pilot affects the ship to 
 this extent — that it brings into operation the rule as to 
 division of loss ; but it would seem not to be contributory 
 negligence such as would affect the owners at law {a) . 
 
 By the maritime law, as administered in the Admiralty of 
 this country, the owners of a ship that negligently damages 
 another on the high seas are liable for the negligence of their 
 servants on board such ship, and the damage lien attaches to 
 the ship. Thus Lord Stowell, in The Dundee (b), said that 
 "negligent navigation causing damage to another ship the 
 
 (t) The Malek Adhel, 2 How. 210, 
 234. 
 
 {u) The Barmtable, 181 U. S. Rep. 
 464, 467. 
 
 {x) In America the ship is liable 
 for the master's contracts in cases 
 where she would not be liable by 
 English law. Upon the question 
 whether the owners of a chartered 
 ship are liable in proceedings in rem 
 for " torts committed by the ship," 
 the Supreme Court was equally 
 divided in Thorp v. Hammond, 12 
 
 "Wall. 408. See also The Clarita and 
 Tlw Clara, 23 WaU. 1 ; The Barn- 
 stable, supra; Workman v. Mayor, 
 %c. of New York, 179 U. S. Rep. 
 •552. 
 
 {y) The Hector, 8 P. D. 218. 
 
 {z) The Hector, 8 P. D. 218; The 
 Righords Minde, 8 P. D. 132. 
 
 {a) See Spaight v. Tedcastle, 6 App. 
 Cas. 217 ; The Adam W. Spies, 70 
 L. J. Ad. 25. 
 
 (A) 1 Hag. 109, 120.
 
 SHIP LIARLK WHEN OWNER NOT LIABLE. 87 
 
 maritime law considers as a dereliction of boimdou duty, 
 entitling the sufferer to reparation in damages. . . . The 
 ancient general law exacted a full compensation out of all tlie 
 property of the owners of the guilty sliip, upon the common 
 principle ap]ilying to persons undertakuig the conveyance of 
 goods (c), that they were answerable for the conduct of the 
 persons whom they employed, and of wliom the other piirties 
 who suffered damage knew nothing, and over whom they had 
 no control. To this rule our own country conformed " (^/), 
 It is the maritime law, and not the law of the flag, that 
 governs in such a case. Thus, where the owners of a cargo 
 on board a ship sailing under the Dutch flag sued tlie 
 owners of another Dutch ship for loss of cargo in a collision 
 on the high seas caused by the fault of the latter ship, it was 
 held that the Dutch law (by which, it was alleged, the owners 
 of the wrong-doing ship were not liable) was not applicable to 
 the case (e). 
 
 Notwithstanding some early decisions to the contrary, it is Neither sl.ip 
 now settled that where a collision is caused by a pilot placed |'i'a,i^''f"r"' 
 in charge of a ship by the law, the fault of the pilot does not fault ..f a 
 affect the ship so as to make her liable in Admiralty, nor pnT"'"'""^ 
 are the owners answerable for the pilot's negligence at law. 
 This exemption of a ship and her owners from liability for 
 her pilot's negligence is (it is believed) almost peculiar to 
 English law. It is the result of modern legislation, and of a 
 rigid adherence to the principles of the common law in a 
 matter which seems peculiarly to belong to the maritime law. 
 The subject is fully dealt with below in Chapter X. 
 
 Owners are not liable for damage caused by a ship whicli Liability for 
 they have abandoned, if the abandonment was justifiable. 'i'Jp'llhoro" 
 But if the abandonment, though necessary for the safety of ■'*"»k, <>r 
 those on board, was the result of negligence for which the ^ '^" "°'^ " 
 owner is responsible, it seems that he remains liable notwith- 
 
 (c) "I should rather say under- (d) See also The Ticondcrot/a, Swah. 
 
 taking the miinagement of anything- 215 ; The Me/loiiu, 3 W. Rob. 16, 21 ; 
 
 likely to do mischief, unless attention T/ie Leon, P. D. M8. 
 and vigilance is used by those who (e) Charlerfd Mercaiitik Hank of 
 
 manage it:" per Lord Blackburn, India, London, ami China v. Ntihtr- 
 
 Stoomvaart Maatschappn Ned r land v. landn India Steam Navigation (Jo., 10 
 
 P. i- O. Steam Navigation Co., 7 App. Q. B. D. r)21. 
 Cas. 795, 812.
 
 ss 
 
 LIABILITY. 
 
 standing the abandonment (/). So long as a ship remains 
 in the owner's possession he is liable for damage to another 
 ship striking her, though she is sunk or ashore, if such 
 damage was caused by the absence of proper lights or 
 precautions on his part. 
 
 It has been held to be the duty of those in charge of a 
 vessel sunk in a fairway to mark her position with a buoy or 
 in some other way (g), and if in a tideway with a buoy that 
 will watch (//). But if the owner or person in possession of 
 the wreck proves that the wreck, though unmarked and unlit, 
 was so through no negligence on his part, he is not liable. 
 Thus, in The Douglas («), it being proved that notice of the 
 wreck had been given to the river authority having power to 
 remove wrecks, it was held that the owner was not liable for 
 a collision caused by the wreck being unlit. In such cases 
 the owners of the wreck can, without abandoning their 
 property in the wreck, relieve themselves of the duty to light 
 and mark the wi^eck by giving notice to those upon whom 
 that duty is cast by the law; or to the local authority 
 assuming or apparently having power to deal with the 
 wreck (k). In America it has been held that there is no 
 duty upon a tug to mark a barge that sank whilst in tow (/) . 
 
 The law upon this subject was thus stated by the Privy 
 Council (m) : " The result of these authorities {Brown v. 
 Mallet, White v. CHs^), The Douglas) may thus be expressed. 
 The owner of a ship sunk, whether by his default or not 
 (wilful misconduct probably giving rise to different con- 
 siderations), has not, if he abandon the possession and 
 
 (/) Broivn v. Malkt, 5 C. B. 599 ; 
 
 White V. Crisp, 10 Ex. 312. These 
 cases were decided on demurrer, and 
 some doubt was thrown upon them 
 in The Douglas, 7 P. D. 151. See 
 also Rex v. Watts, 2 Esp. 675 ; 
 
 White V. Phillips, 15 C. B. K. S. 
 245 ; Bimes v. Petley, 15 Q. B. 276. 
 As to the non-liability of the owner 
 of a sunken ship after abandonment, 
 for expenses of removing her, see 
 The Crystal, (1894) App. Cas. 508, 
 overruling Eglington v. Norman, 46 
 L. J. Ex. 557. Smith v. Wilson, 
 8 Asp. M. C. 197, is a decision 
 upon a colonial Act upon the same 
 subject. 
 
 [g] Harmond v. Pearson, 1 Camp. 
 515 ; Hancock v. York, ^c. Rail. Co., 
 10 C. B. 348 ; Gilbert v. Corporation 
 of Trinity House, 17 Q. B. D. 795 
 (damage by stump of beacon) ; The 
 H. S. Nichols, 53 Fed. Rep. 665. 
 
 (A) See Jolliffe v. Wallasey Local 
 Board, L. R. 9 C. P. 62. 
 
 [i) 7 P. D. 151. 
 
 [k) The Utopia, (1893) App. Cas. 
 502. 
 
 [l] Worth V. Steam Tuq William 
 Murtagh, 6 Fed. Rep. 192'. Cf. The 
 Swan, 3 Blatchf. 285. 
 
 {ni) The Utopia, (1893) App. Cas. 
 492, 498 ; followed in The Snarh, 
 (1900) P. 105.
 
 SUNKEN SHIP : HARBOUR AUTHORITIES. 89 
 
 control of her, any responsibmtj either to remove lier or 
 to protect other vessels from coming into colUsiou ^Wth 
 her(/0. It IS equally true that so long as, and so far as 
 possession, management, and control of the wreck be not 
 abandoned or properly transferred, there remains on the 
 owners an obligation as regards the protection of other vessels 
 from receiving injury from her. But in order to fix the 
 owners of a wreck with liability, two things must be shown : 
 first, that in regard to the practical matters in respect of 
 which default is alleged, the control of the vessel is in them, 
 that is to say, has not been abandoned, or legitimately 
 transfeiTed ; and, secondly, that they have in the discharge 
 of their legal duty been guHty of wilful misconduct or 
 neglect." 
 
 If the owner of a sunken wreck does not abandon her, and 
 employs an " independent contractor" to raise her, he does 
 not thereby escape the obligation of seeing that she is pro- 
 perly lit. The principle, which is the same on water as on 
 land, is that where a person employs a contractor to do work 
 in a place where the public are in the habit of passing, which 
 work will, unless precautions are taken, cause danger to the 
 public, an obligation is tlirown upon the person who orders 
 the work to be done to see that the necessary precautions are 
 taken (o). 
 
 Before the days of floating docks, damage to sliips by Da,na;,^e i.y 
 grounding upon unbuoyed anchors in the Thames and else- ^i? '^ 
 where was a very frequent cause of action (p). The ship whose 
 anchor was unbuoyed was invariably found in fault; and 
 " ordinances " of the Admiralty— which appear to have been 
 presentments of juries at Admiralty sessions— were issued 
 against leaving anchors unbuoyed. In an American 
 case (q), it was held that in ordinary anchorage ground it is 
 not necessary to buoy the anchor. 
 
 In America it has been held that no Hability attaelied to a 
 
 («) Cf. Ball V. Berwincl, 29 Fed. 212, cited by Smith, L. .[., i„ /•/,,. 
 
 Kep. o41, where the owners were Snark, (1900) P. lOo, 110 
 under oblijjatiou to raise the wreck, (p) Tills v. The Man,, Marsd Ad 
 
 aithou}?h abandoned. Gas. 284, is an instance. 
 
 i,V 5, '^'^''^'•^■' ^'^""■^ ^'- '^''""- (fl) Baxter v. I„lernnti„nal (Jon- 
 
 bledm Urban Council, (1898) 2 Q. B. tructing Co., iib Fed. liep. 2.J0.
 
 90 
 
 LIABILITY. 
 
 Damage to 
 a sunken 
 ship. 
 
 Liability of 
 clock or 
 harbour 
 authority. 
 
 tug for damage caused to a third ship by her tow, which had 
 been sunk without fault on the part of the tug (r). 
 
 The duty of a ship under way to avoid doing damage to a 
 sunken ship, or to a ship ashore, is the same as in the case of 
 a ship at anchor. But unless the masts («) or some part of 
 the wreck is above water, and, at night, properly lit, or the 
 ship under way is in some way warned of the presence of the 
 wreck, no presumption of fault would, it is conceived, arise 
 against the ship under way. 
 
 The liability of a dock, harbour, or river authority with 
 power to remove wrecks for damage by a wreck is considered 
 below (t). 
 
 The principle which exempts a ship and her owners from 
 liability where the damage results entirely from the negli- 
 gence of a compulsory pilot in charge of her, applies equally 
 where the ship is being navigated under the orders of a dock 
 or harbour master empowered by the Legislature to direct 
 the movements of vessels within his dock or harbour (u). In 
 such cases the dock or harbour master is liable ; and the dock 
 or harbour authority would, it seems, also be liable {x) . The 
 liability would be the same, whether the dock or harbour 
 authority was a corporation or body trading for profit, or 
 whether it merely had power to levy tolls and apply them 
 towards the maintenance and improvement of the dock or 
 harbour {>/). Thus, for a collision in a dock caused by the 
 improper influx or withdrawal of water, improper berthing of 
 ships, or negligence of a dock master in regulating the 
 movements of a vessel in the dock, damages might, it 
 seems, be recovered against the proprietors or trustees of the 
 dock (y). 
 
 It is doubtful whether harbour and lighthouse authorities, 
 
 (r) The Stvau, o Blatchf. 285. Cf. 
 Worth V. The William Murtage, 6 
 Fed. Rep. 192. 
 
 («) As in The Edwin Hawlcy, 41 
 Fed. Rep. 606. 
 
 [t) Pp. 92 scq. 
 
 (m) See The Cynthia, 2 P. D. .i2 ; 
 The Mystery, (1902) P. 115; The 
 Excelsior, L. R. 2 A. & E. 268. Cf. 
 Edwards, llohcrtson ^ Co. v. Falmouth 
 Harbour Commissioners, The Rhosina, 
 
 10 P. D. 24, 131 ; Reney v. 3Iayis- 
 trates of Kirkcudbright, 7 Asp. 221. 
 
 ix) To the extent defined by 63 & 64 
 Vict. c. 32, infra, p. 153. 
 
 [y) See Mersey Docks and Harbour 
 Board v. Glbbs, L. R. 1 H. L. 93 ; 
 The Excelsior, L. R. 2 A. & E. 268, 
 270. Aliter [senible) in the case of 
 unpaid trustees of a dock or naviga- 
 tion having no power to levy tolls : 
 Forbes V. Lea Conservancy Board, 4 
 Ex. D. 116.
 
 HARBOUR AUTHORITIES. 
 
 91 
 
 having power under 40 & 41 Viet. e. 16, to remove vessels Omissiou by 
 sunk iu harbours or waters within their jurisdiction, are liable aiithoritv t.. 
 for injury sustained by a vessel striking against a wreck which '•^'i"*^^'^ wreci. 
 they have neglected to remove. In The Douglas (~), Brett 
 and Cotton, L. JJ., suggested that they might be liable in 
 such a case; but in a subsequent case (a), Kay, J., declined 
 to follow this suggestion, though upon other groimds he held 
 that in the case before him the harbour authority was 
 liable {h). 
 
 Questions as to the liability for the expense of removing 
 sunken wrecks have arisen in recent cases (<■) ; in each 
 ease the matter mainly depended upon the construction of 
 statutes. 
 
 The duty of harbour authorities and wharfingers to take Duty ..f 
 reasonable care to see that a berth to which a vessel comes is ^^,\" I'f'" 
 in a proper condition has been the subject of several modern using wharf, 
 cases. Thus in The Moorcock {d) the duty of a wharfinger 
 was held to extend to warning ships using his wharf of the 
 uneven character of the river bed alongside his wharf. In 
 this case the river bed was not in the wharfinger's possession 
 or under his control. In The Beam [e) trustees of a harbour 
 were held liable for not taking reasonable care to ascertain 
 that the berth was in a proper condition. 
 
 In The Queen v. WUJkom ( /') the executive government of 
 a colony was held liable for injury caused to a ship which 
 lay at a wharf of which they were possessed, and for the use 
 of which they were paid by the shipowner. The injury was 
 done by a snag under water, of the existence of which the 
 harbour authority, the government, were aware, but of wliich 
 they gave no warning to the ship. The decision in this case 
 
 {£) 7 P. D. 151. 
 
 (rt) Lormont v. Fwniess Mail. Co., 
 11 Q. B. D. 49G. 
 
 (b) As a corporation entitled to 
 receive payment from ships entering 
 the liarbour ; upon the authority of 
 Mersey Lockn and Harbour Board v. 
 Gibbs, L. R. 1 H. L. 9;}. 
 
 (c) The Crystal, (1894) App. Cas. 
 508 (10 & 11 Vict. c. 27, and 40 & 41 
 Vict. c. 16) ; Howard Smith v. JFil- 
 non, (189G) App. Gas. 579 (a colonial 
 Act) ; Barracloityh v. Brown, (1897) 
 
 App. Gas. 615. 
 
 [d) 13 P. D. 157 ; 14 P. D. 64. 
 
 {r) (1906) P. 48. Gf. The Calliope, 
 (1891) App. Gas. 11. Gf. Wriyht v. 
 Lethbridyc, 6 Asp. M. C. 558. 
 Gf. The BurUnyton, 8 Asp. M. G. 
 38. 
 
 (/) 9 App. Gas. 418 ; The John A. 
 Bcrkman, G Fed. Rep. 535. Sec als<i 
 Tartiaby v. Lamaster Canal Co., 11 
 A. & E. 223, as to the coiiunoii hiw 
 liability of a canal coinpiuiy for 
 damage by sunken craft.
 
 92 
 
 LIABILITY. 
 
 Liability of 
 harbour 
 authority for 
 damage by 
 liar hour 
 master. 
 
 followed those in Parnahj/ v. Lancaster Canal Co. (y), and 
 Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v. Gibbs [h). 
 
 A steamship lying in Falmouth harbour had occasion to be 
 placed on shore to have her propeller examined. The harbour 
 master, at the request of her owner or master, went on board 
 and gave orders as to getting her under way with a view to 
 beaching her. By his order the anchor was let go in an 
 improper manner, so that the vessel grounded on it and was 
 injured. The owners sued the harbour master and the 
 harbour authorities as his employers. Bye-laws in the usual 
 form, made under the powers of the local Act and the general 
 Act (10 Vict. c. 27), empowered the harbour master to 
 regulate the movements of vessels in the harbour, and 
 required vessels to obey his directions. It was held that the 
 harbour master was acting in his capacity of harbour master 
 when he gave the order to let go the anchor ; that the order 
 was a grossly wrong and negligent order ; and that both he 
 and his employers, the harbour authorities, were liable for 
 the negligence (/). 
 
 In T/ie Apollo (/.), the foreman docksman, in the absence of 
 the harbour master, gave permission, at the request of the 
 ship's agent, to put the ship on the bottom of a lock leading 
 into the harbour, for the purpose of freeing her propeller, 
 which had fouled a rope. The ship was damaged through 
 sitting upon an old dock-sill, the existence of which was 
 unknown to the foreman docksman, and the shipowners sued 
 the dock company for damages. It was held by the House 
 of Lords, with some difference of opinion, and after con- 
 flicting decisions in the Courts below, that the foreman 
 docksman was discharging the duties of the harbour master, 
 and that it was within his duty to authorize the use of the 
 lock for grounding the ship, and that he ought to have told 
 the master of the ship that it was not fit for the purpose. 
 Consequently the dock company were held liable. 
 
 In Reney v. Magistrates of Kirkcudbright (/), the harbour 
 master ordered a ship to enter the harbour on an ebb tide. 
 
 (^) 11 Ad. A El. 223. 
 
 (A) L. R. 1 H. of L. 93, followed 
 in Bede Steamsliip Go. v. River Wear 
 Comvmsioners, (1907) 1 K. B. 310. 
 
 (i) The lihosina, Edwards, lioheri- 
 
 sun ^- Co. V. Falmouth Harbour Com- 
 iiti.ssioners, 10 P. D. 131. 
 
 (k) (1891) App. Gas. 499. 
 
 (i) (1892) App. Gas. 264.
 
 HARBOUR AUTHORITIES. 93 
 
 In doing this she grounded, and was damaged. Two fisher- 
 men, who had been taken on hoard to assist in bringing tlie 
 ship into harbour, were aware of the risk of grounding, but 
 made no protest. It was held by the House of Lords that, 
 notwithstanding the presence on board of the fishermen and 
 their knowledge of the risk, the harbour master's order was 
 alone the cause of the damage, and that the harbour authority 
 was liable. 
 
 There is no reported decision as to the liability of a port or Liability of 
 harbour autliority for a collision caused by the insufficiency Jl"orit'!''fo"' 
 or parting of moorings laid down by them for the use of insufficient 
 ships. The owner of the ship which goes adrift would not, "'''"'■'"-•"• 
 it seems, be liable in such a ease {m), and upon proof of 
 negligence it would probably be held tliat damages could be 
 recovered against the port authority. 
 
 An action in personam against a harbour, port, or dock Action 
 authority must be commenced within six months of the act *^*^^°^* vort 
 complained of (n). time limit. 
 
 It has been attempted, but without success, to make a Pilotage 
 pilotage authority liable for the negligence of a pilot licensed authoritie.s 
 but not employed by them (o). And m a very recent case, negligence of 
 where the deputy harbour master of the defendants was also ^'"'''"''''^ P"*'^- 
 a pilot licensed by them, and was employed by the plaintiffs 
 to pilot their ship, which was lost by his negligence, the 
 defendants were held free from liability on the ground that, 
 though it was their duty to license pilots, they were not 
 authorized by their statutes to enter into pilotage contracts, 
 or to employ a person as pilot for a particular vessel (p) . 
 But in another case in Scotland, where the loss was caused 
 by the fault of a boatman, not licensed as a pilot, employed 
 by the harbour trustees to fonduct a ship, the trustees were 
 
 (w) The Toward -And. The rurkistan, (1899) P. 236. Aliterinrem,see-p.2Qb. 
 
 13 Ct. of SesH. Ca8. 4th ser. 3l2, (o) Dudnum v. Broivn ami Ditli/ui 
 
 where a .ship fast to one of the Clyde Port and iJorti Hoard, Ir. Rep. 7 
 
 Trustecw' buoys was held not in fault C. L. 518. 
 
 for its currying away. Sec also The { p) Shaw, Savill i\- Albmi Co. v. 
 
 William Lindmij, h. R. 5 P. C. 338 ; Timaru Uarhonr Hoard, l.'i App. Cas. 
 
 The Aaibasmdor, cited 2 P. D. 37 ; 429. The (jueHtion was raised, but 
 
 The Moukseaton, 14 1'. D. 51 : The not decided, in Parker v. North 
 
 Ratala, (1898) App. Cas. 513. liritish Rail. Co., 2.'> Ct. of Soss. 
 
 («) 56 & 57 Vict. 0. 61 ; The Ydun, Cas. 4th ser. 1059.
 
 94 
 
 LIABILITY. 
 
 Liability in 
 case of a 
 collision with 
 one of H.M. 
 ships. 
 
 Liability of 
 owners of 
 cargo. 
 
 held liable (q). In some cases the Act of Parliament con- 
 stituting the pilotage authority expressly provides that it 
 shall not be liable for damage caused by negligence of pilots 
 licensed by them (r) . 
 
 In the case of damage done by a King's ship, the legal 
 responsibility attaches to the actual wrong-doer alone («). If 
 the ship is properly in charge of an inferior officer, the 
 captain is not liable in a civil action (/) ; nor is a pilot liable 
 for a wrong order given by the officer in command {u). The 
 appointment of all officers being with the Government, the 
 superior officer is not answerable for the acts of his subordin- 
 ates. 
 
 His Majesty's ships and public ships of foreign states are 
 not subject to arrest (*■)• But they usually submit them- 
 selves to the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court, and upon 
 so doing they subject themselves to the ordinary rules of 
 law (v/). 
 
 Whether vessels belonging to a ci-vil department of the 
 Government, and employed for the special purposes of the 
 department, are entitled to the immunity from arrest enjoyed 
 by ships of war seems doubtful (z). 
 
 Owners of cargo on board a ship in fault for a collision 
 are not liable for the damage done by the ship ; but the 
 cargo may be arrested in order to secure for the benefit of the 
 sufferers in the collision the payment of freight due to the 
 shipowner (a). 
 
 The shipowner is not discharged from his liability by the 
 
 (q) Sohnan v. Irvine Harbour 
 Trustees, 4 Ct. of Sess. Cas. 4th ser. 
 406 (Rettie). 
 
 (»-) E.g., '2b Vict. c. 29 (local), 
 s. 43 (Brean Down) ; 2o Vict. c. 31 
 (local), s. 65 (Berwick - upon- 
 Tweed). 
 
 [s) The Mentor, 1 C. Rob. 179 ; 
 The Athol, 1 W. Rob. 374; The 
 Volcano, 2 W. Rob. 337 ; The Bir- 
 kenhead, 3 W. Rob. 75 ; The Belle- 
 rophon, 3 Asp. M. C. 58 ; and The 
 Sans Pareil, (1900) P. 267, are in- 
 stances of actions against King's 
 ships. 
 
 {t) Nicholson V. Mounsey, 15 East, 
 384. See The Cybele, 3 P. D. 8 ; 
 
 Wright v. Lethbridgr, 6 Asp. M. C. 
 558 (an action against a Queen's 
 hai'bour master). 
 
 (««) Stort V. Clements, 1 Peake, 107. 
 
 (.r) The Athol, 1 W. Rob. 374; 
 The Comus, 2 Dods. 464. As to ships 
 of a foreign sovereign which are en- 
 gaged in trade, see below, p. 209. 
 In America, Government ships are 
 snbject to Admiralty process : The 
 Siren, 7 Wall. 152; The Fidelity, 16 
 Blatch. 569. 
 
 (y) See The Prlntz Frederick, 2 
 Dods. 451. 
 
 (;) See The Cybele, 3 P. D. 8 ; The 
 Lord Hobart, 2 Dods. 100. 
 
 (a) Supra, p. 75.
 
 king's ships : CO-OWNERS. 
 
 95 
 
 ainoii^rst 
 
 sinking of his ship (/>), tlioug'h in such a case no action in rem Shipt>wiier 
 
 11 1 , liable, thouurli 
 
 can be brought. ,,,ip i^^ 
 
 Part owners of a ship in fault for a collision are at law Liability of 
 severally liable as joint wrong-doers, or joint employers of the p^Tt ^'wners 
 actual wrong-doer. One of them may be sued alone (<•) ; but wnni-r-iloers. 
 if judgment is recovered against one part owner, it seems 
 that no action can be brought against the others, though the 
 judgment is unsatisfied {(/). 
 
 The rule that there is no contribution between wrong- doers Contribution 
 does not prevent a part owner who has been compelled to ^"|^'"" 
 pay the whole of the damages from recovering in an action 
 for contribution against his co-owners (^). And money so 
 paid for damages, where the owner's liability is limited, 
 may be brought into account as money disbursed for the 
 use of the ship (./'). Nor does the doctrine of no contribution 
 between wrong-doers prevent one of two ships in fault for a 
 collision recovering from the other half the damages wliicli 
 she has been compelled to pay to a thii-d ship, against which 
 she was driven by the first collision ( g) . 
 
 If a collision occurs between two ships belonging to the Collision 
 
 , . 1 -i . • i J.1 i. 1 J between two 
 
 same owner, his only remed}^ is against the actual wrong-doer, ^j^j^,^ own.tl 
 And the case seems to be the same where the two ships have ''.v f'' 
 one or more part owners in common. But the owoiers of 
 cargo, or passengers, on board either ship can recover in an 
 action of tort against the shipowners, subject to this, tliat 
 where both ships are to blame, and the shipowners are pro- 
 tected by the terms of their contract against the negligence 
 of their servants, the right to recover is limited to half 
 
 porson 
 
 (4) The Normandy, L. R. 3 A. & 
 E. 152 ; The Calcutta, 17 W. R. 744. 
 
 {c) Mitchell V. Tarbutt, o T. R. 
 649. As to the liability of part 
 owners by the civil law, see supra, 
 p. 63, note (/). By the maritime 
 law a part owner was liable only to 
 the extent of his interest in the ship : 
 Emerigon, CJontr. a la grosse, Ch. IV. 
 H. 11 ; Grotius de jur. belli et pacis, 
 lib. 2, ch. 11, 8. 13. Scmblr, this 
 waB once the law of the English 
 Admiralty ; see Alleson v. Marsh, 
 2 Veiitr. 181 ; Gtill v. Curswcll, infra, 
 p. 140, note [t) ; and {neinblc) is now 
 the law in France. 
 
 (</) BriHsmead v. Harrison, L. R. 
 
 7 C. P. 547. As to the several 
 liability wliere two shijis are sued in 
 Admii'alty, see Tin- Atlas, 3 Otto, 
 302 ; I'he Juniata, ibid. 337 ; The 
 Alabama and The Gamecock, 2 Otto, 
 695. A part owner who has given 
 a bond for the release of his ship has 
 a right tu contribution if called on 
 to pay any money in respect of (he 
 bond. 
 
 [e) I Smith's Lead. Cas. 1 1th e.l. 
 p. 155. 
 
 (/) 57 & 58 Vict. c. GO, s. 505. 
 
 [(/) The Frankland, (1901) P. IGl. 
 And 80 in America, The Miiriska, 
 107 Fed. Rop. 989; The Ihuh,,,,, 15 
 Fed. Rep. 102.
 
 96 
 
 LIABILITY. 
 
 Liability in 
 special cases. 
 
 the loss sustained, and that where (as is not ordinarily the 
 case) the protection extends to the negligence of the ship- 
 owner's servants, as well on board the carrying ship as on 
 board other ships of the same owners, there is no right to 
 recover at all (A) . 
 
 The remedy of the officers and crew for loss in a collision 
 between their own ship and another of the same owners is not 
 affected by the fact that the officers and crew of both ships 
 are in the employment of the same employers. The crews of 
 the two ships are not in a common employment in the sense 
 that injury by the negligence of the crew of one of the 
 vessels was an ordinary risk of the crew of the other (/). 
 
 The liability of the shipowner as carrier upon the contract 
 of carriage for a collision whereby goods or passengers are 
 injured {k) ; in respect of collisions abroad (/) ; in respect of 
 collisions with or between foreign ships, or in foreign 
 waters [m) ; of collisions where one or both ships are in 
 tow (n.) ; where three or more ships are involved in the 
 collision (o) ; where negligence on board one ship causes a 
 collision between two others, or injures another ship (p) ; 
 and in respect of damage done to a pier or harbour works {q), 
 are considered elsewhere. 
 
 {h) See Chartered Mercantile Bank 
 of India, China and London v. Nether- 
 lands India Steam Navigation Co., 10 
 Q. B. D. 521. The law as here laid 
 down, limiting the damages recover- 
 able, does not depend upon the doc- 
 trine of Thorogood v. Bryan, 8 C. B. 
 115, but upon what Dr. Lushington 
 beUeved to be the ancient practice of 
 the Admiralty Court. See The Milan, 
 Lush. 388, and per Lindley, L. J., 
 10 Q. B. D. 545. It would there- 
 fore seem to be unaffected by the 
 decision in The Bernina (No. 2), 12 
 P. D. 58 ; 13 App. Cas. 1. See per 
 the M. R., 12 P. D. at p. 83, and 
 
 infra, p. 268. See also The Bernina 
 (No. 1), 12 P. D. 36 (where the 
 shipowners were not protected 
 against the negligence of their ser- 
 vants, and were liable to cargo 
 owners in contract), and infra, 
 p. 268. 
 
 (i) The Petrel, (1893) P. 320. 
 
 {h) p. 266 seq. 
 
 \j) p. 198 neq. 
 
 (in) p. 199 seq. 
 
 (n) p. 167 seq. 
 
 {o) p. 27. 
 
 ip) P- 28. 
 
 (q) pp. 68, 78.
 
 97 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 PERSONS ENTITLED TO RECOVER. 
 
 At.l persons injured in their persons or property in a collision 
 caused by the fault of one or both ships, and who have not 
 themselves or through their agents been guilty of negligence 
 causing the loss (a), are entitled to recover damages. Such 
 persons are usually of one or other of the following classes : 
 owners of the injured ship, whether they are registered as 
 owners or not {b) ; passengers, master, or crew losing their 
 clothes or effects (c) ; owners or consignees of cargo on board 
 either ship ; persons entitled under Lord Campbell's Act to 
 recover damages for relatives killed (d), or persons on board 
 either ship who are hurt in the collision (r) ; the indorsee of 
 a bill of lading, even though the cargo has been sold ( /) ; 
 bailees, and other persons having a special property in, or 
 temporary possession of, the ship or cargo (//). 
 
 It seems that part owners of the injured ship might recover Actions by 
 damages for their respective losses in successive actions (//) ; constllidation 
 and the defendant would not, it seems, be entitled to have the of actions. 
 other co-owners added as plaintiffs, at any I'ate without their 
 
 («) As to the division of loss in 
 cases where both ships are in fault, 
 see below, p. 117. 
 
 [b) The 1/o.s, Sw. 100. 
 
 (6) The Cnmberlimd, 5 L. T. 49C. 
 As to a passenger by ferrj^ in char<re 
 of his own mare, see irUIoxr/hbij v. 
 Horridye, 12 C. B. N. S. 742. 
 
 [d) 9 & 10 Vict. c. 93; bifra, 
 p. 114. A posthumous child may 
 recover for the loss of its father ; 
 The George arid Jitchard, L. R. 3 A. 
 & E. 466. 
 
 (<•) As to members of the crew so 
 hurt, see The Borodino, 5 L. T. 291 ; 
 Tayhjr v. Deicur, 2 B. & S. .')S. 
 
 (/) The Marathon, 40 L. T. 1G3. 
 
 [g) The Minna, L. 11. 2 A. & E. 
 97. A bailee may recover damages, 
 
 M. 
 
 though not himself liable to his bailor 
 for loss or danuige : The Winkfkld, 
 (1902) P. 117; overruling (V«nV/y^' V. 
 Staffordsliire Traiiiwai/.i Co., (1892) 1 
 Q. B. 422. In The CharluUe, (190S) 
 P. 206, underwriters suing in the 
 name of the selliTS of a cargo, who 
 had been paid by the buyers, were 
 held entitled to recover the value of 
 the goods from the wrong-doer. In 
 an American case damages w<'ro 
 recovered, although all interest in 
 the injured ship had been transferred 
 to a foreigner, whereby the ship was 
 forfeited to the State": The Nabob, 
 Brown, Ad. 115. 
 
 (//) Addison V. Oiereml, T. R. 
 766; Hedguortb v. Ovcreiid, 7 T. R. 
 280. 
 
 H
 
 98 
 
 PERSONS ENTITLED TO RECOVER. 
 
 Underwriters 
 must. SUP in 
 name of 
 assured. 
 
 Person or 
 owner of 
 goods on 
 board ship 
 in fault can 
 recover. 
 
 Thorof/ood v. 
 Bryan. 
 
 consent in writing, nor to have the proceedings stayed until 
 this was done, so that he should not be vexed by more than 
 one action (?"). If a part owner dies after the collision and 
 before action brought, the right of action survives to the other 
 part owners (/>•) . 
 
 The underwriters upon a ship. A., sunk by collision with 
 B., cannot sue B. or her owners in their own names. Their 
 only right of action is by subrogation to the rights of the 
 owners of A. ; and they must sue in the names of the owners 
 of A. (/). 
 
 There was formerly doubt whether a person injured on 
 board a ship which is herself in fault can recover at comiuon 
 law. This doubt, originating in the well-known case of 
 TJtorogoad v. Bryan [ni], was set at rest by the House of 
 Lords in T/tc Bermna (No. 2) ((u). Thorogood v. Bri/aii was 
 there overruled. It had never been recognized as law in the 
 Court of Admiralty, Dr. Lushington having held that, 
 Thoro(iood v. Br>/(in notwithstanding, the owners of cargo on 
 board a ship in fault could recover half their loss against the 
 other ship being also in fault (o). 
 
 Tlwrogood v. Bryan was decided in 1849 by a very strong 
 Court (Coltraan, Vaughan Williams, Maule, Cresswell, JJ.). 
 It held that the representatives of a passenger in an 
 omnibus, who was killed by the combined negligence of the 
 driver of the carrying omnibus and the driver of another 
 omnibus, could not recover against the employer of the latter 
 driver. The negligence in the carrying omnibus consisted in 
 setting the passenger down in the middle of the street, and 
 not drawing up to the kerb : the negligence in the otlier 
 onniibus was carelessly driving over the passenger after he 
 had been set down. The ground of the decision was that the 
 passenger was " identified " with the driver of his own 
 
 («) Ord. XVI. r. 2, 11 ; Jack.on v. 
 Kiiujer, .t4 L. J. Q. B. 446; Tryon v. 
 The National Provident Iiistitutwii, 16 
 Q. JB. D. 678. 
 
 (/.■) See Jtrx v. Collector of Customs, 
 1 M. & S. 'l-n ■ Martin v. Crompe, 
 1 Ld. Raym. :340. 
 
 (/) Simpson V. Thompson, 3 App 
 Cas. 279. 
 
 {■Ill) 8 C. B. 115; Catthnw Hills, 
 ihid. See also Armstronci v. Lan- 
 
 cashirc and Yurlishirc Bail. Co., L. R. 
 10 Ex. 47 ; Adams v. Glasgoic mid 
 S. W. Rail. Co., 3 Ct. of Sess. Cas. 
 4th rer. '215. 
 
 {n) Noin. 3Iills v. Armstrong, 13 
 App. Cas. 1 ; foUo-wed in Mathews v. 
 London Street Tramwai/s Co., 58 L. J. 
 Q. B. 12. 
 
 [o) The 3Iilan, Liish. 388; The 
 Cilg of Manchester, 5 P. D. 3; Ihid. 
 221.
 
 crew. 
 
 PERSOXS ENTITLED TO RECOVER. 09 
 
 omnibus in the matter of negligence, and therefore, having 
 by his own {i.e. his driver's) negligence partly caused the 
 accident, he could recover nothing. This case, though often 
 questioned, did not come before a higher Court for review 
 until 1888, when the House of Lords, affirming the decision 
 of the Court of Appeal, overruled T/ioro(/ood v. Jin/a ii. Tlie 
 facts in T//c Bcrnina were that Toeg, a passenger, and Arm- Th, itrrtihni. 
 strong, an engineer on board T//c Ttiis/iirr, were killed in a 
 collision between T/io Bcrnina and T/ic Bii-s/iiir, caused by 
 faults in both vessels, but without fault in Armstronsr or Toejj. 
 It was held that the representatives of Toeg and Armstrong 
 could recover full damages against the o^vners of T/io Bcr- 
 nina {j}). 
 
 A servant cannot recover against his employer for injury Sliipowner's 
 sustained in the course of his employment through the negli- ''^ " '*-^ ^'^ 
 gence of a fellow- servant [q). Therefore a seaman or a ship's 
 officer cannot recover against the shipowners for loss or injury 
 caused by the fault of one of themselves or of the master (>•). 
 But he may recover for loss or injmy suffered in a collision 
 with another ship of the same owners ; and not the less so 
 because the collision was caused by the fault of the crew of 
 the other ship in the employment of his own employers (n). 
 But a compulsory pilot is not a servant of the shipo^^^ler, and 
 the rule above stated does not prevent him from recovering 
 against the owner {t). A shipowner who has paid a claim under 
 the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, ma}^, in an action /// 
 personam, recover such amount as damages from the owner of 
 the wrong- doing sliip (it). 
 
 {p) Lord Bramwell considered that Sons SS. Co., (1894) App. Cas. 'I'll, 
 
 T/iviof/ood V. Bnjnn was riyhtly di'- whei'e Ramsiij v. Qitimi, Ir. Rcj). 8 
 
 cided upon a point of pleading, and C L. 322, suggestinjf a distiu<tion 
 
 that the decision of the House of in the ease of the master, was not 
 
 Lords involved the overruling of followed. In America the muster 
 
 Wiide V. North Eastern Hail. Co., and crew recovered half their losses 
 
 E. B. & E. 719. against the other ship, whore hoth 
 
 {q) Friestly v. Fouler, 3 M. «fe W. were in fault ; but the amount re- 
 
 1 ; Chitty on Contr. 10th ed. 537. covered by the master wont to 
 
 See Wilson v. Mtrry, L. K. I Sc. recompense cargo owners : The City 
 
 App. 326. The Employers' Liability of New York, 25 Fed. Rep. H'J ; cf. 
 
 Act, 1880, does not apply to hcamen The Titan. 23 Fed. Rep. 113, where 
 
 or apprentices to sea service, or, it the fault was the pilot's, 
 
 seems, to an officer. See 43 & 44 (.s-; The rttrel,{\^^yi)V. MO, supra, 
 
 Vict. c. 42, H. 8 ; 38 & 39 Vict. c. 90, p. 9G. 
 
 .ss. 10, 13. [l) Smith v. Steele, L. R. 10 Q. R. 
 
 (r) Leddy v. Gibson, 11 Sess. Cas. 125. 
 
 3rd ser. 304; Iledley v. Finc/cney i- (a) The Annie, (1909)1'. 170. 
 
 h2
 
 100 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 DAMAGES. 
 
 What 
 
 damages may 
 be recovered ; 
 
 The wrong-doer in a collision is liable for all the reasonable 
 
 negligence- 
 
 consequences of his negligence — " such damages as flow 
 general rule. Jipectly and iu the usual course of things from the wrongful 
 act"(r/). This is the general principle, and where the 
 damages claimed are in respect of loss or injury to ship or 
 goods, occurring at, or immediately after, the collision, there 
 is little difficulty in applying the rule. But where the loss, 
 though consequent upon and connected with the defendant's 
 negligent act, was not immediately caused by it, there is 
 often great difficult}^ in determining whether damages in 
 respect of such loss can be recovered as having been caused 
 by the negligence. The question is closely connected with 
 that discussed in a former chapter as to the legal consequences 
 of negligence. 
 
 Assuming that there is a good cause of action, there is a 
 difficulty in many cases of determining the measure of 
 damages, and the proper items to be taken into account in 
 estimating them. As similar facts giving rise to similar claims 
 for damages are constantly recurring in collision actions, 
 it will be convenient to collect the decisions upon this 
 subject. 
 
 The general rule was thus stated by Dr. Lushington in The 
 Clarence {h) : — '• The party who has sustained a damage by 
 collision is entitled to be put, as far as practicable, in the same 
 condition as if the injury had not been suffered." Tliis 
 appears to be the meaning of the phrase used in some of the 
 
 Restitutio in 
 integrum. 
 
 («) PrrEowen, L. J., TlicArf/entiiio, 
 1.3 P. D. 191, 1201 ; affd. 14 App. Cas. 
 519 ; The Notting Hill, 9 P. D. 105 ; 
 Victorian Railway Commissioners v. 
 Conlta^, 13 App. Cas. 2-"2. The 
 
 "usual course of things" includes 
 the probable and reasonable condu(-t 
 of those on board a ship iu collision : 
 The CUii of Lincoln, 15 P. D. 15, 18. 
 lb) 3'W. Rob. 2b3, 285.
 
 DAMAGES. 
 
 101 
 
 ri'pairs. 
 
 cases that the sufferer is entitled to restifiitio in inf((jnnn (c). 
 There is no diifereuce between the Admiralty and common 
 law rales as to what damages are recoverable (f/). He is 
 entitled to be paid the cost of the repairs, though lie has 
 become bankrupt since they were executed, and has not paid 
 the shipwright who executed them (r). 
 
 The owner of a sliip wrongfully injured iu a collision is Cost of 
 entitled to ha^e her fully and completely repaired ; and if 
 the necessary consequence of this is, that the value of the 
 ship is increased, so that the owner receives more than an 
 indemnity for his loss, he is entitled to that benefit. No 
 deduction is made from the damages recoverable on account 
 of the increased value of the ship, or the substitution of new 
 for old materials (/■). In this respect the owner of a ship 
 injured by collision is in a different position from an owner 
 claiming an indemnity under the ordinary marine policy 
 of insurance (<7) . But where slight damage might have 
 been effectually made good by bolts and braces, it was held 
 in America that the expense of an entirely new beam should 
 not be allowed (//). And the cost of repairs must not be 
 inflamed by delay or intermediate voyages (/). 
 
 Where, in order to effect repairs consequent on collision, it 
 was necessary to dry dock the ship, it was held that the owuer 
 was entitled to take advantage of the opportunity to fit bilge 
 keels without contributing to the cost of the dry dock (/.•). 
 
 If the ship is totally lost, the owner is entitled to recover 
 her market value at the time of the collision (/) ; and her 
 
 Value of 
 the whip, if 
 she 18 lost. 
 
 (c) See this subject discussed at 
 length, Roscoe's Measure of Damages 
 in Actions of Maritime Collisions, 
 p. .'). See also Th' Inflixihle^ Swab. 
 •200 ; The Clyde, Swab.'23 ; The Iron- 
 niaster, Swab. 441 ; The Columbun, 
 3 W. Rob. lo8 ; The Gazelle, 2 W. 
 Rob. 279, 280 ; cited by Sir R. Phil- 
 limore iu The Halley, L. R. 2 A. «& 
 E. 3, 7. 
 
 {d) The Ai-fjrntinu, 13 P. D. 191, 
 195, 200. 
 
 (e) The Endeavour, G Asp. M. C. 
 511. 
 
 (/■) The racloliis, '^wiih. 173; The 
 Gazelle, 2 W. Rob. 279 ; The Beritiiia 
 (No. 3), 6 Asp. M. C. 65 ; and seo 
 The Star of India, 1 P. D. 4GC, 471. 
 
 [g] As to the rule of " ono-thirJ 
 new for old" in insurance cases, see 
 Lohre V. Aitehiso)!, 4 App. Cas. ~,hii. 
 
 (h) The J. T. Ea,stun, 24 Fed. Rep. 
 95. 
 
 ((■) The Henri/ M. Clark, 22 Fed. 
 Rep. 752. 
 
 Uc) The Aeu,Uhu», (1002) P. 17, 
 following The liaabuii SS. Cu. v. 
 Londo)t AsKiiraiwc Co., (lOOit) App. 
 Cas. 6. Cf. The Jieiher. 2 Pr. Ad. 
 Dig. 1747; The Alfnd, 3 W. Rob. 
 232. 239. 
 
 {I) The Clydr, Swab. 23 ; Th, Jam. 
 master, Swab. 441 ; The Colniiilnts, 
 3 W. Rob. 158; The Clarence, 3 
 W. Rob. 283 ; The Laura In-, 24 
 Fed. Rep. 483.
 
 102 
 
 DAMAGES. 
 
 Interest, or 
 freight, if 
 freight was 
 being earned. 
 
 value at her home port, and not in the foreign port to which 
 she is taken after collision, is to be taken (/;^). Where the 
 ship is of a special construction or character, and, although 
 of special value to her owner, has little or no market value, 
 damages must be estimated by considering what is her value 
 to the owner as a going concern at the time she was lost {ii) . 
 Her original cost, her condition at the date of her loss, money 
 ijpent in upkeep, and her past earnings, have all to be con- 
 sidered (o). Interest on tlie amount of the damages is allowed 
 from the day of the colhsion, if the ship was not earning 
 freight. If she was earuing freight, the owner is entitled to 
 the estimated value of the ship at the end of her voyage, 
 together with the freight she would have earned, less the cost 
 of completing the voyage, and to interest on the whole from the 
 probable end of the voyage. If payment is made before that 
 time, an allowance is made for discount. If, however, the 
 plaintiff's loss exceeds the amount of the defendant's statu- 
 tory liability, interest runs from the date of the collision, 
 whether freight was being earned or not (p). If at the time 
 of her loss the ship was upon a voyage to a port from which 
 she was under charter to carry a cargo, and is totally lost, she 
 is entitled, in addition to her value, to the profits she would 
 have made under the charter {q). 
 
 The principle upon which interest is allowed in Admiralty 
 was discussed in T/ie Kong Marjinis (r). In that case interest 
 on the damages was allowed from the probable termination of 
 the voyage on which the ship was engaged at the time of the 
 collision (19th April, 1878) to the date of payment, the 
 action not having been brought until nearly eleven years 
 (8th January, 1889) after the colHsion. In the same case it 
 
 (ill) The Blenheim, 17 Fed. Rep. 
 608. 
 
 («) The Harmonides, (1903) P. 1. 
 
 (o) Cf. La Normcmdie, 58 Fed. Rep. 
 427. 
 
 {p) For a full statement by Sir 
 R. Phillimore of the principle upon 
 which compensation to the injured 
 party is made in cases of collision, 
 see The Northumbrian L. R. 3 A. & 
 E. 6, 12 ; see also The Canada, Lush. 
 58G ; The Clyde, Swab. 23; The Iron- 
 
 master, ibid. 441 ; The Columbus, 3 W. 
 Rob. 168 ; The Clarence, ibid. 283. 
 
 (q) The Kate, (1899) P. 165; The 
 Racine, (1906) P. 273 ; The Clyde and 
 The Columbas, ubi supra, are not 
 opposed to this : ibid. The follow- 
 ing American cases do not accord 
 with The Kale : The Hamilton, 95 
 
 Fed. Rep. 844; 
 Fed. Rep. 853; 
 U. S. Rep. 404. 
 
 (?■) (1891) P. 223. 
 
 The Fontana, 119 
 The Umbria, 166
 
 to 
 
 DAMAGES. 103 
 
 was lield that there is no limitatiou to six years' interest by 
 analogy to tlie Statutes of Limitation. 
 
 The Admiralty practice as to allowing interest on damages 
 applies to common law actions which, before the Judicature 
 Acts, the Admiralty Court had not, but which the Admiralty 
 Division has, jiu-isdiction to entertain ; also to actions trans- 
 ferred by consent to the Admiralty Division (.s). 
 
 Where the ship is damaged but not sunk in the collision, Loss of 
 and she afterwards receives f mother injury or is totally lost, after 'coll il'io 
 the presumption ordinarily is that the subsequent injmy or presumed 
 loss was caused by the defendant's negligence, and the burden caust.i by 
 is in theory upon the wrong-doer in the collision to jn-ove that '^■*'''"*"^"^ 
 it was not so caused, but in practice the plaintiif fro(]uently 
 at any rate sets out to prove his case (/). 
 
 Where a ship was partially disabled in a collision for whicli 
 slie was not in fault, and subsequently drove ashore in con- 
 sequence of the parting of her cable, it was held that the ship 
 in fault for the collision was liable for the loss by the 
 stranding (»). In this case Dr. Lushington sairl : "It is 
 admitted that The Pennher is to blame for the collision, and 
 the consequence of this is, that all the damage arising from 
 the collision must be borne by The Pemhei; unless it can be 
 shown by clear and positive evidence that any part of that 
 subsequent damage arose from gross negligence or great want 
 of skill on the part of those on board the vessel damaged." 
 
 In The llelloim (.r), the ship having been disabled in the 
 collision went ashore, and was totally lost. It was contended 
 that she need not have gone ashore if she had been hove to, 
 and proper skill had been shown by those on board ; but 
 Dr. Lushington held that prima facie the loss was attributable 
 to the colHsion. Where one vessel is found in fault for a 
 collision, and the other is subsequently lost, the presumi)tion 
 of law is that the latter was lost in consequence of the colH- 
 sion. " In all questions of this description that is the jjri/nu 
 facie presumption ; and groat, indeed, would be the incon- 
 venience, and still greater the difficulty, if, in all cases of this 
 
 W The Gertrude; The Baron Aber- see also The livtu, 41 I'Vil. Itep. :iS'.t. 
 
 dare, 13 P. D. 105. (") The IVmhvr, Swab 21 1_. n:\; 
 
 (I) Ah in The Jinixellesville (1907, The Goviiw, 5 Quebec L. H. .)(_. 
 
 Fos. 82:J, 329), (1!'08) P. 312. This (.r) The Mellona, 3 W. Kob. /, 13. 
 point (loos uot appear in the report :
 
 104 
 
 DAMAGES. 
 
 Those on 
 board the 
 iujured ship 
 must exhibit 
 
 kind when the vessel did not go down immediately, hut was 
 subsequently lost, the Court had to enter into an investigation 
 whether all the measures adopted on hoard the damaged 
 vessel were right, or whether, if other measures had been 
 pursued, the vessel might not have been saved" (//). 
 
 In another case a ship was rim into whilst brought up and 
 riding with two anchors down. One cable having parted in 
 the collision, the other failed to hold her, and she drove 
 ashore. It was held that the loss from her going ashore was 
 recoverable as damages in the collision action (s). 
 
 So where, bad weather having come on, the injured ship 
 went ashore twenty-one hours after the collision, the repre- 
 sentatives of some of the crew who were drowned, but who 
 might have been saved if they had gone on board other 
 vessels which offered assistance after the collision, were held 
 entitled to recover against the wrong-doing ship {a). 
 
 A steamship in the North Sea ran into and cut off the 
 quarter of The A/batross, a barque. The barque's binnacle 
 compass, log line, log glass, and working charts were lost in 
 the collision, and her hull was damaged, so that she was 
 partly unmanageable. Those on board tried to take her into 
 the Thames with a spare compass. Without negligence on 
 their part, and in consequence of the loss of their chart and 
 the damaged condition of the hull, she went ashore and was 
 lost. It was held that the steamship owners were liable for 
 her loss (6). 
 
 Where, in consequence of the collision, a steamship's 
 condenser cover blew off, and water came into the ejection 
 pipe, which was plugged, but the plug gave out as the ship 
 was being towed into dock, and the ship sank, it was held 
 that the loss was caused by the collision (r). 
 
 But the fact of a ship being iujured by the negligence of 
 another does not justify those on board in neglecting to take 
 
 (y) See also The Linda, Swab. 
 306. 
 
 (2) The Despatch, 14 Moo. P. C. 
 83 ; The Maid of Kent, 6 P. D. 178. 
 
 [a) The George and Richard, L. R. 
 3 A. & E. 466. See also as to this 
 subject, /*£/• Martin, B., in Wilson y. 
 
 Newport Bock Co., L. E. 1 Ex. 177, 
 187. 
 
 {b) The City of Lincoln, 15 P. D. 
 15. 
 
 (e) Reischer v. Borwick, (1894) 2 
 Q. B. 548, au action upon a policy 
 for loss by collision.
 
 DAMAGES. 105 
 
 all reasonable measures to save the ship (r/), and lessen the ordinarv skill 
 effects of the collision. They must exhibit ordinary courage IniauZf 
 m standing by their Aessel, and show proper skill and seaman- ^i' ^"'^■ 
 ship according to the circumstances of the case. Tiie Court, 
 however, will make reasonable allowance for the excitement 
 which usually attends a collision, and those on board will not 
 be expected to be so acute in their judgment, or to act 
 with the same skill and coolness, as if there had been no 
 collision (e). 
 
 Where the injured ship went ashore, and those in charge Tht-y n.uHt 
 wilfully refused assistance to get her off, it was held that her a^t'. "jT'"'' 
 owners could not recover for loss arising from the obstinacy "ece^-«iry. 
 of those on board (/'). 
 
 If the injured vessel is abandoned unjustifiably, the other rnjustifiable 
 vessel, though in fault for the collision, is not liable for "^'*"<J"'Jm'""t. 
 a total loss, but only for the actual damage done in the 
 collision [y). 
 
 The question whether the abandonment of a ship injured 
 by collision was justifiable is for the Court to decide upon the 
 particular circumstances of each case. In considering it the 
 Court will not be exacting in requiring those on board to 
 stand by her. In T/te Blenheim {h). Dr. Lushington said: 
 " When a collision takes place on a dark night, particularly 
 at a tempestuous period of the year, and when the vessel 
 producing the collision is of greater burden than the one • 
 struck, I cannot possibly settle, with satisfaction to my 
 own mind, or security to justice, what ought to be the 
 reasonable extent of fear and apprehension to the crew of the 
 vessel so struck. It is impossible for any Court of justice to 
 say, with any degree of certainty, what are the precise cir- 
 cumstances that would justify the abandonment of a vessel. 
 If there be any reasonable prospect that the lives of the 
 crew are endangered, I have determined, and I will do so 
 until I am overruled, that they are justified in quitting the 
 
 {d) Including jettison, and acts Lewi, 1 4 L. T. 07.') ; The Thuviiifiiu, 
 
 which may give rise to general 1 Asp. M. C. "283. 
 
 average contribatif)n from the ship- (/) The Flijiiiy l-'ish, Br. A: Lusli. 
 
 owner. See The Marpcssa, (1891) V. 436. 
 
 403; TheTouard,iHfra,-p.\\'i. {g) 'The Thiirinqia, iihi mt/jra. 
 
 (e) The Hannah Park and The Ui) 1 Sp. 285, 289.
 
 106 
 
 DAMAGES. 
 
 Neglect to 
 repair injury 
 received in 
 the collision . 
 
 Neglect to 
 beach. 
 
 vessel, and the consequences must fall on the wrong- 
 doer" (/). 
 
 If a ship is improperly ahandoned after a collision, her 
 owner will not be entitled to recover as damage caused by 
 the collision, either the value of the ship or salvage expenses 
 payable upon her being brought into port (/.•). 
 
 The TJmringla, a steamship which had been run down by 
 the fault of another vessel, was improperly abandoned, and 
 subsequently sank. It was held that she could recover no 
 more than the expense which would have been incurred in 
 making good the damage caused by the collision (/). The 
 collision occurred sixteen or eighteen miles from Heligoland 
 in fine weather ; the ship remained afloat three hours after 
 the collision, and might have been taken to Heligoland. 
 
 In another case {in) no attempt was made to repair the 
 damage received in the collision, such damage consisting in a 
 small hole which might easily have been stopped. In conse- 
 quence of the hole being left unstopped the cargo was injured 
 by water. It was held that the cargo owner could not 
 recover damages against the other ship, although she was in 
 fault for the collision. The duty of the master of the injured 
 ship to take proper steps to preserve, and, under some cir- 
 cumstances, to sell, an injured cargo, has been considered in 
 several cases {h). It was held negligence in a master not to 
 have discharged a cargo of beans which were wetted in a 
 collision (o). Where a cargo was damaged partly by the 
 collision and partly by the master's negligence in not carry- 
 ing it on to the port of discharge without delay, it was held 
 that damages for loss arising from the latter cause were not 
 recoverable in the collision action ( p) . The Court will not, 
 upon the application of the owner of a ship damaged in 
 collision, order her sale {q). 
 
 A steamship at anchor in the Elbe (800 feet wide) was run 
 into by the neghgence of another ship. It was held that her 
 
 («) See also The Linda, Swab. 306 ; 
 T/ie Lindsay, Ir. Eep. Ad. 1 Eq. 259. 
 
 {k) The Linda, Swab. 306. 
 
 (l) The Thurimjia, 1 Asp. M. C. 
 283. 
 
 (;«) The EoUdes, 3 Hag. 367 ; and 
 see mpra, p. 104. 
 
 (m) See Cargo ex Argos, L. R. 6 
 
 P. C. 134, 165, and cases there cited. 
 
 (o) Notara v. Henderson, L. R. 7 
 Q. B. 225 ; and see The EUna, 5 
 P. D. 237, note; The Bernina, 12 
 P. D. 36. 
 
 {p) The EUna, 5 P. D. 237, note. 
 
 (q) The Wexford, 13 P. D. 10.
 
 DAMAGES. 107 
 
 owners were not entitled to recover as damages the cost of 
 raising her. She sank some hours after the collision, and no 
 water reached the engine room for half an hour after tlie 
 collision. There was evidence that she might and ought to 
 have been beached (r). But where beaching was not reason- 
 ably possible, it was held that there was no contributory 
 negligence on the pai-t of the crew of a barge in failing to 
 beach her after the damage was done. The barge, moored 
 in Tilbui-y Dock astern of a steamship, was struck by the 
 propeller and sank(.s). So a mistake of judgment in not 
 beaching is not necessarily negligence (t). 
 
 Again, where insufficient measures were taken to repair a 
 vessel, so that after being repaired, she sank at sea, it was 
 held that the owners could not recover for a total loss (it). 
 
 Where a ship is sunk at sea by collision, there is nu Uwuor nut. 
 obligation upon the owner to raise her, even if it would be '■^.i"'''?4 ^ 
 
 • 1 1 1 / \ -r> raiso ship 
 
 possible to do so (.r). But if she is sunk in shoal water, or sunk in 
 in a position in which there is no difficulty in raising her, '^""'•'**""- 
 her owner would not be justified in at once abandoning 
 her(//). Where an anchor and chain were slipped to avoid 
 collision, and the cost of recovering them would have been 
 more than they were worth, their full value was recovered as 
 damages (~). If he elects to raise her, and it turns out 
 upon a sui'vey, that she is not worth repairing, he is entitled 
 to recover as damages the expense of raising and docking her, 
 less her value in the dock. If he repairs her at a cost 
 exceeding her value before collision, he cannot recover the 
 cost of repairs beyond such value ; nor anything in the 
 nature of demurrage (f^). Where there was such delay in 
 raising her, that it was impossible to determine the amount 
 of the damage done by the collision, the claim was dis- 
 
 (/•) The Hanxd, 6 Asp. M. C. 268. Fcttie v. Bnxlon Tuw-Boat Co., -19 
 
 Cf. The Sr.otia. 6 Asp. M. C. 541 ; Fed. Rep. 464. 
 
 and The Henri IV., V6 Quebec L. R. (y) Cf. The Havilah, 60 Fed. Rep. 
 
 379. 3a 1; The lialthiiore, 8 Wall. .S77 ; 
 
 (a) The Hornet, (1892) P. 361. The Thomas P. Wraij, 28 Fed. Rep. 
 
 (t) The Frostburf), 2.5 Fed. Rep. o26. 
 
 451 ; The iJaunlleaii, 116 Fed. Rep. (z) Johanssen v. 'The L'/oiiia, I 
 
 543, where the ship was in tow. Fed. Rep. 573. 
 
 («) The Bruxellcsville, '1908) P. (a) 2he EmjtrcsK KiK/ciile, Lu»li. 
 
 312. 138. Cf. ne Jyt«;iif. 26 Fed. Rep. 
 
 [x, The Columbus, '.iW.Hoh. lo8 ; 860; Suiiuiier/i v. The Oneida, 8 J 
 
 The Franconia, 16 Fed. Rep. 149; Fed. Rop. 716.
 
 108 
 
 DAMAGES. 
 
 Damages 
 increased by 
 plaintiff's 
 negligence 
 after collision. 
 
 Damage 
 increased by 
 weak state of 
 injured 
 
 vessel. 
 
 missed (/;). If, acting as a prudent owner, he elects not 
 to repair, and sells her, he is entitled to recover her value 
 at the time of collisiou, less the proceeds of sale, together 
 with interest from the date of the collision (r). 
 
 Where a ship is sunk by collision, and the owner pays to 
 the wreck-raising authority the cost of raising her, the sum 
 so paid is damages recoverable from the wrong-doer {d). 
 
 Damages for loss occurring during, or after, and in conse- 
 quence of, the collision, but caused partly by negligence of 
 the plaintiff, cannot be recovered as having resulted entirely 
 from the defendant's negligence which caused the collision. 
 Where, by the omission to cut a lanyard which held together 
 two ships which had been in collision, the damage was 
 increased, it was held to have been caused partly by the 
 plaintiff's negligence in not cutting the lanyard (e) . So 
 damage to one vessel by the fluke of the other's anchor was 
 held to have been caused by the negligence of both ships, 
 though the collision was caused entirely by the fault of 
 the injured vessel, the circumstances being such that the 
 collision would have been harmless but for the fact that the 
 other vessel's anchor was in an improper position (/'). 
 
 If the damage received in a collision is greater than would 
 ordinarily be the case because the injured ship was in a weak 
 condition, the other is not the less liable for the entire loss, if 
 she is in fault for the collision. The principle is, that if 
 a part of the damage was clearly attributable to the wroDg- 
 doer, and it is impossible to draw the line with precision, and 
 to say how much, the wrong-doer must make good the whole 
 loss (g) ; but where the damage occasioned by the collision 
 can be easily discriminated, defects disclosed in consequence 
 
 {b) The Atke, VI Fed. Rep. 734. 
 
 (r) The South Sea, Swab. HI. 
 
 (rf) The E)i(jbuer, Tnthaui v. Buri\ 
 (1898) P. 382^ approving The North 
 Britain, (1894) T. 77- As to the 
 liability of the owner of the sunken 
 ship for such expenses, see The 
 Crystal, (1894) App. Cas. 608 ; 
 Houard Smith v. Wihon, (1896) 
 App. Cas. 579. 
 
 {(■) The MaHxuchusctta, 1 W. Rob. 
 371. See also The Flijixy Fmh, Br. 
 & Lush. 436 ; Grill v. General Iron 
 
 Screw Collier Co., L. R. 1 C. P. GOO 
 ibid. 3 C. P. 476. 
 
 (/) The Margaret, 6 P. D. 76 ; cf 
 The YoioKj A)iierica, 54 Fed. Re^i 
 410 (damage by jagged iron 
 ship's side). 
 
 {(l) The Egyptiati, 10 L. T. 
 The Young Ainericn, supra ; 
 Syracuse, 18 Fed. Rep. 828 ; 
 Howard, 30 Fed. Rep. 280, 
 
 cases there cited ; The 
 (No. 3), 6 Asp. M. C. 65; 
 Gaty, 6 Bissel, 190. 
 
 on a 
 
 910; 
 The 
 The 
 and 
 Bcrnina 
 The Sam
 
 DAMAGES. 
 
 109 
 
 of the collision, though existing prior to it, cannot be charged 
 ao-ainst the defendant (//). In America, however, it has been 
 lield that where a canal boat foundered after the collision, 
 because she was so weak before the collision that she could 
 not go into dry dock with her cargo on board to be repaired, 
 the loss of cargo was not proximately caused by the 
 defendant's negligence (/). In other American cases (/.•) half 
 damages were given in such a case ; and it is held to be 
 negligence for the owner of an old and weak craft to expose 
 her, without giving warning to other vessels, to the ordinary 
 risks of contact with other craft at the wharves and slips of 
 New York harbom- (/). 
 
 What have been called consequential damages — that is to Consequential 
 say, damages beyond the value of the ship or the cost of ■" ^ • 
 repairs — may in some cases be recovered (in). 
 
 Where a smack was run down whilst engaged in performing i^„sa of 
 a salvasre service, she recovered the sum she would have expected 
 
 o ' salvage, 
 
 received as salvage reward had she not been prevented from 
 
 completing the service {»). 
 
 So freight which the injured ship is at the time of the 
 collision engaged in earning, or under contract to earn, less 
 tlie charges which would have been incurred in earning it, 
 too-ether with interest from the probable termination of the 
 voyage, is always allowed as damages (o). " Loss by contact 
 is, amongst other things, loss of the freight which the ship 
 would have earned if she had not been crippled by the colli- 
 sion " {p). But reasonable efforts must be made to obtain 
 other freight when the vessel is able to earn it {q). Where a 
 ship was run down whilst on a voyage to Norway to bring 
 home a cargo of lobsters, and another ship was taken up for 
 
 Loss of 
 frci^'ht. 
 
 (/f) The Pr'wccss, 5 Asp. M. C. 4.>1. 
 
 \i) The New York, 4U Fed. Rep. 
 90U ; but see The I. M. Not th, 37 
 Fed. Rep. 270, alitir. 
 
 (k) The GihoH, 35 Fed. Rep. 333 : 
 The City of A'ifjusta, 30 Fed. Rep. 
 844. 
 
 (/) The Si/racKne, 18 Fed. Rep. 
 828; The N. B. Starhnck, 29 Fed. 
 Rep. 797 ; The lieba, 22 Fed. Kep. 
 54G. 
 
 {m) As to whether tlie question 
 of consequential damajres is for the 
 
 Court or the registrar and mer- 
 chants, see below, p. 302. 
 
 («) The Betny Caines, 2 Hagg. Ad. 
 28. 
 
 (o) The Xorthumbrid, L. R. 3 A. & 
 E. 6; The Kate, (1899) P. ItJ") ; Thr 
 Racine, (1906) P. 273. 
 
 [p) Ter Erie, C. J., JI''irJ v. 
 llolman, 19 C. B. N. S. 1, 10. As 
 to the cost of carrying gouds to their 
 de.-itiiiation, see A'ovc v. .Wi/is, I M. iV 
 S. 101. 
 
 {q) The C. r. RaiimoNil, 28 Fed. 
 Rep. 765.
 
 110 
 
 DAMAGES. 
 
 Salvage 
 expenses. 
 
 Cost of 
 detaining 
 officers and 
 crew. 
 
 Diminished 
 market value 
 
 the purpose, it was held that the freight of the lobsters was 
 recoverable as consequential damages {>•). 
 
 So the increase in value of cargo on board and belonging 
 to the owner of the injured ship, which would have arisen had 
 the cargo been carried to the port of discharge, and which by 
 the collision the owner is prevented from earning, may be 
 recovered as damages in the collision action (.s). 
 
 If the injured ship sinks in consequence of the collision, 
 the expenses of raising and docking her are recoverable as 
 damages (/). And salvage or towage (^^ expenses, whether 
 incui-red by the owner, or paid by him to salvors, are 
 recoverable as damages, if they are properly incurred in 
 consequence of injury received in the collision (.r). In 
 America the expenses of rescuing and sending ashore the 
 crew of the wrong-doing ship, and of the consequent delay 
 to the other ship, were allowed as damages (^). And the 
 costs of both parties in a salvage action have been recovered (s) ; 
 but in a later case some doubt was thrown upon this de- 
 cision {a). The expense of bail in a salvage action is 
 recoverable (0). 
 
 The cost of detaining the ship's officers whilst the ship was 
 being repaired has been allowed as damages, where it was 
 proved that the custom of the trade was not to discliarge the 
 officers at the end of the voyage, (r). In America the cost of 
 detaining the crew after the collision, and of attempts to save 
 the cargo, has been allowed {d). 
 
 Where it was proved that the market value of a yacht sunk 
 in a collision was diminished, it was lield in Ireland tliat, in 
 addition to the sum required for repairs, the difference between 
 
 2 Hagg 
 
 Ad. 
 
 (>•) T/ie Yorl-ahireman. 
 30, note. 
 
 (s) The Thtjatira, S P. D. 155. 
 {t) The Enipriss Etigeidc, Lush. 
 138; The A lime, Vl P. D. 50. 
 
 [u) The I»JIe.vible, Svi ab. 200 ; The 
 Fletcher and The Grapcshot, 42 Ted. 
 Rep. 504 ; The Bepjamin F. Hunt, 
 34 Fed. Rep. 816. See also 
 Yuung America, 26 Fed. Rep. 
 ; The Cepheits, 24 Fed. Rep. 
 The Fannie Tidhill, 17 Fed. 
 . 87. 
 
 Jr., 
 The 
 174 
 507 
 Rep 
 
 [x) The Linda, Swab. 306; The 
 
 Diana, 2 Asp. M. C. 366; The 
 JFimamina, 3 P. D. 97, 99. 
 
 {y) Leonard v. JVhitivcU, 19 Fed. 
 Rep. 547. 
 
 [z) The Lcgatics, Swab. 168, not- 
 withstanding TindaU v. BcU, 11 M. 
 & W. 228. 
 
 («) The British Commerce, 9 P 
 128, R. S. C. 
 
 [b) Ord. XII. r. 21a. 
 
 ((•) The Injttxibie, Swab. 200. 
 
 [d] Hoffman v. Union Ferry of 
 Brookhjn, 68 New York Rep. 385. 
 
 D.
 
 DAMAGES. 
 
 Ill 
 
 her market value before and after tlie collision was recoverable 
 as damages (e). 
 
 Where the owners suffer loss by the enforced i.lloness of Denmrr.^. 
 their ship which has been injured in a collision, demurrage is 
 allowed by way of damages wliilst the necessary repairs" arc 
 bemg effected, and whilst any other business which is ren- 
 dered necessary owing to the collision is being transacted 
 Avhieh necessarily delay the vessel, such as making a protest 
 and obtaining the necessary official documents (./•). Where 
 two collisions have occurred each of which renders it neces- 
 sary for the vessel to be repaired the loss of time will he 
 attributed to that which is first in time (//). 
 
 A series of decisions in the House of Lords has made it 
 clear that a public body not working for mercantile o-aiu, 
 which is temporarily deprived of its ship by a wrong-doer^ 
 is entitled to substantial damages, irrespective of the special 
 use which it might have made of her during the time she 
 was under repair. Earlier decisions of the Admiralty Court 
 and of the Court of Appeal, to the effect that pecuniary 
 loss only is recoverable as damages, are no longer law. In 
 the Greta Holme (h) a dredger, belonging to the Mersey 
 Docks and Harbour Board, and T//e ^lediami (/), a light- 
 ship belonging to the same owners, was run down and injured 
 by the negligence of the defendant ship. The Board had 
 no spare dredger, and in consequence of her detention 
 
 (<?) The Georginna and The Anr/Ji- 
 can, 21 W. Rob. 280. 
 
 (/) 'Ihe (Jdi/ of Buenos Aijres, 1 
 Asp. M. C. 169; The Clarnm; 3 W. 
 Rolj. 28:5 ; The Inflexible, Swub. 200 ; 
 The Hliir of l„dM, 1 P. D. 4iiG. As 
 to demurrage where tlie injured ^ship 
 is one of a line advertised to sail at, 
 fixed dates, see The Black Tnnce, 
 Lush. .0G8. In Th» City of Pekinr/, 
 lo App. Cas. 43S, a claim for de- 
 murrage, whilst a substituted vessel 
 1)1 lunging to the same owners did 
 the work of the injured vessel, was 
 disallowed : see the observations on 
 ■this ease in The Medinna, (I'JOd) A. C. 
 li;i, 119*tY/., distinguishing it from 
 The Greta Holme, infra, and The 
 Medinna. If the injured ship is a 
 passenger ship runniijfr in an ad- 
 vertised service, it is held in America 
 that the owner is entitled to receive 
 
 as damages the prohablo cost of 
 hiring another vessel t.) perform hei- 
 service ; and not the less .-u because 
 he lias another vessel kept as a 
 stand-by to be used in case of acci- 
 dents : The Emma Kate lius.i, ho Fed. 
 Rep. 845. Cf. The Ca,jm,a, 7 l?Iiitehf. 
 385; The (hceola, 34 fed. Rep. 1»2 1 . 
 Where the injured ship l.,.st hi r 
 charter and got a new and less pro- 
 fitable one, "the difference between 
 the values of the two charters was 
 allowed asdanuiges : The Jleh/tnlaiid, 
 36 Fed. Rep. .'•)04. The "rate of 
 (ieuiurrage depends on the circum- 
 stauces of each ca>e, and on the 
 profitableness of the employment of 
 the ship near the time of collision. 
 
 [()) The Harernham Grantje, (1 •)(),')) 
 r. 307; 10 Asp. 1.56. 
 
 [h) (1807) App. Cas. SOG. 
 
 (i) (1000) App. Cas. 113.
 
 112 DAMAGES. 
 
 whilst under repair mud accumulated in the harbour, which 
 had afterwards to be removed. As regards the lightship, the 
 Board had at considerable expense provided a spare lightship 
 to take the place of this or other lightships which, owing to 
 collision or other cause, had to he withdrawn from their 
 stations. It was held in both cases that the Board were 
 entitled to substantial and not merely nominal damages for 
 the detention of their craft whilst under repair in consequence. 
 These cases were followed by The Jlarpessa (/.■) when the 
 previous decisions were approved, but clearly limited to non- 
 mercantile claimants (/), the latter having still to prove an 
 actual loss {m). 
 
 Where damages are estimated upon the footing of a total 
 loss, although in fact the ship is subsequently saved and 
 repaired, with the exceptions mentioned above, nothing will 
 be allowed for, or in the nature of, demurrage (;^). 
 
 In some of the cases (o) where damages were allowed in 
 respect of the loss of a specific voyage, demurrage during the 
 probable duration of the voyage appears to have been allowed ; 
 this was clearly wrong {p), thus in the Star of India, where, 
 Loss of in consequence of the collision, a vessel lost the benefit of a 
 
 charter-party, pjjrij-^gj.^ damages were allowed for the loss of the charter- 
 party in addition to demurrage (q). 
 
 The principle upon which loss of a charter is allowed as 
 damages is that the value of the charter is an accurate measure 
 of the value of the ship to the owner during the time she is under 
 repair, or is otherwise by reason of the collision prevented from 
 earning money or being of use to her owner. Where at the time 
 of the collision there is no existing charter, but there is a con- 
 tract under which the ship is engaged to sail upon a profitable 
 voyage, the probable earnings of the ship under the contract 
 will be allowed as damages. T/zf Argerifino, at the date of 
 
 (/■) (1907) A. C. 241 ; 10 Asp. 197, (■/«) The BocdnccJl, (1907) P. 286 ; 
 
 232. 10 Asp. 479. 
 
 (/) American decisions are hardly (w) TJic Columbus, 3 W. Rob. 158. 
 
 in accordance with T/tc Mcd'iana. io) The Star of India, \ V.T). AQQ>; 
 
 CI. The Conqueror, 166 U. S. Rep. The Conceit, h P. D. 229. 
 
 110 (a yacht run down); Fx^k v. [p) The Arejentino, 14 App. Cas. 
 
 Cilrj of Neil- York, 119 Fed. Rep. 519, 523. 
 
 2o(5 ; The Providevee, 98 Fed. Rep. {q) The Star of India, nbi supra; 
 
 133; The Georqe W. Robij, 111 Fed. The Comtelt, ubi supra. 
 Rep. 601.
 
 DAMAGES. 
 
 the eoUision, was under an engagement to take in a car-o at 
 Antwerp for Batoum, taking the place of one of a line of 
 ships advertised to sail between Antwerp and Batoum It 
 was held by the House of Lords, affirming the decision of 
 Bowen and Lindley, L. JJ. (diss. Lord Esher, M. R.), that 
 there should be allowed as damages by the collision - the 
 ordinary and fair earnings of such a ship as The Argeuiino 
 having regard to the fact that she was put up as one of 
 VV. c^c L. s line of steamers trading to the Black Sea, and 
 advertised as such » (r). The Kate (.) was sunk upon her 
 outward voyage to a port from which she was un.ler charter 
 to carry a cargo. Her owner recovered her probable value at 
 the end of the voyage, plus the profits of- the charter This 
 principle was subsequently extended to the case of a second 
 charter (if) . 
 
 A fishing smack recovered, besides the value of her nets Losb of 
 and gear which she was obKged to cut adrift, the amount she ^'^"'^ 
 might reasonably have expected to earn during the rest of '"^"^'" 
 the season (?0, and on the principle of the above cases this 
 appears to be the correct principle of assessment. 
 
 The value of an anchor and chain properly slij^ped in i\i^ Anchor 
 hope of avoiding collision wiU be recoverable as damages, '"^'P'^" 
 whether the step is successful or not [x). 
 
 In America, average charges incurred by a cargo owner in Averago 
 a foreign port, by reason of a collision in American waters, '^'''*^'^'- 
 were recovered as damages caused by the collision (y). In 
 this country a similar claim by the shipowner was dis- 
 allowed (s). 
 
 Damages which, although consequent upon the collision, Rcuotones. 
 do not immediately or necessarily flow from it, cannot be "* '^'^""'K'^- 
 
 113 
 
 (r) The Argentim, 14 App. Cas. 
 •519. As to a coutract under which 
 the owner of the injured vessel is 
 able to run another of his own ships, 
 see The City of Alexandria, 40 fed. 
 Hep. G97. 
 
 ^ (.v) (1899) P. 16r>. Cf. The Breeze, 
 The Appendix, J I. M.S. Fork, and 
 diHtingui.sh The Undine, The Kalkoura 
 all cited in The Kate. 
 
 (t) The Racine, (1906) P. 273; 10 
 Asp. 300. 
 
 f") The Gleaner, 3 Asp. M. C. 582 ; 
 
 M. 
 
 The Clarence, 3 W. Rob. 283, 286 ; 
 The Jiisoluto, 8 P. D. 109. 
 
 (x) Johansseii v. The Eloitia, 4 Fed. 
 Rej). 573 ; Majoribanks v. Boyd, supra, 
 p. ii7. 
 
 (y) The Eneryia, 6G Fed. Rep. G04. 
 
 (s) The Marpessa, (1891) P. 403. 
 It was doubted by Gorell Barnes, J., 
 in The Toward, 8tli May (or .Vpril P), 
 1899, whether tlie hahmcc of ^reiionil 
 average can ever be, as was siigg<sk-d 
 in 'The Marpessa, in tlie shipowmT's 
 favour. 
 
 I
 
 114 
 
 DAMAGES. 
 
 Loss of 
 market. 
 
 Damages for 
 loss of life. 
 
 recovered against tlie ship in fault for the collision (a). 
 Where the master and part-owner of a vessel lost by collision 
 claimed his probable future earnings as master, and profits as 
 part-owner, it was held that he was entitled to nothing more, 
 by way of damages, than the value of the ship at the time of 
 the collision (/>). And where a vessel put into port for 
 repairs necessitated by collision, and her cargo of fruit was 
 necessarily discharged to enable the repairs to be made, and 
 reloaded, damage occasioned partly by handling and partly 
 by natural decay during the delay was held not to be damage 
 " consequent upon collision," within the meaning of a policy 
 of insurance (c). 
 
 It was not the practice to give damages for loss of market 
 for cargo on board a ship injured by collision (d). The 
 difference between the price of the goods when they arrive 
 at the port of discharge and the price when they ought to 
 have arrived, and but for the collision would have arrived, 
 was regarded as so uncertain that it was held not to be the 
 reasonable consequence of the collision, but this hard and fast 
 rule is no longer in force, since the question now appears to 
 be one of fact, namely, whether the loss of market is a 
 reasonable consequence of the collision, which is the subject 
 of the action (e). 
 
 Damages for loss of life are recoverable under Lord 
 Campbell's Act (,/) b}^ the relatives or legal personal repre- 
 sentatives of persons killed in a collision in a personal action 
 against the person liable, but not in proceedings m? rnw (r/). 
 And it was held in Canada that the Vice- Admiralty Courts 
 
 («) As to remoteness of damages, 
 see Mayne on Damages, 7th ed. 48 
 seq.; 2 'Smith's L. C. 11 th ed. 523 
 seq. ; and per Martin, B., in Wilson 
 V. Newport Dock Co., L. R. 1 Ex. 
 177, 187 ; cf. The Gertor, 7 Asp. 
 M. C. 472. As to whether remoteness 
 is a question for the registrar or the 
 Court, see bifni, p. o02. 
 
 (b) The Colimbus, 3 W. Rob. 158 ; 
 and see The Clarence, 3 W. Rob. 
 283. 
 
 (c) Pink V. Fleming, 25 Q. B. D. 
 396. 
 
 {d) The Parana, 2 P. D. 118, 121 ; 
 The Notting Hill, 9 P. D. 1 05 ; Smith 
 V. Condry, 1 How. 28 ; The Jos. W. 
 
 Dijer V. National Steamship Co., 14 
 Blatchf. 483. See, however, France 
 V. Gaudct, L. R. 6 Q. B. 199, where 
 the price of goods contracted to be 
 sold at a profit was recovered in an 
 action for conversion. 
 
 (e) liunn v. Bucknall Brother.^, 
 (1902) 2 K. B. 614. 
 
 (/) 9 & 10 Vict. 0. 93 ; 27 .*c 28 
 Vii!t. c. 96. As to assessment of 
 damagi^s by a jury in the Admiralty 
 Division, see The Orwell, 13 P. D. 
 80. 
 
 {(/) The f'cra Cruz (No. 2), 9 P. D. 
 96 ; The Theta, (1894) P. 280 ; The 
 Circe, (1906) P. 1 ; 10 Asp. 149,
 
 DAMAGES. 1 1 5 
 
 Act, 1863 (26 Vict. c. 24), s. 10, did not give Admiralty 
 
 jurisdiction in case of personal injury (//). 
 
 Damages recovered by the shipowner in a collision action Damages not 
 
 are not subject to a claim for life salvas:e services rendered to *",^'J^'t *f!'^^ 
 1 . 1 • . 1 ,,. . salvage cliiim. 
 
 ills snip m consequence ot the collision (/). 
 
 A penalty of 50/. in addition to damages can be recovered Peunlty for 
 against a ship that injures a light-ship (k). j?j """»'''' 
 
 Full damages may be recovered by the injured party Dama^ 
 
 res 
 
 though he has been compensated for the whole or part of ^'V.'^ *°®* 
 his loss by his insurers (/). But, as will be seen below (;«), iusurere. 
 he will hold such damages as he may recover, to the ex- 
 tent of the sum received from his insurers, in trust for his 
 insurers. 
 
 Damages recoverable by a cargo-owner, or by a passenger, Damapes ro- 
 upon the contract of carriage, are such as " a man when coverable by 
 making the contract would contemplate would flow from a upon the 
 breach of it "(;?). This somewhat vague rule is the only caSge.*"^ 
 one to be extracted from the cases. It is beyond the scope of 
 this work to discuss the general subject, and it is sufficient 
 here to state that a breach of the contract of carriage, 
 consisting in negligence of the carrier causing collision and 
 loss of the goods carried, has the same effect as regards 
 liability to damages as a breach of the contract in any 
 other respect (o). 
 
 The shipowner's general liability as carrier is considered 
 elsewhere (79). 
 
 The rule as to division of loss where both ships are in Effect of the 
 
 fault, whilst it extends the right to recover damages by \^^^ ?'' ^, 
 ' _ c! _ . . division of 
 
 superseding the common law doctrine of contributory iiegli- loss »ipon the 
 gence, also limits the amount of damages recoverable to one- j^mages" 
 half the claimant's loss. In the case of an owner of cargo on recoverable, 
 board one ship suing the other in tort, it abridges to this 
 
 {h) The Enrique, Stockton, V. Ad. London i- S. W. Rail. Co., L. R. 10 
 
 Dig. Canada, 157. Q. B. Ill, 121. 
 
 (t) The Annie, 12 P. D. 50. (o) As to the subject generally, 
 
 [k] 57 & 58 Vict. c. 104, s. 666. see Mayne on Damages. 7th oil. 
 
 \l) Yates V. Whyte, 4 B. N. C. pp. 10, seq. The Parana, L l\ D. 152 ; 
 
 272; BradburnY. Great Western Rail. 2 P. D. 118; McMahon v. Field, 7 
 
 C,,., L. R. 10 Ex. 1. Q. B. D. 591 ; Lillry v. Doiihlahii, 
 
 {ni) p. 277. Md. 510, are amongst the later cases 
 
 (m) Per Blackburn, J., Hohbs v. on the subject. 
 
 {p) infra, j). 265. 
 
 i2
 
 116 DAMAGES. 
 
 extent his common law right to recover full damages. But 
 it does not affect his right to recover full damages upon the 
 contract of carriage (q) . And if part of the loss has been 
 recovered against the owner of the carrying ship, it would 
 seem that the balance up to oue-half the loss may be recovered 
 against the other ship (r). The effect of the rule as to 
 division of loss is fully considered in the next chapter. 
 
 The Acts limiting the shipowner's liability largely affect 
 the amount of (hiinages recoverable by the sufferer in a 
 collision. These enactments also are fully considered in 
 Chapter VII. 
 
 (5) See Chartered Mercmdile Bank E. 523, it does mot appear whether 
 
 of India v. Netherlands India iSteaiii. the phiiuliif claimed the whole or 
 
 Navigation Co., 9 Q. B. D. 118 ; 10 half hi,s loss; The Milan, Lush. 3SS, 
 
 Q. B. D. 521 ; The £u.shire, 5 Asp. and The Hector, 8 P. D. 218, seem 
 
 M. C. 416. to limit his right to half. 
 
 (r) In The Bemetritts, L. R. o A. &
 
 117 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE RULE AS TO DIVISION OF LOSS. 
 
 F<m the purpose of determining by whom and in what shares Tliefourrru^ea 
 
 the loss is to be borne, collisions between ships have been o^^'"'**'""- 
 
 divided into four classes. " In the first place it (collision) 
 
 may happen without blame being imputable to either party, 
 
 as where the loss is occasioned by a storm or other r/.y //kiJoi: 
 
 In that case the misfortune must be borne by the party on 
 
 whom it happens to light, the other not being responsible to 
 
 him in any degree. Secondly, a misfortune of this kind may 
 
 arise where both parties are to blame — where there has been 
 
 want of due diligence or of skill on both sides. In such a 
 
 case the rule of law is that the loss must be apportioned 
 
 between them, as having been occasioned by the fault of both 
 
 of them. Thirdly, it may happen by the misconduct of the 
 
 suffering party only ; and then the rule is that the sufferer 
 
 must bear his own burden. Lastly, it may have been the 
 
 fault of the ship which ran the other down ; and in this case 
 
 the innocent party would be entitled to an entire compensation 
 
 from the other" (a). 
 
 Tliis statement of maritime law of England as to the inci- 
 dence of loss in case of collision does not occur in any sentence 
 or judgment ; it is an obiter dicftim of Lord Stowell. It has, 
 however, never been questioned as an accurate statement of 
 the law ; it has been cited with approval in the House of 
 Lords (i), and it has frequently been acted upon by the Com'ts 
 since its deliverance in the year 1816. It is, however, open 
 to two criticisms. In the first place, it is not in accordance 
 with numerous decisions of the High Court of Admmilty 
 
 (a) Per Lord Stowell (then Sir W. 2 Shaw's App. Gas. 3'Jo, in a dictum 
 Scott), The Woodrop Sims, 2 Dods. to the like eti'cct. 
 83,85. In The Lord Melville, cited [h 11,,,, y. Ar .Vt(v (1821), '^ Sh nv. 
 
 Sc. App. Ua. 3!>5.
 
 118 THE RULE AS TO DIVISION OF LOSS. 
 
 during the seventeentli and eighteenth centuries. During 
 that period the rule of division of loss was frequently applied 
 in cases where the cause of collision was uncertain, and also 
 where the collision was purely accidental [c). However, 
 whatever doubts there may be as to the scope of the rule when 
 Sir W. Scott thus stated it in 1816, there can be no doubt 
 that at the present day the rule is applied only in cases of 
 " both to blame." Secondly, recent cases show that the loss 
 is not divided in every case where there is " want of due dili- 
 gence or of skill on both sides," but that a ship is liable only 
 for such want of diligence or skill as has caused or contributed 
 to the loss. Upon this point there has been, if not an 
 alteration of the law, an increasing disposition to disregard 
 negligence which, though connected with the collision, is not 
 its proximate cause (d). 
 History of the ^]jq earliest trace (^^) of the rule as to division of loss 
 
 rule. , ^ ' 
 
 The Laws of appears in the Laws of Oleron, a code of maritime law 
 
 Oleron. attributed to the twelfth century (/'), and recognised as 
 
 authoritative in this country at least as early as the fourteenth 
 
 century {(j). This code contains a provision (Art. 15) that 
 
 when a ship at anchor is damaged by a ship under way, the 
 
 (c) The authorities for the state- bulling it somewhere " ; and we 
 ment in the text are a series of cases are told that the word " bullino;," in 
 (unreported) collected from the Ad- common acceptation with seafaring 
 miralty Court books. They are set men, is where one ship runs foul of 
 out in the note at the foot of this another : Ad. Ct. Miscell. Books, 
 chapter. 300, oth Nov. 1677. " Moses' law" 
 
 (d) See cases, supra, p. 18. was also a term in use with seamen 
 
 (e) The Book of Exodus, ch. xxi., {ibid. No. 302, 29th Jan. 1691—2), 
 vv. 35, 36, is cited by Cleirac in and perhaps refers to this matter, 
 support of the rule. The passage is (/') 1 Pardessus, Collection des 
 as follows: " And if one man's ox Lois Maritimes, pp. 283 seq. 
 
 hurt another's, that he die; then (ff) The Record or Roll iJe Siipe- 
 
 they shall sell the live ox, and divide rioritate 3Iaris tt Jure Adnnralitatis 
 
 the money of it; and the dead ox Anglice of 12 Ed. 3 (1338), refers 
 
 also they shall divide. Or if it be to La Ley Oleyroun as the law of 
 
 known that the ox hath used to push the English Admiralty : see Prynne, 
 
 in time past, and.his owner hath not Animadv. 109 ; Selden's Mare 
 
 kept him in; he shall surely pay Clausum, 1. 2, c. 24. A record set 
 
 ox for ox ; and the dead shall be his out by Prynne, Animadv. 110, 117, 
 
 own." Cf. Laws of Alfred : "If shows that the Law of Oleron was 
 
 an ox wound another man's ox, and administered in the local Court of 
 
 it die, let them sell the live ox, and Bristol in 24 Ed. 3 (1350). There 
 
 have the worth in common, and also are extant in the archives of the 
 
 the flesh of the dead one." In the City of London and elsewhere in 
 
 seventeenth century, a seaman, see- this country MSS. of these laws 
 
 ing a ship that bore marks of having dating from the early part of the 
 
 been in collision, says to her crew, 14th century: Black Book, of the 
 
 " I think, brothers, you have been Admiralty, Rolls Ser. vol. 1, Ixxxii.
 
 HISTORY OF THE RULE. U^ 
 
 loss on the ship shall be divided between tlie o'VNTiers of the 
 two ships, and the loss on the cargo between the mer- 
 chants (A), provided the master and mariners of the ship 
 under waj swear that they did not do the damage wit- 
 tingly (/). 
 
 This provision for distributing the loss in case of collision 
 appears in various forms in the laws of Wisby and otlier 
 Northern Codes, in the Consolato del Mare, in the Ordonnance 
 de la Marine of Louis XIV., and in almost every code of 
 maritime law since the Middle Ages. The division, however, 
 is not by all the codes made in eqiial shares ; and in some the 
 loss appears to have been distributed in the way of general 
 average contribution (k). The principle or idea underlying 
 the rule seems to have been that collision was a peril of the 
 sea — a common misfortune to be borne by all parties, either 
 equall}' or rateably according to their interests at risk. 
 
 The rule of dividing the loss being foimd in the Laws of The Enirlish 
 Oleron and the early codes, the judges of the Lnglish 
 Admiralty were at a loss to find reasons for applying it when 
 negligence was proved against one or both ships. The idea 
 of a collision having been caused by negligence does not seem 
 to have been present to the minds of the framers of the Laws 
 of Oleron; and it is not very distinct in the later codes. 
 When, in the early part of the seventeenth centiu-y, collision 
 cases became frequent in the Admii'alty Court, the question 
 of negligence comes into prominence; and it is just at this 
 time that sentences dividing the loss fii'st appear in the 
 records. Whether, previously to this date, loss arising from 
 collision was, in practice and in fact, di\dded, is uncertain. 
 There is no record earlier than the seventeenth century of loss 
 by collision having been divided by a sentence of the English 
 Admiralty. In the seventeenth century there are many 
 sentences dividing or apportioning the loss ; but the reasons 
 given for dividing the loss are various and inconsistent. 
 Sometimes it is because the collision was not wilful, sometimes 
 because of the difficulty of proving negligence (/), sometimes 
 
 (A) "Le dommage doit estre ap- Book, i. 108; ii. 'i-iO, 1449; iii. lil. 
 prisie et party par moitie ontre les (i) De bon piv. 
 
 deux nefs, et les vins qui sent dedens {k) See further, :i8 to \hoHv codoH, 
 
 les deux nefH doivent partir du dom- the note at the foot of tl.iH cliapt^T. 
 mage entre les marchaunts " : Black (0 Cf. GrotuiB, De jure belh et
 
 120 THE RULE AS TO DIVISION OF LOSS. 
 
 because of the difficulty of apportioning the loss to the degree 
 of fault. As the idea of liability for negligence developed, 
 and nautical experts were called in to assist the Admiralty 
 judges in dealing with questions of seamanship, so the neces- 
 sity for finding some intelligible reason for the arbitrary 
 rusticum judicmm became apparent. So late as 1648 a 
 sentence occurs in which its application is expressed to depend 
 upon the principles of general average contribution. Not 
 until the last century is it expressly applied to a ease where 
 both ships are found to be in fault ; and as late as 1 789 it is 
 applied where neither ship was in fault. The development, 
 in the common law courts, of the doctrine of contributory 
 negligence probably supplied a plausible reason for the 
 application of the rule in the case of " both to blame " ; and 
 also for confining its application to that case alone. Further 
 information as to the history of the rule in mediseval law, and 
 in the English Admiralty, will be found in the note at the 
 foot of the present chapter. 
 Policy of As to the policy and justice of the rule, there has been 
 
 much difference of opinion. Cleirac approves of it upon the 
 questionable ground that the law must not give any induce- 
 ment to the owners of old and worthless ships to get them 
 run down for the sake of the damages they may recover {m) . 
 That he had not a high opinion of its justice seems probable 
 from his stigmatizing it as judicium rusticorum (n), a term 
 applied to it also by Chancellor Kent (o). In the coui-ts of 
 
 pacis, 1. 2, c. 17, § 21 ; Loccen- ington, The Lady Campbell, 2 Hag. 
 tius, 1. 3, c. 9, § 11 ; Valin, wur Ad. 5 ; and Sir R. Phillimore in 
 rOrdonnance, 1. 3, tit. 7, Art. 11, The Macleod, 5 P. D. 25-1. 
 vol. 2, 183, " par la difficulte de re- (>i) " Les jurisconsultes norament 
 connoitre de quel cote est la faute, et qualifient cette decision par moitie 
 et juger meme si la faute est de judicium rustieorutn . . . et se prat- 
 nature a meriter que celui a qui tique ordinairement par les arbitres, 
 elle est imputee supporte elle dom- arbitrateurs, et amiables composi- 
 mage en entier, il arrive presque teurs, lors et quand I'interieur des 
 tou jours que le dommage req'U de parties, ou le motifs de la question 
 part et d' autre est juge avarie com- n'est pas a descouvert et conneu ; ou 
 mune." bien quand il y a de la coulpe de part 
 (m) " Est considerable que les et d'autre — aut quando sunt diversee 
 gens de mer sont ordiuairement judiciiiii opiniones hinc et incle prohahxl. 
 enclins au mal et a la baraterie " : Boer. dec. 12, n. 32 — tel fut le juge- 
 Cleirac, Us et Coustumes de la Mer, ment recouneu tant juridic du sage 
 p. 68; Boulay Paty, tit. 12, s. 6- — Roy Salomon, qu'il donna sur la 
 a low estimate of maritime morality, question naturele entre deux mers" 
 shared by judges of the Admiralty {sic). 
 in recent times. See per Dr. Lush- (o) 3 Kent's Comm. § 231.
 
 MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1854. 
 
 121 
 
 this country it has been much abused. Lord Denman, C. J., 
 said of it : "It is an arbitrary provision of the law of nations, 
 not dictated by natural justice, nor, possibly, quite consistent 
 with it" (p). And more recently Lord Selborne, C, spoke 
 of it in similar terms {q). The arguments adduced in its 
 favour are as fanciful as they are ilivergent. The reason 
 given by Cleirac, that, but for it, shipowners would purposely 
 get their ships run down, on the chance of recovering exces- 
 sive damages, seems far-fetched. That the rule conduces to 
 safety at sea, by encouraging shipmasters to take ever}' possible 
 precaution (r), or that it makes masters of large ships more 
 careful of small ones (s), as has been suggested by other 
 authorities, is at least doubtful. That it tends to avoid inter- 
 minable litigation, as has been stated by a high authority in 
 this country {t), is not evident. Lindley, L. J., is of ophiion 
 that, where the negligence of the two ships is equal, it works 
 better justice than the rule of the common law. " Why, in 
 such a case, the damages should (at common law) not be 
 apportioned, I do not profess to understand" {u). In some 
 cases, however, as applied in this country, it works positive 
 injustice. It prevents the innocent owner of cargo on board 
 either ship from recovering from the wrong-doing owner of 
 either ship more than half his loss {x) : and it works in an 
 arbitrary and uncertain manner when combined with the 
 statutory limitation of liability {//). 
 
 By 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 298, where both ships iiifriuged Mmhaut 
 the statutory steering rule, the Admiralty rule as to division igS'J'"'*'' " * 
 of loss was, in effect, repealed. Where one of the ships. A., 
 infringed the statutory rule, and the other, B., was in fault 
 in some other respect {e.g., look-out), A. could recover 
 nothing, while B. recovered half his loss. If both ships were 
 
 (^j De Vaux v. Salvador, 4 Ad. & 
 El. 420. 
 
 {q) 7 App. Gas. 799. 
 
 (r) Gelle-ci est fondec siir une 
 raison d'interet public, a fin de 
 rendre lea maitres des iiavires plus 
 soigneux a prendre toutcs les pre- 
 cautions possibles pour eviter cet 
 abordage : Pothier, vol. 4, p. 444, 
 Avaries, § loo. 
 
 («) See Bell's Coinin. (ed. 1870, by 
 McLaren), i. 627. 
 
 {t) See perliOvA. Blackburn, 7 App. 
 Gas. 819. 
 
 (k) The Bernina, 12 P. D. 58, 89. 
 
 (x) See per Lord Blackburn, ibid. ; 
 The Milan, Lush. 388 ; but see The 
 Bernitut, 13 App. Gas. 1 ; The Frank- 
 land, (1901) P. IGl, 1(37 ; and supra, 
 p. 96, note (h), as to tlie authority 
 of The Milan. 
 
 {y) The Voorwaarts and The Khe- 
 dive, 7 App. Gae. 796.
 
 122 
 
 THE RULE AS TO DIVISION OF LOSS. 
 
 Judicature 
 Act. 
 
 in fault cargo owners could recover half their loss in all cases. 
 This unsatisfactory state of the law was put an end to by 
 25 & 26 Yict. c. 63 (;:). 
 
 Before the passing of the Judicature Act the rule as to 
 division of loss had no application except in the Court of 
 Admiralty. Elsewhere the rule that a person cannot recover 
 damages for loss caused wholly or in part by his own 
 negligence was applied in collision as in all other cases. The 
 Judicature Act (36 & 37 Vict. c. 66), s. 25, sub.-s. 9, enacts 
 as follows : — 
 
 In any cause or proceeding for damages arising out of a 
 collision between two ships (a), if both ships shall be found to 
 have been in fault, the rules hitherto in force in the Court of 
 Admiralty, so far as they have been at variance with the rules 
 in force in the Courts of common law, shall prevail (i). 
 
 The law, therefore, as to the incidence of loss where both 
 ships are in fault, is now the same in all the Courts (c) . 
 
 The rule prevails in some, but not in all, the colonies and 
 dependencies of Great Britain. In Canada, by a recent 
 statute (d), it applies in the common law as well as 
 Admiralty Courts. In St. Lucia it applies where the cause 
 of collision is unknown, where both ships are in fault, and 
 also in the case of inscrutable fault (e). 
 It applies to The rule applies to all collisions, whatever the nationality 
 whatever the o^ ^^6 ships, and wherever the collision occurs. Thus it has 
 
 Colonial law. 
 
 (s) Continued by 57 & 58 Vict. 
 c. 60, s. 419. See further as to this, 
 supra, p. 40. 
 
 («) These words are construed 
 liberally: The Duns fanhorotiffh, supra, 
 pp. 14, 22 ; and see the insurance 
 cases, itifra, pp. 271 seq. 
 
 {b) The marginal note to this 
 section is " Damages by collision at 
 sea." The words "at sea" do not 
 restrict the operation of the Act : 
 Sutton V. Sutton, 22 Ch. D. 511. 
 
 (c) At the passing of the Judi- 
 cature Acts the Admiralty rule 
 narrowly escaped abolition. In the 
 original draft of the Act it was 
 provided that the common law rule 
 should prevail ; but in the passage 
 of the bill through the House of 
 Commons the Admiralty rule was 
 reinstated, and ultimately made the 
 
 law of the land. The reasons for 
 preferring the Admiralty to the 
 common law rule are not apparent. 
 It appears to have been thought 
 that the former was more in arcord 
 with the law of foreign countries. 
 See Hansard's Pari. Debates, 3rd 
 ser. vol. 216, pp. 1800, 1801. A 
 shoi't summary of foreign laws upon 
 the point is appended to this chapter. 
 It wiU be seen that they are widely 
 divergent. 
 
 [d] 43 Vict. c. 29, 8. 8 (Canada). 
 
 {e) Civil Code of St. Lucia (1876), 
 Art. 2360. " If the cause of colli- 
 sion be unknown, or it be impossible 
 to determine by whose fault it was 
 caused, or if both ships are in fault, 
 the damages are borne in equal 
 portions by both ships."
 
 occurs. 
 
 SINCE THE JUDICATURE ACT. 123 
 
 been applied where both the ships were British (/") ; both nationality ..f 
 
 foreign (;/) ; one British and one foreign (//) ; where the ww'vor th"-^ 
 
 collision was in British waters (i) ; in foreign waters (/•) ; and ^^oHi-'^i^n 
 
 on the high seas (/). And, as stated above, it applies whether 
 
 the action is in Admiralty or in a Court not having 
 
 Admiralty jurisdiction (w). Whether the rule is lex loci or 
 
 /ex fori does not appear to have been decided. No question 
 
 has been raised in any case as to its universal application. 
 
 In the Court of Admiralty it was administered as part of 
 
 the law maritime; though it is doubtful whether it ever 
 
 formed part of any general system of maritime law. 
 
 As has been abeady stated, the law apportions the loss The loss is 
 where both ships are in fault by obliging each wrong-doer to tlj^^l^if^sh^r^^"' 
 pay half the loss of the other. Thus, if the loss on ship A. whatever the 
 is 1,000/. and that on B. is 2,000/., A. can recover 500/. fauTt^iu^each 
 against B., and B. can recover 1,000/. against A. The ^'"P 
 Courts make no attempt to administer distributive justice by 
 apportioning the loss according to the degree of fault of 
 which each ship is guilty (n). " Until the case of Ilai/ v. Le 
 Neve . . . there was a question in the Admiralty Court 
 whether you were not to apportion it (the loss) according to 
 
 (/) The R. L. Alston, 8 P. D. 5 ; the case of a collision between 
 
 Tlie Monte Rosa, (1893) P. 23; The Singapore and Som-abaya between 
 
 Vera Cruz, 9 P. D. 88, 96. two ships beloag-ing to the same 
 
 [g) The North Atnerican and The owners, British subjects, but regis- 
 
 Tecla Carmen, Lush. 79; Chartered tered under a foreign flag : Charlerrd 
 
 Mercantile Bank of India, ^c. v. Mercantile Bank of India, S;c. v. 
 
 Netherlands India Steam Navigation Netherlands India Steam Navigation 
 
 Co., 10 Q. B. D. 521 ; The Washing- Co., 10 Q. B. D. 521. 
 ton, 5 Jur. 1067 ; The Monarch, 1 W. (m) Trew c. Peirce, The Marg of 
 
 Rob. 21. Poole and The Mary of Wcymuath, 
 
 (h) The Voorwaarts and The Khe- Ad. Ct. 7th July, 1692, infra, 
 
 dive, 7 App. Gas. 795; Chapman v. p. 139 ; Thr Petersjield and The Judith 
 
 Rotjal Netherlands, icc Co., 4 P. D. Randolph (1789), cited in the next 
 
 157; TheRonaaiiidLTheAva,2Ks,^. case; Hay v. Le Neve, 2 Shaw's 
 
 M. C. 182; The Vera Cruz, 9 P. D. (Sc.) App. Cas. 395, and see the 
 
 88 : The Seringapatam, 3 W. Rob. 38. cases mentioned below, pp. 137 seq. ; 
 
 (i) See note (/), above. per Lord Blackburn, The Khedive and 
 
 {k\ Hay v. Le Neve, 2 Shaw's (Sc.) The Voorwaarts, 7 App. Caa. 795, 
 
 App. Cas. 395; the collision was in 808; The Margaret, 9 P. D. 47, 51 ; 
 
 Scotland. The Meteor, Ir. Rep. 9 Eq. 567. 
 
 (/) The llona and The Ava, 2 Asp. The dictum of Lord Caini-b.-ll in The 
 
 M. C. 182. In The Monarch, 1 W. Friends, 4 Moo. P. C 314, 322, to 
 
 Rob. 21, the collision was " at sea" ; the effect that the loss may bo ap- 
 
 in The Washington, 5 Jur. 1067, off portioned according to the degree of 
 
 Berry Head ; in The Seringapafam, 3 fault in each ship, is without autlio- 
 
 W. Rob. 38, off Beachy Head. rlty. As to the law in Anu-nca on 
 
 Im) It was held by the Queen's this point, see infra, p. 130, note (rf). 
 Bench Division to be applicable in
 
 124 
 
 THE RULE AS TO DIVISION OF LOSS. 
 
 the degree in which they (the two ships) were to blame. 
 But now it is, I think, quite settled, and there is no dispute 
 about it, that the rule of the Admiralty is, that if there 
 is blame causing the accident on both sides they are to 
 divide the loss equally ; just as the rule of law is, that if 
 there is blame causing the accident on both sides, however 
 small that blame may be on one side, the loss lies where 
 it falls" (o). 
 Principle of The principle of the rule is said to be equality of participa- 
 
 Cases ill which ^^^u in a loss arising from a common fault (/>). To bring the 
 it applies. rule into operation, both ships must be guilty of negligence 
 contributing to the loss {q). But the common fault, or rather 
 the acts of negligence committed by the ships respectively, 
 need not, it seems, be both faults contributing to the collision. 
 Thus a schooner at anchor, whose sole fault consisted in 
 having her anchor suspended from her hawse in a position 
 likely to do damage if a collision occurred, was held liable for 
 half the loss suffered by the other vessel, a dumb barge, that 
 negligently went foul of the schoonei-, and was pierced and 
 sunk by the schooner's anchor (y). Nor is it necessary that 
 there should be a collision, in the sense that one or both ships 
 must be under way. A steamship and a dumb barge were 
 moored at the same buoy. The fluke of the steamship's 
 anchor, whicli was improperly hanging from the hawse pipe, 
 holed and capsized the barge, as the steamship rose in the 
 water in consequence of her cargo being discharged. The 
 barge had been negligently left with no one on board her, 
 and the damage might have been avoided by slacking her 
 headfast. Both steamship and barge were held in fault, and 
 the loss divided (.s). So where (f) the negligence of one ship 
 consisted in not beaching the injured craft after the collision, 
 
 (o) Fer Lord Blackburn, Cayzer v. 
 Carron Co., 9 App. Cas. 873, 881. 
 
 [p] See per Lord Stowell in The 
 Woodrop Sims, 2 Dods. 83 ; per Lord 
 Selborne, C, in The Voorwaarts and 
 The Khedive, 7 App. Cas. 795, 801. 
 See also The Lima, 4 Jur. N. S. 147; 
 The Aurora, Lush. 327 ; The Seringa- 
 patnm, 5 Not. of Cas. 66 ; The Celt, 
 3 Hag. 328 ; and^oer Lopes, L. J., The 
 Bernina, 12 P. D. 58, 95 (joint liability 
 for joint negligence). See, however, 
 infra, pp. 132 seq., for other reasons 
 
 given for the rule in early cases. 
 
 iq) The Franklancl, L. E,. 4 P. C. 
 529, 533 ; The Rona and The Ava, 2 
 Asp. M. C. 182 ; Cayzer v. Carron Co., 
 9 App. Cas. 873. 
 
 (?•) The Margaret, 6 P. D. 76. 
 
 (s) The Funstan borough, (1892) P. 
 363, note. It is difficult to reconcile 
 this case with The Monte Rosa, (1893) 
 P. 23. Cf. The McCallum and The 
 Odette, 7 Duval (Canada), 36. 
 
 {t) The Scotia, 6 Asp. M. C. 541 ; 
 diet. The Rornet, (1892) P. 361.
 
 ITS PRINCIPLE WHEN IT APPLIES. 
 
 125 
 
 and where (ii) the plaintiff, though not in fault for the 
 collision, might have lessened the consequent loss, the 
 damages were divided. The rule has also been applied in the 
 case of a collision between a ship being launched and another 
 under wa}', where the fault in the former was committed bv 
 the people ashore in starting her on the ways at an iiuprojier 
 moment (.r). 
 
 Whether the rule applies where the two ships are both iu Doe« the rule 
 fault for the collision, but the collision is not between them- whef." tiit-two 
 selves, is not clear. Whether, for example, in the ease of ';'"f'''. '"':_,'" 
 damage to a tow or to a tug by the fault of both tug and tow, 
 or where there is a collision between ships A. and B. by the 
 fault of one or both of them, and of a third ship C, A. or B. 
 could recover half her loss from C, has not been decided (//). 
 In America the rule has been applied where the collision was 
 between a ship at anchor and another in tow by the fault of 
 the tug and the ship at anchor (s) ; also, where a ship in tow 
 and her tug were both in fault for a collision between the tow 
 and a third ship. 
 
 In T/ie Difjhy Grand {a), a tug A., towing a vessel B., was 
 struck and injured by the tow-rope of another tug C, which, 
 being ahead of A., was also towing B. It was held that the 
 damage was caused by negligence of tug C. in having too 
 long a scope of tow-line out, and also by the negligence of 
 tug A. in not keeping clear of the tow-line. The damages 
 appear to have been divided ; but no question upon this point 
 
 was raised. 
 
 In The Celt the Court refused to apply the rule where the 
 fault of one ship was in no way a cause of the collision, and 
 consisted in not standing by to assist the other (i), there being 
 at that date no statutory rule corresponding to the Merchant 
 Shipping Act, 1894, s. 422. 
 
 The application of the rule where one of the ships in col- wi.ore tho 
 lision is in tow, and both are in fault, has not been fully HilJJ'l^ju't^;,. 
 considered in this country. It seems that, whether tho ship 
 
 (m) The B. 4- C, 18 Fed. Rep. 543. [z) The James Gray and Th, John 
 
 (x) The United Slates, 12 L. T. 3:5. Frmer, 21 How. 184 
 
 \y) As in The Ener.jy, L. R. 3 A. («) Ad. Ct. 30th April, 1H.S4. 
 
 & E. 48 ; and see The Avon and The [b) 3 Hag. 321, 
 
 Thoims Joliffji, (1891) P. 7.
 
 THE RULE AS TO DIVISION OF LOSS. 
 
 in tow, or her tug, is alone in fault, or whether both tow and 
 tug are in fault, the tow is, in a case of ordinary towage, 
 liable for half of the damage to the third ship (c). 
 
 A barque in tow sank or injured a third ship. An action 
 in rem was brought against the barque and her tug. Judg- 
 ment by default for 4,146/. 10.^. 2d., the amount of the loss 
 on the third ship, went against the barque. The action pro- 
 ceeded against the tug, and judgment given that both tug 
 and third ship were in fault. It was held that the tug 
 owners were liable for 2,073/. without deducting therefrom, 
 as they claimed, a sum of 855/. bs. hi., the net proceeds 
 of the sale of the barque, which had been paid out of Court 
 to the plaintiffs (cl) . 
 
 In America, where three ships were all in fault for a 
 collision between two of them, the loss was divided between 
 all three {e) . There is no precedent for such an extension 
 of the rusticorum judicium in England. So where a third ship 
 was damaged by the fault of the ship in tow, and one of two 
 tugs (belonging to the same owner) which were transporting 
 her, the damages were divided equally between the ship in 
 tow and the tugs (./). Where both a tug and her tow were 
 in fault for damage done to the tow by collision with a pier, 
 each was condemned in half the damages {g) . In another 
 American case, half damages only were given, where the 
 injured craft was so old and weak that she sank, whereas a 
 staunch craft would have kept afloat notwithstanding the 
 collision (/?) . 
 
 The rule has been extended in America to cases where two 
 ships, as a tug and her tow, are both in fault for a colHsion 
 with a third, which is free from fault. The judgment in such 
 a case goes, not against each ship for the whole of the 
 damages, but against each ship for half the damages, with a 
 
 (c) The Englishman and The Am- Fed. Rep. 698. And see The Anerly, 
 
 tralia, (1894) P. 239, where the 58 Fed. 794. 
 
 collision was between tug and thii-d (/) The Express, b'l Fed. Rep. 
 
 ship. 890. 
 
 Id) The Morgingrij and The Black- (g) The .Jonty Jenks, 54 Fed. Rep. 
 
 cock, (1900) P. 1. 1021 ; The Express, 52 Fed. Rep. 
 
 (e) The I'eshtigo, 25 Fed. 488 ; The 890. 
 
 Brothers, 2 Biss. 104 ; The Maling, {h) The Gilson, 35 Fed. Rep. 333. 
 
 110 Fed. Rep. 227 ; The Harold, 84 And see cases there cited.
 
 APPLICATION WHERE ONE SHIP IS IN TOW. 
 
 127 
 
 remedy over against each ship in case the other fails to pay 
 the amount in which she is condemned (/). 
 
 The application of the rule produces singular results where Application 
 one or both ships limit tiieir liability under the Merchant *^^V'*''r"!'-i-. 
 
 I _ * whcrf liability 
 
 Shipping Acts. Two sliips, The Voonaiarts and T/ie Khedhe, is limiiod. 
 having been in collision, the owners of The Vooriraurf.s brought 
 an action in rem in the Admiralty Division against the owners 
 of The Khedive, who counterclaimed for the uniotint of the loss The Voor- 
 sufPered by their own ship (/.). Both ships were iield in fault 'JJ'^J/Jjf,., 
 for the collision. The owners of The Khedire brought an 
 action in the Admiralty Division to limit their liability and 
 paid the amount of their statutory liability into Court. The 
 damage to The Voorwaarts was greater than that to The Khe- 
 dive, and the fund in Court was not sufficient to satisfy all the 
 claims for which the owners of The IChedive were answerable. 
 It was held by the House of Lords (/), oven-uling a previous 
 decision of the Court of Appeal (w),that the owners of The 
 Vooncaarh were entitled to prove against the fund in Coui-t 
 for a moiety of theii- loss, less a moiety of the loss of The Khe- 
 dive, and to be paid out of the fund in respect of the balance 
 pari passu with the other claimants. By the decision of the 
 Court of Appeal (m), it had been held that the ship proving 
 against the fund in Court was entitled to prove for half her 
 loss, without deducting anything in respect of her Kabiiity to 
 
 the other ship. 
 
 The question to be decided was whether in such cases there 
 are two liabilities in damages, one on the part of each ship- 
 owner to the other shipowner for half the loss of the latter, 
 or only one liability, namely, a liability on the part of 
 
 (() Thr sterling and The Equator, blameless. Aud Baggallay, L. J. 
 
 16 Otto, 647; following The Alabama (4 V. D. 170), points out that the 
 
 and The Gamecock, 2 Otto, 695. loss to the owners of The Khedive 
 
 (k) Stoomvaart Mautxchappij Neder- was the same as if their ship were 
 
 landv Feninsular and Oriental Steam alone in fault. Thus, where both 
 
 Navigation Co., 7 App. Cas. 795. ships are in fault, and one hunt* 
 
 (/i Lord Biamwell (in an opinion her liability under the statute, her 
 
 which was written by him, but not owner.-., inasmuch as they lose the 
 
 delivered ; see 7 App. Oas. note, right to recover damages again.st tlie 
 
 pp 8''6 827) points out that some other ship, are ludiivctly answcrabio 
 
 of the 'results following from the in damages to a greater amount than 
 
 decision of the House of Lords are the statutory limit, 
 of doubtful equity or justice ; that {m) Chapman v. JCogal A,;th,rlan<f» 
 
 by it the owners of The Voorwaartu Steam Navigation Co., 4 e. V. lH . 
 were as well off as if their ship were
 
 128 
 
 THE RULE AS TO DIVISION OF LOSS. 
 
 the owner of the ship that had done the greater damage, for 
 the difference between half the loss of the one ship and half 
 the loss of the other — in the words of Lord Selborne, " a 
 raoiety of the excess of the aggregate loss beyond the point 
 of equality." It was held that the terms in which the rule 
 of the Admiralty was laid down in TJie Woodrop Si)»s, The 
 Lord MehiUe, The Petersfield and The Judith Randolph, and 
 Hay V. Le Neve, showed that in substance there was but one 
 action and one final judgment ; and that such final judgment 
 was for the balance between a moiety of the loss of the one 
 and a moiety of the loss of the other. The later cases of The 
 Washington and The Catherine (n), The Seringapatam {o), and 
 The Tec/a Carmen (p), were cited as confirming this view. 
 
 The effect of this decision will be best seen by an illus- 
 tration. Let the loss on ship A. be 10,000/., the loss on ship 
 B. 20,000/., the loss on cargo on board B. 40,000/., and the 
 statutory liability of A. 24,000/. According to the decision 
 of the House of Lords the owners of B. recover 4,800/. ; that 
 is to say, A. is entitled to recover 5,000/., being half his 
 damages, B. is entitled to recover 10,000/., being half of his 
 damages, and the cargo owner 20,000/., being half of his 
 damages. But from B.'s 10,000/. must be deducted A.'s 
 5,000/., leaving 5,0u0/. to prove against the fund in Court, 
 which 5,000/. is one-fifth of such fund. In practice the pro- 
 portions are seldom so simple, but the above facts sufficiently 
 illustrate the existing law, the main feature of which is that 
 the higher claim, less the opponent claim, is recoverable 
 against the fund in Court. Another result of the decision of 
 the House of Lords is that, where the loss on each ship is the 
 same, and eacli ship limits her liability, the whole of the sum 
 paid into Court is divisible between the owners of cargo on 
 board the two ships, whilst the shipowners get nothing. On 
 the whole, therefore, the present law favours cargo-owners at 
 the expense of shipowners. 
 
 («) 5 Jur. 1067. loss. See itifra, p. 139. In Hol- 
 
 (o) 3 W. Rob. 38, 44. land the same decision was arrived 
 
 {2)) Lush. 79. To these may be at in a case mentioned in Bynkers- 
 
 added the early cases of TFilliaii/s c. hoek, Qusest. Jur. Priv. 1. 4, c. 21. 
 
 Marten and Rotnen c. Humble, Ad. See also Tlie Sapphire, 18 Wall. 51 ; 
 
 Ct., 1675 and 1698, where the sen- The Manitoba, 15 Davis, 97. 
 
 tence was in terms for the balance of
 
 COMPULSORY PILOT DIVISION OF LOSS. 
 
 121« 
 
 It follows from the above decision that where both ships Riarht of 
 
 , , ,1 . , ^• ^ •^'i• i j. • _i iiisiired under 
 
 are to blame there arise, not cross habihties, but a single ruuning- 
 liability for a balance upon the owners of the ship that has <i"^vn dtmse. 
 sustained the smaller damage ; and therefore the shipowners 
 to whom the balance is payable are not entitled, whether on 
 behalf of themselves or of their iinderwi-iters on ship, to 
 recover against underwriters who have agreed to indemnify 
 them against " loss or damage to anj' other vessel," they 
 being under no liability in respect of such loss or damage (</). 
 
 Wliere two ships, A. and B., are both in fault for a DiviHion of 
 collision, and the fault of B. is entirely that of the com- llJI^^ ^^^j*;"]; 
 pulsorv pilot (r) in charge of her, the owners of B. will iu charge of 
 recover half their loss against A., whilst the owners ot A. can pHot. 
 recover nothing. Her owners are not liable at law, and no 
 damage lien attaclies to the ship. But the fault of the pilot 
 affects the owners of B., and the owners of cargo on board 
 her, to this extent : it brings into operation the rule as to 
 division of loss, and prevents them from recovering more 
 than half their loss(.s). Moreover, though successful upon 
 their defence of "compulsory pilot." they will obtain no 
 costs (t). In the case last mentioned the owners of the 
 ship in cliarge of the compulsory pilot are entitled to 
 judgment for half their loss, without deducting an3^thing 
 on account of the loss of the other ship. The principle of 
 the decision in The Khedive {u) does not apply in such a case. 
 
 The case of The Hector {x), in which these points were The ihctor. 
 decided, was as follows :— A coUision occurred between The 
 Augudus and The Hector, caused by the fault of the crew of 
 The Augustus and the fault of the compulsory pilot of The 
 Hector. The rule as to division of loss was applied. The 
 loss of The Augustus was 3,000/. ; that of Tlw Hector 8,000/. 
 It was contended that the owners of The Hector could recover 
 only 2,500/. {i.e., half her loss, namely, 4,000/. less l,50(i/., 
 half the loss of The Augustus) ; that this resulted from the 
 
 (n) The London Hleamnhip Assur- recover only half their loss follows 
 
 ame Association v. m^ Grampian from The Milan, Lunh 388 lint 
 
 Hleamship Co., 24 Q. B. D. 82 ; on see as to thin case, pp^ 47, l.iO. 
 appeal, ibrd. 663. (<) Th^ J^'Ohorgx .^I'»dr, « • • I' 
 
 (r) See below, p. 214, as to com- 132. n 7q<; 
 
 pulsorv pih.ta^e. (" 7 App^ Gas. 795. 
 
 (.,) The Hector, 8 P. D. 218. That {x) 8 P. D. 218. 
 
 the owners of cargo on board B. can
 
 130 
 
 THE RULE AS TO DIVISION OF LOSS. 
 
 Cargo- owners 
 not bound by 
 shipowners' 
 agreement of 
 both to blame. 
 
 Collision 
 between ships 
 of the same 
 
 of owners of 
 
 decision in the case of The Kliedvce (y), considered with refer- 
 ence to 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 388. The Court of Appeal 
 declined to apply the principle of the decision in The Khedive, 
 a case where the owners of both ships were liable, to the case 
 before them, in which the owners of only one ship were 
 liable (s). 
 
 An agreement between the shipowners that both ships, A. 
 and B., were in fault, does not prevent the owner of cargo on 
 board B., in an action by the owner of A. to limit his 
 liability, from asserting that A. was alone in fault ; and he 
 is entitled to an issue upon that question («). 
 
 The rule as to division of loss where both ships are in fault 
 has been held to apply where a cargo-owner was suing 
 owner ; rights |^]^q shipowner for loss incurred in a collision between the 
 carrying ship and another ship belonging to the same 
 owners, caused by the fault of both ships (i). The ship- 
 owner was protected from liability for the negligence of 
 those in charge of the carrying ship by the terms of the 
 bill of lading. It was held that he was nevertheless liable in 
 tort (c) for the negligence of those on board the other ship ; 
 but his liability was for half only of the loss ; in respect of 
 the other half of the loss, it was held that he was relieved by 
 the bill of lading. 
 
 It follows from the above considerations that the rule as to 
 division of loss is not merely a restriction upon the common 
 law doctrine of contributory negligence. It not only gives a 
 remedy where by the common law there is none, but it also 
 abridges a right which formerly existed at law, but now does 
 not. When both ships were in fault, the innocent owner of 
 cargo on board either ship could formerly, in a common law 
 action for tort, have recovered the whole of his loss against 
 the owners of either ship. In Admiralty it was held that he 
 
 The rule gives 
 and also takes 
 away or 
 abridges a 
 remedy. 
 
 (»/) Stoomvaart Maafschappy Neder- 
 land V. P. ^- 0. Steam Navigation Co., 
 7 App. Cas. 795. 
 
 (z) The dictum of Brett, L. J., in 
 Chapman v. Royal Netherlands Steam 
 Navigation Co., 4 P. D. 157, 184, to 
 the effect that the phrase, " answer- 
 able in damages" in sect. 54 ot 25 & 
 26 Vict. c. 63, is applicable to the 
 last stage of the litigation between 
 
 the ships, that is, to half the dif- 
 feience between the losses on the 
 two ships respectively, cannot, after 
 this decision, be supported. 
 
 («) The Karo, 13 P. D. 24. 
 
 yb) Chartered Mercantile Bank of 
 India v. Netherlands India Steam 
 Naviqution Co., 10 Q. B. D. 521. 
 
 [cj Cf . Hayn v. Culltford, 4 C. P. D. 
 182.
 
 COMPULSORY PILOT CARGO-OWNERS. 
 
 131 
 
 could recover no more than half his loss against the owner of Car^o-owuer 
 the other ship (d) ; and since the Judicature Acts the rule is oiJy'hSf hi« 
 now the same at law. In an action upon the contract of ^''** ^" ^^'■*- 
 carriage, the rule as to division of loss has no application. 
 The cargo-owner can, subject to the terras of the bill of 
 lading, recover full damages (e). The Jlcctor [ubi .sitpra) also 
 shows that the innocent owner of a ship injured by fault on 
 the part of her compulsory pilot, and also on the part of 
 
 (d) The Milan, Lush. 388. So 
 also in Canada : T/ie Elizn Keith and 
 The Langshaw, 3 Quebec L. R. 143. 
 Qit. whether these cases are affected 
 br The Bernhia, 12 P. D. 58, 83 ; 
 Th^ Franklaud, (1901) P. 161, 167. 
 
 The American Courts have not 
 followed The .Vila// : see The 
 Britannic, 39 Fed. Rep. 395 ; The 
 Atla'<, 3 Otto, 302; The Juniata, 
 ibid. 337 ; The New York, 175 U. S! 
 Rep. 187. It is held that the cargo- 
 owner is entitled (subject to the 
 statutory limitation of the ship- 
 owner's liability) to recover the 
 whole of his loss against one or 
 other, or both, of the shipowners. 
 In the first instance the decree goes 
 against each shipowner for half the 
 loss ; but each shipowner has a 
 remedy over against the other in 
 respect of any balance of the 
 damages which the latter fails to 
 discharge : see Coombs v. Duncan, 
 1 Fed. Rep. 733 ; The Boris Eckhoff, 
 41 Fed. Rep. 156. This applies also 
 to damages for loss of life or personal 
 iujury, where such damages are 
 recoverable : The Max Morris. 30 
 Dav. 1. But if one of the ship- 
 owners, pending suit, purchases at 
 an undervalue the claims of his 
 cargo- owners, he cannot prove 
 against the other ship for more than 
 the price he paid for such claims : 
 The Portia, 64 Fed. Rep. 811. In 
 The Victory and The Plijmothian, 68 
 Fed. Rep. 395, where the fault of 
 The Victory was greater than the 
 fault of The Plyinothian, the decree 
 went against The Victory for her full 
 value, though it was more than half 
 the value of the cargo lost in The 
 Flymnlhian, and against The Ply- 
 inothiiin for the balance. On appeal, 
 however, the Supreme Court varied 
 this de'iree by finding The Victory 
 alone in fault: S. C. on app., 168 
 U. S. Rep. 410. 
 
 In The Mary Ida, 20 Fed. Rep. 
 74], the damages were apportioned 
 between the two ships in the ratio of 
 three to one, according to the degree 
 of fault in cither ship. Whether this 
 case would be upheld Uy the Supreme 
 Court seems doubtful. See The 
 Maling, 110 Fed. Rep. 227; The 
 David Dotes, 16 Fed. Rep. 154. In 
 The Hercules, 20 Fed. Rep. 205, the 
 owner of one of the ships, against 
 whom his cargo-owners had recovered 
 full damages, was allowed to deduct 
 half the amount from the damages 
 payable by him to the owner of the 
 other ship. 
 
 The cargo-owner is entitled to full 
 indemnity, and is in no case liable 
 for loss on the other ship ; not even 
 when he is owner of ship as well as 
 of the cargo in her. And in the 
 same case, and for like reasons, he 
 cannot set off his loss on cargo against 
 damages payable by him in respect 
 of injury to the other ship : The 
 Bristol, 29 Fed. Rep. S67. 
 
 Where the two ships are both in 
 fault for collision with a third, they 
 are jointly and several!}' liable : and 
 if one only is sued, the decree goes 
 against her for the whole of the 
 damages: The Atlas, 3 Otto, 302; 
 The Charles Allen, 11 Fed. Rep. 317; 
 but there is a right of contribution 
 between them ; and either, if sued 
 separately, may apply to biiug in 
 the other : see infra, p. 193. 
 
 The rule as to division of loss him 
 a wider application in America, and 
 is notconfiued to the case of collision, 
 and has been applied where a ship 
 was lost ashore by the fault of her 
 tug and third parties : The Young 
 America, 26 Fed. Rep. 174. 
 
 (e) The Bmhire, 5 Asp. M. C. 416 ; 
 the dictum of Brett, M. R. (10 
 Q. B. 0. 538), applies to nctious in 
 tort. As to the law in America on 
 this point, see p. 268, infra. 
 
 k2
 
 13 
 
 THE RULE A8 TO DIVISION OF LOSS. 
 
 The rule ap- 
 plies where 
 a ship is 
 " deemed to 
 be in fault." 
 Not in case 
 of joint tort- 
 feasors. 
 
 Nor under 
 Lord Camp- 
 bell's Act. 
 
 those on board the other ship, is, by tlie rule of division of 
 loss, deprived of the right whioh, it seems ( /"), he formerly 
 had, of recovering full damages against the owners of the 
 other ship. 
 
 The rule of division of loss applies where one of the ships 
 is guilty of negligence in fact, and the other is " deemed to 
 be" in fault for infringement of the regulations {(/) ; but not 
 of course where two ships are to blame for a collision with 
 a third ; in such a case judgment goes against both for the 
 whole loss (h) . 
 
 Where A., one of two ships A. and B., which had been in 
 collision by the fault of both, was sued by a third ship C, 
 which in consequence of the collision A. had struck and 
 injured, and judgment had been recovered against A. by C. 
 for the amoimt of her loss, it was held that A. could 
 recover from V>. half the amount of the damages she had 
 paid to C, in addition to half her own loss in the collision 
 with B. The rule that there is no contribution between 
 wrong-doers has no application in such a case (/). 
 
 Nor does it apply to actions under Lord Campbell's Act ; 
 consequently the plaintiff, if not himself in fault, may, 
 although both ships were in fault, recover full damages. 
 The High Court of Admiralty had no jurisdiction to entertain 
 these actions, and the Judicature Act, 1873, s. 25, sub-sect. 
 9, did not apply the rule of division of loss to them (A;). But 
 
 (/) Q"- whether the fault of the 
 pilot is contributory negligence 
 affecting the shipowner: see Spai(//if 
 V. Tedcastle, 6 App. Cas. 217; and 
 cases p. 24. 
 
 {g) The Voorwaarts and The Khe- 
 dive, 7 App. Cas. 795 ; Chartered 
 Mercantile Bank of India, ^-c. v. 
 NetherlainU India Steam NavigHfirni 
 Co., 10 Q. B. D. 521 ; The Eoehmui 
 and The Lapwing, 7 App. Cas. 512 ; 
 The Vera Cruz (No. 1), 9 P. D. 88 
 (revd. on another point, 9 P. D. 96). 
 
 {h) The Avon and The Thomas 
 Joliffe. (1891) P. 7 ; The Englishman 
 and The Australia, (1894) P. 239; 
 (1895) P. 212. 
 
 (i) The Frankland, (1901) P. 161. 
 
 (A,-) The Bernina, No. 2, 11 P. D. 
 .31 ; 12 P. D. 58 ; H. L., mm. Mills 
 V. Armstrong, 13 App. Cas. 1. In 
 
 The Vera Cruz (No. 1), 9 P. D. 88, 
 Butt, J., applied the rule in such an 
 action where the proceedings were in 
 rem. This part of his judgment 
 was rendered inoperative by the 
 Court of Appeal holding that there 
 was EO jurisdiction in rem under 
 Lord Campbell's Act (9 P. D. 96). 
 And see Belden v. Chase, 43 Dav. 674, 
 691 ; Tlie Queen, 40 Fed. Rep. 867 
 (seamen, common employment) . The 
 rules as to contributory negligence 
 have, it is held, no application in a 
 Court of Admiralty, which decides 
 according to equity and conscience. 
 Thus, although a person injured on 
 shipboard, partly by his own fault, 
 does not recover full damages, he 
 recovers his hospital bill and loss of 
 wages: The Explorer, 20 Fed. Rep. 
 135; T)ie Wanderer, ibid. 140.
 
 CARGO-OWNERS SPECIAL CASES. 1'^'^ 
 
 in a case (/) in Ireland, when a pilot brought an action in 
 personam in the King's Bench Division against the owners of 
 another vessel, which had been in collision vdih that of 
 which he was in charge, and it was found that both vessels 
 were to blame, it was held by a majority of the Court 
 that the rule as to division of loss applied — this being a 
 proceeding within the meaning of the Judicature Act, 187'?, 
 s. 25, sub-sect. 9. There can be no question that the 
 Admii-alty rule was not intended to alter the common law- 
 principle that a plaintiff cannot recover any damages if he 
 has himself been guilty of contributory negligence; the above 
 decision does not seem to be in accordance with the judgment 
 of Lord Gorell in T/ic Circe [m). 
 
 The question whether the doctrine of Da vies v. M(in)i Whether the 
 applies in Admiralty — whether in the case of a collision ^licre one 
 between ships, a ship sruilty of negligence such as that of J^jrht ^'i*'^ 
 
 1 ' I o J o o ordinary eari' 
 
 the donkey-owner in Davies v. Mann can recover more than have avoid.ni 
 half her loss — has already been considered (p. 16). 
 
 Note. 
 History of the Rule as to Division of Loss. 
 
 A provision for sharing or distributing loss to ships and cargoes 
 arising from collision is contained in many of the codes of mari- 
 time law from the EoUs of Oleron to the present day. Some 
 early codes are said to date from the thirteenth century ; but 
 most, if not all, of them are founded upon the Oleron Code. 
 The best known is the Code of Wisby, a town in Gottland, and The Wisby 
 an important centre of commerce in the thirteenth and fourteenth 
 centuries. This code was printed in 15U5, and an English trans- 
 lation is contained in the " Dominion of the Sea " (ed. 1705). 
 
 The provision in the Wisby Code, and in the other codes ol' 
 northern Europe, usually takes the form of a special enactment 
 for the case of collision between a ship anchored oi- moorinl in 
 harV)Our and another under way coming into the liurbour. In 
 such a case the ship under way is required to make good the 
 
 In America the inile of division of (/) Boucher v. TkeGlyd.^ S/npptn;, 
 
 lo8H is applied in cases of personal Co., Ir. Rep. 1904, l'- ''•J^- 
 injury : The Max Morrin, aU Dav. 1. (/«) T/u Vircc, (lUOO) 1.1.
 
 134 
 
 THE RULE AS TO DIVISION OF LOSS. 
 
 The Ham- 
 burg, Han- 
 seatic, and 
 other Codes. 
 
 Danish Code. 
 
 Eastern 
 codes. 
 
 •whole of the damage to the ship brought up, unless her master 
 and crew, as in the Oleron Code, swear that the collision was 
 accidental, in which case she is to pay only half the loss. The 
 provision occurs in the laws of Wisby (Pardess. i. 401, 501 ; 
 iii. 114, 361 ; Black Book, EoUs Ser. iv. 87, 125, 284); of Ham- 
 burg (Pardess. iii. 345, 348) ; Eiga (Pardess. iii. 506) ; Lubeck 
 (Pardess. iii. 402 ; Black Book, iv. 373) ; Dantzic (Black Book, 
 iv. 435) ; Bruges (Black Book, iv. 435); Damme (Pardess. i. 379); 
 of the Hanseatic League (Pardess. ii. 551) ; and of the Nether- 
 lands (Pardess. iv. 34, 85) ; and in some of these codes it is not 
 confined to the case of one of the ships being at anchor. 
 
 The language of the different codes varies as to details, and 
 the effect of the rule is modified in different ways. Thus, the 
 Hamburg Code provides that the limit of liability shall be the 
 value of the ship that does the damage and her apparel ; and, 
 further, that the cargo-owner shall in no case be liable. The 
 Netherlands and Hanseatic Codes expressly provide that, if the 
 ship under way is herself damaged, she shall bear her own loss ; 
 and this is implied in other codes. The Hanseatic Code is not 
 clear as to the shares in which the loss on the ship at anchor is 
 to be borne, and in certain cases it is to be adjusted by arbi- 
 trators. It further provides that if a ship slips from her anchor 
 to avoid another driving on her, the loss of anchor and cable is 
 to be general average. This provision seems to be the basis of 
 the decision in the great case of Bury c. Gold, infra, p. 137. 
 The Wisby, Hanseatic, and the Netherlands Codes contain special 
 provisions as to damage done by unbuoyed anchors — a fruitful 
 source of mischief in the shallow and dry harbours of northern 
 Europe. If the unbuoyed anchor damaged another ship, the 
 ship it belonged to had to pay the whole of the loss; but if 
 the buoy had been accidentally carried away, she paid half 
 only. 
 
 Danish Codes (Pardess. iii. 237, 261, 289) of 1508, 1561 and 
 1683 divide the loss of an accidental collision according to the 
 decision of arbitrators; but in the case of collision between a ship 
 under way and another at anchor, the former is to pay one-third 
 of the loss to the latter. A similar provision occurs in a Swedish 
 code of the seventeenth century (Pardess. iii. 129, 173). A like 
 division of loss is adopted in a code stated to have been in force 
 in Malacca in the thirteenth century, in case of collision in bad 
 weather between two ships sailing in company {voxjage de consKrve) 
 for protection against pirates. In another Eastern code the pro- 
 portion of her loss recoverable by the injured ship is two-thirds
 
 ITS HISTORY IN ENGLISH LAW. 135 
 
 (Pardess. xi. 409, 459). These codes are said to be founded on 
 customs in force in the East. They purport to have been pro- 
 midgated by Mahmoud Schah, the Mahomedan conqueror of the 
 Eastern Islands. 
 
 By the Coiisolafo del Mare, the code in use in the soutli of Cusolato di-1 
 Europe, tlie sliip under way is to pay the whole of the loss of ^'"^'• 
 the ship at anchor or moored, unless the collision is due to stress 
 of weather, in which case the loss is to be borne as arbitrators 
 shall decide. If the ship at anchor shifts her moorings after the 
 other has brought up, the latter is to pay one-half of the 
 loss. (Pardess. ii. 174 seq.) 
 
 By the Ordonnance of Louis XIV. the loss was divided equally Ord.-nnan.o 
 in case of accidental collision. Some doubt existed as to whether "^ Louis XIV. 
 it should not be apportioned as general average, but Yalin states 
 that the better opinion was in favour of an equal division. 
 (Valin, Sur TOrdonnance de la Marine, 1. 3, tit. 7 ; Arts. 10, II ; 
 Ibid. vol. ii. 178.) 
 
 The vague language of the Northern codes as to the manner Eciual ,<r 
 in which, in case of accidental collision, the loss was to be dis- proportionaU^ 
 tributed, gave rise in the seventeenth century to difference of ' '^ '""'"• 
 judicial opinion. Bynkershoek describes the strong dissent of 
 his colleagues, the judges of the Supreme Court of the Nether- 
 lands, when he endeavoured to persuade them to assent to a pro- 
 portionate rather than an equal division of the loss: " Mcmini 
 me senatore et de geometrica proportione perorante reliquos 
 senatores (23 Nov. 1629) obstupuisse atque si Jovis ignibus icti 
 essent " (Bynk. Quaest. Jur. Priv. 1. iv. e. 20.) 
 
 The history of the rule as to division of loss in the English The mle of 
 Admiralty, so far as can be gathered from existing records, is as <ii\-imoii of 
 follows. The continuous series of Admiralty Court records begins ilsh liiw\"*'" 
 about the year 1530. During the sixteenth century no trace of 
 the rule appears in any sentence of the Court. Once only in the 
 sixteenth, and once in the seventeenth century awards of arbi- 
 trators are mentioned giving partial damages to the owners of 
 ships sunk or injured by collision (n). In all the cases prior to 
 1614, (they are not numerous,) in which sentences were delivered 
 in collision suits, either full damages were given or none. In 
 1614 (o) occurs the first sentence for half damages. The 
 
 (n) In the Admiralty Court of and fined 2«. 6d." ; Aunalis of Ipn- 
 
 Ipswicli during' the 16th and 17th wicli, by Nat. Bacon, i>d. W. H. 
 
 centuries collinion seems to have Ilichard.sou, 1884, p. 4J I ; and .similar 
 
 been dealt with as a criminal offence : entries, Und. pp. 42;'), o.'J'.t. 
 
 "Presented, the hurting of one vessel (o) Rucktim c. Lamb/oii, .Vd. (Jt. 
 
 by another running against the same, Rec. Libels, File 7C, No. 33. Tlie
 
 THE RULE A8 TO DIVISION OF LOSS. 
 
 defendant, being alone in fault, was condemned by Dr. Dunn in 
 hall the loss to cargo on board the other ship, and in the whole 
 of the loss to the ship. This sentence was affirmed on appeal (p). 
 In the same year, however, fidl damages are given in another 
 case ( 9'), and, apparently, again in 162.3 {r). In 1626(s) half 
 damagfs are given by Sir Henry Marten against a defendant 
 who lay at anchor in the middle of the Thames for two tides and 
 refused to weigh his anchor, which afterwards holed the plain- 
 tiff's ship. In 1628 (t) Sir H. Marten gives full damages for a 
 collision caused by the defendant's fault : also in two cases of 
 lQS2{u). In 1630 (^) the same judge gives sentence for half 
 damages, where the defendant's ship was alone in fault ; and in 
 the following years three other sentences to the same effect (y). 
 In 1635 (z) there is a sentence for full damages ; and two others 
 follow, to the like effect («). In 1639 (Zi) the innocent ship- 
 owner and cargo-owner recover only half their losses ; but in 
 another (c) case of the same year the shipowner recovers full 
 damages. 
 
 In 1642 Dr. Zouch was judge of the Admiralty. By a sentence 
 of that year imjilying, but not expressly finding, fault in the 
 defendant's ship, he gives half damages (d). By another sen- 
 tence (e) of 1643, for reasons not stated—" ex certis causis nos et 
 
 ship arrested in this case belonged 
 to the owner of the wrong-doing 
 ship, but was not the vvrong-doing 
 ship herself. The plaintiffs had sued 
 for the same matter in a Dutch court, 
 and had withdrawn from the suit 
 because judgment was given for only 
 half their los-s : Miscell. Bundles, 
 Ser. 11. bdle. 227. 
 
 (p) Miscell. Bundles, Ser. IV. 
 (1613-7 bdle.). 
 
 {q) Verduen c. March, File 76, 
 No. 463. This and the following 
 x'eferences are to the Files of Libels, 
 Admiralty Court Records, at the 
 Public Record Office. 
 
 (»•) Cruse c. T/^y/^wp, File82,No. 56: 
 Baker c. Corditt', File 82, No. 53. 
 
 (s) Bunne c. Williamson, File 84, 
 No. 463. 
 
 {t) Thredgold c. Goslinqe, File 85, 
 No. 325. 
 
 («) Sneddall c Leigh, File 90, 
 No. 268 ; Rothurll c. Lucas, File 90, 
 No. 265. In these cases the colli- 
 sions are stated to have been caused 
 " ciilpa et negligentia," or "culpa 
 incuria et suprema negligentia." 
 In another suit for negligence the 
 
 loss is stated to have been caused 
 '• culpa negligentia, vel incuria, vel 
 occasione" of the defendant. See 
 File 88, No. 157. 
 
 {x) Rutter c. Ribatira, File 89, 
 No. 241. 
 
 {y) Stevens c. Trehaivke, File 91, 
 No. 27; Clarke c. Beck, File 92, 
 No. 195 ; St. John c. Grant, File 92, 
 No. 51. 
 
 [z] Page c. Haslewood, File 93, 
 No. 243. 
 
 [a) Leigh c. Lr eland. File 96, 
 No. 153 ; Gardiner c. Bright, File 97, 
 No. 174, where the collision is stated to 
 have been " de industria seu culpa." 
 
 (A) Colthurst c. Sandall, File 98, 
 No. 58 ; Wilkinson c. Clarke, File 98, 
 No. 107. 
 
 (c) Seagars c. The Haddock, File 
 101, Nos. 37, 161. In this case the 
 owner of cargo on the innocent ship 
 had recovered full damages against 
 the shipowner upon the bill of 
 lading. 
 
 (d) Keddye c. De Frances, File 106, 
 No. 29. 
 
 (e) Kinge c. Johnson, File 106, 
 No. 121. The same words are used
 
 ITS HISTORY IN KXGLISH LAW. 137 
 
 aniruum nostrum in hac parte moventibus "— out of 1,800/., the 
 full damages, he gives 400/. only '/). In this sentence' the 
 words "per crassam suam negligentiam " are struck out. The 
 loss was caused by the defendant letting go his anchor and 
 breaking, or fouling, that of the plaintiff's ship, whereby she 
 drove ashore with her cargo and was damaged. In 1643 ;y) 
 there is a sentence in which the words ''incuria et negligentii " 
 are struck out, giving half damages. By another sentence {h) of 
 the same year, the full damages being (i80/.. Dr. Sames— " ex 
 certis causis " as before— gives 320/. only ; and by another (i) 
 where the loss is 30/. he gives 12/. lOs. only. 
 
 In both these sentences words imputing fault to the defendant 
 are struck out. By sentences of 1644 and 1645 full damages 
 are given in one case (X\ and half damages in another (/,. In 
 both negligence is expressly found against the defendant. 
 
 In 1647 {m) half damages are given, for the first time, because 
 the cause of loss is uncertain. In the same year there is a 
 unique case («) where, no fault being found in either ship, the 
 owners of the ship that sank, and the owners of cargo on board 
 her, recovered, by twenty separate sentences, half their respective 
 losses by way of general average contribution against the owners 
 of the other ship. The collision was at sea, and the defendant's 
 ship was held fast to the plaintiff's by the anchor of the latter 
 which had holed her. In order, as the sentence states, to save 
 the defendant's ship, her crew cut her clear by severing her cable 
 and sending the plaintiff's ship adrift, whereupon she sank with 
 her cargo. In the nest year (1648) (n) half damages are given 
 
 for an anchor and cable lost through the other ship chating it 
 
 not, as it appears by negligence — the word "incuria" being 
 struck out of the sentence. But in tlie same year a ship recovers 
 
 in a sentence for pro rata freight, No. 34. 
 
 File 106, No. 79. [k) Creame c. Yaxley, File 107. 
 
 (/) Partial damages seem to have No. 68. 
 been sometimes given by arbitrators. {!) White c. Walker, File 107, 
 
 Thus, in 1687, there is an award No. 189. 
 
 that the loss was caused as to one- (w) By Drs. Clerk and Extou, 
 
 third by ship A., as to one-third by Commonwealth Judges: Grubf <•. 
 
 stress of weather, and that the re- Stayy, File 108, No. 342. 
 maining third should be paid by («) Bury c. Gold, File 108, No.s. 
 
 the defendant, "the aggi-essor and 350 »'y/. These sentences were varied 
 
 moving cause," File 123, No. 151. on appeal by cousent, by substituting 
 
 {y) By Dr. Sames, surrogate for half for full damages. See one of 
 
 Dr. Zouch. lielitha c. Burwood, the sentences of the Delegates 
 
 File 106, No. 194. printed in Marsden's Admiralty 
 
 (A) Bloivers c. Starlinye, File 106, Cases, p. 235. 
 No. 227. (o) Pooty c. Rwid, File 10!', N... 
 
 (i) Poi/:ell c. Trevync, File 107, 118.
 
 138 
 
 THE RULE AS TO DIVISION OF LOSS. 
 
 full damages for her loss by striking upon the other ship's un- 
 huoyed anchor {p) ; and four sentences for full damages against 
 defendants' ship, alone in fault, follow {q). In 1654 (r) a 
 defendant is dismissed because no fault is proved against him ; 
 and against a defendant in fault full damages are given (5). 
 
 Next year(;f) (1655) half damages are given for a collision 
 caused without fault, and also where the cause is uncertain {u). 
 In 1659 [x) a ship damaged by an unbuoyed anchor recovers 
 half her loss ; and in 1663 (y) alike sentence is passed with an 
 express finding that the collision was caused by stress of weather, 
 and that both ships had done all they could to avoid it. But for 
 loss caused by the fault of the defendant full damages are 
 given (2). 
 
 In 1664 Dr. Exton, in two cases where the collision was acci- 
 dental — " casu fortuito" — gave half damages («) ; and in 1668, 
 where a ship with her keel accidentally cut the cable of another, 
 Sir Leoline Jenkins gave half the value of the lost anchor and 
 cable (5). In 1673 (c) nautical experts — consilium artis nautice 
 peritorum — are for the hi'st time mentioned. They concur in a 
 sentence finding the defendant ship alone in fault, and the judge, 
 Sir Leoline Jenkins, gives full damages. In 1675, in two 
 cases {d) where the cause of collision is stated to be uncertain, 
 Sir Leoline Jenkins, applying, as he states, the general maritime 
 law— "nos dispositionem juris maritimte in hiic parte apud 
 omnes gentes receptissimi sequentes " gives half damages. In 
 one of these eases, Williams c. Marten^ the decision in The Khe- 
 dive {e) is anticipated, and both ships having been damaged, one 
 more extensively than the other, sentence goes against the latter 
 
 [p) Knott c. Foulyicr, File 109, 
 No. 119. 
 
 [q) Arthur c. Ford, File II U, 
 Nu. 82 ; Slaneyc. Hopwood, File 110, 
 No. 80; Crandleyc.Porteer, File 109, 
 No. 313. There was an appeal in 
 this case ; with what result does not 
 appear: S. P. Dom. Calendar, 1650, 
 p. 359 ; Brake c. The Piper, lile 111, 
 No. 294. 
 
 ir) Dorvill c. Tresaur, FUe 112, 
 No. 319. 
 
 (a) Hall c. Hill, File 112, No. 240. 
 
 (/) Yaxley c. LeUuall, File 113, 
 No. 67; ''inciiria" struck out of 
 the sentence. AiBrmed by the dele- 
 gates ; Miscell. Bundles, Ser. IV., 
 1650-57 bdle , No. 76. 
 
 («) Lawec. Lee, File 113, No. 223 ; 
 Cooper c. Breeze, File 114, No. 34. 
 
 [x) Swi/re c. Church, File 114, 
 No. 86, 
 
 {y) ALartyn c. Greene, File 115, 
 No. 95. 
 
 {£) Jocelyn c. Wickett, File 115, 
 No. 91. Both these last sentences 
 are by Dr. Exton. 
 
 [a) Peers c. Cole, File 116, Nu. 4 ; 
 Haberdyne c. Reeves, File 116, No. 3. 
 
 {b) Parke c. Sorrell, File 116, 
 No. 160. 
 
 (c) Cormcallis c. Noden, File 117, 
 No. 145. Affirmed on appeal, 
 MisceU. BuncUes, Ser. IV., 1677-79 
 bdle. 27, No. 9. 
 
 [d) Potter c. Keeble, Williams c. 
 Marten, File 117, Nos. 141, 144. 
 Both affirmed, bdle. 27, supra, 
 Nos. 11, 14. 
 
 (r) Supra, p. 128.
 
 ITS HISTORY IN ENGLISH LA.W. 
 
 139 
 
 for haK the balance of the loss. In 1677 (/) Sir Eichard Lloyd, 
 sitting as surrogate for Sir L. Jenkins, condemned one ship in 
 half the loss of the other, because, by reason of the contrariety 
 of witnesses and difficulty of proof, the loss was to be deemed to 
 have been caused hy aecideut {rasu fortuito). In 1678 (^) half 
 damages are given by the same judge, because it was not proved 
 that the collision was wilful — ex studio aut malitid aut inviilid : 
 but in the same year ;A), and again in 1690 (j), where it was by 
 negligence — negliye^itid vel ignorantia — full damages are given. 
 There is extant a certificate of 1690 by Sir Charles Hedges, the 
 judge of the Admiralty, that at that date the rule of division of 
 loss was applied in all cases where the cause of loss was doubt- 
 ful (A). In 1692 (Z) the decree states that the collision was 
 accidental, aud that therefore the loss was to be deemed to have 
 been in some measure {quadamtenus) caused by the fault of the 
 other ship (m). In 1695 the rule was twice applied by Sir Charles 
 Hedges. In one {n) case no reason is given ; in the other (o), it 
 is found that the plaintiff's loss was caused by the fault of the 
 master and crew of the other ship ; therefore (the decree con- 
 tinues) the owners of the defendant ship are liable to make good 
 to the plaintiffs a certain part of their loss. "Cum antem ob 
 incertitudiuem ex varietate et coutrarietate depositionum testium 
 hinc inde examinatorum proveniente, certa pars damni, quota est 
 quam altera j)ars alteri dedit, liquidari hand possit, domiuus 
 judex antedictus dispositionem juris maritimi apud omnes recep- 
 tissimi sequens," condemns the defendant owners in half the loss 
 of the plaintiffs. Though no fault is found against the plaintiffs, 
 the wording of the decree rather nuphes it. In 1698 {p) a case 
 occurs where each ship suffered injury, and each claimed 
 damages against the other. Sir C. Hedges made a decree that 
 each ship should pay to the other half her loss. No reason is 
 given for dividing the loss. In 1702 {q) Dr. Bramston, surrogate 
 
 (/) Browti c. Gravenor, File 118, 
 No. 43. Affirmed, bdle. 27, supra, 
 No. 27. 
 
 (ff) Jermin c. Hhadj'urth, File 119, 
 No. 116. 
 
 (A) Newman c. Lacy, File 119, 
 No. 151. 
 
 (t) RwiHell c. Joud, File 124, 
 No. 41. 
 
 {k) Mii^cell. Books. 1012, <id. mcd. 
 
 (/) Trew 0. Peirce, Marsd. Ad. Ca. 
 264. 
 
 (w) The note of the decree iw as 
 foUowH • "Ex quo quod sibi conettat, 
 
 dicto uavi coUisionem ex Peii'cc ct 
 uautarum f>uoruiii culpa et uegli- 
 gentia quadamtenus pervenissc." 
 Peirce was master of the ship sued. 
 
 {«) Fantley c. King, Ad. Ct. Ass. 
 Book, 4th Feb. 1695. 
 
 (o) Beckham c. Chapman, ibid. 
 20th Jail. 1695; Franckvsc. DiiigKlach, 
 Act Book, No. 187, fo. liV'ia, is a 
 similar case of this period (1693-97). 
 
 (jW) Ronicn c. JIiimh/t\ Ad. Ct. 
 Ass. Book, 9th May, 1698; 26th 
 May, 1698. 
 
 {q) Mavoii c. Johnson, Ad. Ct. Ama.
 
 140 
 
 THE RULE AS TO DIVISION OF LOSS. 
 
 Histoiy of 
 the rule since 
 1746. 
 
 The Fetcrsfield 
 and The 
 Judith Ran- 
 dolph (1789). 
 
 for Sir G. Hedges, makes a decree against the ship sued, she 
 being found to he alone in fault. The reasons given are similar 
 to those in Beckham c. Chapman, supra. In 1706 two similar 
 cases occur (r), no fault being foiuid in either case against the 
 plaintiff's ship. In the same year ( 1 70(i) (s) there is a case where, 
 fault being found against both ships, the loss is divided equally, 
 for the reason given in Beckham c. Chapman, namely, the diffi- 
 culty of proving the loss properly attributable to the fault of 
 each. The decree was affirmed by the Delegates. In 1712 (<) 
 the Delegates varied a decree of Sir C. Hedges by which he had 
 dismissed the defendants without costs, by declaring that they 
 should pay half the plaintiff's loss. No reason is given. In 
 1726 [u) Sir Henry Penrice found that the defendant had failed 
 to prove his case {defecisse in probationibus), and dismissed the 
 defendant without costs. The question of applying the rusticum 
 judicium seems to have been raised ; for in the registrar's minute 
 book is a note (afterwards struck out) that a day was assigned 
 for discussing the question " whether the rusticum judicium can 
 be admitted in this case? " In 1746 {x) the same judge divided 
 the loss where the cause of the collision, "from the great con- 
 trariety of the evidence," was uncertain. 
 
 Noble c. Wilson is the last appearance of the rusticum judicium 
 until 1789, the year in which the well-known case of The Peters- 
 Jield and The Judith Randolph («/) occurred. It is singular that in 
 that year three cases were decided in which the rule of division 
 of loss was applied ; in two of them by the High Court of 
 Admiralty, in the other by the Delegates. 
 
 On the 20th of May, 1789, Sir James Marriott, Judge of the 
 Admiralty Court, in The Petersjield and The Judith Randolph, 
 pronounced ' ' that both ships were in fault ; that The Judith 
 Randolph was most in fault ; and decreed that the whole of the 
 damage sustained by the owners of the ship Petersjield and her 
 cargo, which was sunk and lost, as well as the 230/. damages (s) 
 
 Book, 11th March, 1702 ; Act Book, 
 No. 189, fo. 407. 
 
 (r) Marsingillc. Taylor, Ass. Book, 
 vol. 368 ; Act Book. fo. 523 ; Kichencr 
 c. Cocklin, Act Book, 191, fo. 4. 
 (a) Nodcn c. Afihfon, Libels, 
 " 128, No. 350; Ass. Book, 
 June, 1706. See Delegates' 
 Book. 
 
 Gull o. CarsiceU, Ass. Book, 
 
 Ass. 
 
 File 
 20th 
 
 Ass. 
 
 (0 
 
 26th May, 1709 
 Book, 19th Dec. 1712 
 
 («) Reed c. Wdlfoid, Ass. Book, 
 
 Delegates' 
 
 26th Jan. 1726. 
 
 (;*;) Noble c. Wilson, Ass. Book, 
 28th Nov. 1746. 
 
 (.y) In the Ass. Book, nom. Wild- 
 man c. Blakcs. 
 
 {z) From a note of Dr. Nit-holl, 
 who was counsel for The Judith 
 Randolph, it appears that after the 
 institution of the Admiralty suit an 
 action had been brought at common 
 law by The Judith Randolph owners 
 against The Petersjield owners, and 
 that a verdict for 65/. damages and
 
 ITS HISTORY IN ENGLISH L\W. HI 
 
 and expenses given against the ship Petersjield, and the costs ot 
 suit here on both sides, be borne equally by the parties in tlxis 
 suit." This appears to have been the first case in which the 
 rusticu7n Judicium was appHed solelj' upon the ground that both 
 ships were in fault, with an express fiii<Hng that the fault of ont» 
 ship was greater than the fault of the otlier. 
 
 The next case in order of date is The Frien'is (joodwill and The Ft-irmU 
 The Peggy {a). This was a decision of the Delegates varying a rtfjCVr^ 
 decree of Sir J. Marriott (9th December, 1785), by which he had 1789)." ' 
 pronounced that The Peggy, the defendant ship, was alone in 
 fault, and had condemned her owners in full damages and I'osts. 
 The case was appt^alod, and on the 7tli of Tuly, 17S9, the 
 Delegates (5) "pronounced for the appeal .... reversed the 
 decree of the said judge .... and did pront)unce that the 
 master and crew of each of the said ships Friends Gondivill and 
 Peggy contained in the proceedings of this cause were equally 
 blameable in their conduct as to the said two ships running fo\il 
 of each other, and by which means the s>iid ship Friends Goodwill 
 and cargo were totally lost ; that the loss or damage occasioned by 
 the aforesaid accident, and all costs, charges, and expenses incurred 
 or to be incurred on account thereof, ought to be borne, paid, and 
 sustained by the said John Stoker and Robert Hutton, the owners 
 of the said shipsin equal moietys, and share and share alike, &c."(c'). 
 
 It is evident from the various orders made in this case that the 
 Delegates had very great difficulty in arriving at a decision. The 
 two Trinity masters by whom they were assisted differed in 
 opinion as to the merits, and by consent of the parties a third 
 was called in. 
 
 The third case of the year 1789 was The Resolution and The The Resolution 
 Langtoyi {d). This is in one respect the most remarkable of the ^"^^f /fys^f""''' 
 three cases, for in it Sir James Marriott decided, in terms 
 apparently chosen in order to raise the question whether tlie 
 rusticum juaicium may be applied wliere the collision occurs 
 without fault in either ship, that it did apply to such a case ; and 
 from his decision there was no appeal. The registrar's note of 
 the interlocutory decree is as follows : — " Sir J. Marriott, judge, 
 
 l6o/. costs had been recuverud. Tlii.s {h) Go\ild, J., Asliur.st, J.. H..- 
 
 is the sum of 230/. here mentioned: thaui, B., and Dr. Fisher wore tlu- 
 
 Kee Misuell. Bundles, Ser. III., judges. 
 
 No. 1«. The papers in the case are (c) Tlie parties had agreed that 
 
 Instance Papers, bdle. 76, where the Court should take the report 
 
 there is a copy of the leuord in the of three Trinity masters uj.on the 
 
 King's Bench. The record is King's merits of the case. 
 
 Bench, East, 27 Oeo. 3, rot. 1410. [d) Noni. X<lsi,„ <■. l-'direetl in tliu 
 
 (a) Norn. Hutton c. Stu/ccr. Ass. Book.
 
 142 THE RULE AS TO DIVISION OF LOSS. 
 
 pronounced that the loss of the ship and cargo of The Resolution 
 was not occasioned by the default of the masters and crews of 
 either of the ships in question, 1)ut was an inevitable accident, 
 owing to the showring weather, the darkness of the night, the 
 small distance of the two ships, and shortness of time in dis- 
 covering each other, being olose ; and the judge decreed that the 
 damages on the loss of the ship Resolution and her cargo, as well 
 as the damage done to the ship Langton, together with the costs 
 of suit on both sides, be equally borne by both parties ; and 
 assigned each party to bring in a schedule of their damages ; 
 which being brought in the judge referred the same to the 
 registrar, taking to his assistance two merchants " (e). 
 The Three It should be added that in the year (1788) previous to that 
 
 Relations aud -^^ which the three last-mentioned cases were decided occurred 
 The Britannia ^ , . , ,t>, n • • / ^\ mu 
 
 (1788). the case of The Three Relations and The Brttanma {/). ihere 
 
 Sir James Marriott pronounced that " under the circumstances 
 
 of the case, each party should stand by his own damage and 
 
 expenses." What the circumstances of that case were does not 
 
 appear from the registrar's minute book, from which the decree 
 
 is here cited. The decree is unusual in form ; the common 
 
 form, where (as here) fault is alleged and not proved, being to 
 
 the effect that the plaintifi's libel not having been proved, the 
 
 adverse party be dismissed from further observance of justice in 
 
 the cause. 
 
 It is singular that during the long period (y) during which 
 Lord Stowell presided over the Admiralty Court no case occurred 
 in which he had occasion to apply the rule of division of loss. 
 Two cases should, however, be here mentioned, both of great 
 importance in the history of the subject. In The Woodrop 
 Sims{h), decided by Lord Stowell (then Sir William Scott) in 
 1815, and in The Lord Melville, decided in 1816, occur the dicta 
 of that learned j udge with reference to the incidence of loss in 
 case of collision, referred to on a former page (?), in which he 
 divides collisions into four classes: (1) where the collision is 
 caused by the fault of the defendant ship; (2) by the fault of 
 the plaintiff ship ; (3) by the fault of both ships ; (4) without 
 
 [e) This decision is in accordance (A) This case should be cited as 
 
 with the statement of the law in The Woodrop, the name of the ship. 
 
 Brown's Admiralty Law, vol. 2, Sims, her master, according to the 
 
 p. 206: "In case of accident the practice of the day, was probably 
 
 loss wa s divided between both parties sued personally. It is, however, 
 
 in equal proportions." so commonly known as The JFoodrop 
 
 (/) Faije c. Graham, 2ttth March, Sims, that the name has been 
 
 X788. retained. 
 
 [g) Thirty years, 1798—1828. (i) Supra, p. 117.
 
 ITS HISTORY IN ENGLISH LAW. 14 '3 
 
 fault in either ship. The rule of division of loss is declared to 
 be applicable only in the third case, namely, where the .-oUisioii 
 is caused by the fault of both ships. Notwitlistanding tlie con- 
 flicting decisions above cited and the vari(jus reasons given for 
 them, there can be no doubt that at the present day the la«- i^ 
 as stated by Lord Stowell. Whatever may have been the original 
 reason for the rtisticum judicium, the only reason applicaMetu it 
 in its modern form is common fault. It remains only to mention 
 two or three more cases to complete the history of the rule. 
 
 In 1S24 Hay v. Le Neve was decided by the House of Lonls. H<ni v. I.r 
 That was an appeal from a decision of a Scotch Oonrt, which ■^" 
 had apportioned in unequal shares (/) the loss suffered by a 
 vessel. The Wdh, which had been sunk at her anchor by Tfit 
 Sprightly. The House of Lords varied the decision of the 
 Scotch Court, and, relying upon the dicta of Lord Stowell above 
 mentioned, divided the loss in equal shares, and condemned tlie 
 owners of The Sprightly in half the loss on The Wells. In tliat 
 case both ships were clearly in fault: The Wells for having 
 brought up in an improper place and for not showing a light, 
 The Sprightly for negligent navigation and want of look-out. 
 The question in dispute was, whether the division of loss should 
 be in equal shares or be apportioned according to the degree of 
 fault in either vessel. The decision was in accordance with 
 Lord Stowell's dicta, and, it may be added, with an unbroken 
 line of authorities for a period of at least 146 jears. in favour of 
 an equal division. But there was no decision that the rule of 
 division of loss was confined, as stated by Lord Stowell, to the 
 case of " both ships in fault." Nevertheless, since the decision 
 in The Resolution and The Lanyton the rule has never been 
 applied, except in the case of " l)oth ships in fault"; and the 
 dicta of Lord Stowell, having acquired additional weight by the 
 citation in the House of Lords in Ilay v Le Xeve, have been 
 taken, apparently without discussion, to settle the law. Thus 
 in The Catherine of Dover {l) (1828), Sir Christopher Kobin.son, 
 in addressing the Trinity masters, stated the law as follows : — 
 " The result of the evidence will be one of three alternatives : 
 either a conviction in your mind that the loss was occasioned by 
 
 {k) The Hpriyhtly was condeuined actious, and Dr. Lushiujrton din- 
 in two- third.s of the loss .-'utfered bv missed both for want of pniof : Tin- 
 The Wills. Lacuniii, > xMoo. P. (;. N. S. Kil 
 
 [l) 2 Hag. 145. Cf. also TJic (18G.'J), where ii similar unlrr waH 
 
 Maid of Anckl'ind (1848), 6 Not. of made by the I'rivy Council : The 
 
 Cas. 240, where there were cross Marpesia (1872), L. R. 1 V. C. 212.
 
 144 THE RULE AS TO DIVISION OF LOSS. 
 
 accident, in which case it must be sustained by the party on 
 whom it has fallen ; or a state of reasonable doubt as to the 
 preponderance of evidence, which will have nearly the same 
 effect ; or thirdly, a conviction that the party charged with 
 being the cause of the accident is justly chargeable with the loss 
 of this vessel according to the rules of navigation which ought 
 to have guided them. 
 The Monarch It remains only to mention the case of The. Monarch and The 
 (1838). Success, decided by Sir Christopher Robinson on the 23rd of 
 
 June, 1838, as being the next in which the rusticum jiidiciuni 
 was applied. There the judge pronounced "the collision in 
 question in this cause to have been caused by the fault of the 
 masters and crews of the said ship or vessel Monarch and the 
 late smack Success, and for a moiety only of the damages pro- 
 ceeded for, and condemned [the owners of The Monarch^ and 
 the bail given on their behalf to answer the action in a moiety 
 of such damage and of the costs incurred on behalf of [the 
 owner of The Sticcess'] in this cause " (m). This decree was 
 subsequently, on the 31st of January, 1839, rescinded by 
 Dr. Lushington as regards costs; and by a new decree he 
 pronounced the parties "to be liable to the costs incurred on 
 their own behalf only " (w). 
 History of This completes the history of the application of the rule, so 
 
 1 7sq "^^ ^^^^^ ^^^ ^^ ^^^ present writer has been able to trace it by an exami- 
 nation of the Admiralty records. Since the year 1838, the date 
 of the decision in The Monarch, the number of collision cases 
 has been ver\ large, and the rusticum Judicium has been 
 frequently applied ; but always, it may be safely assumed, in cases 
 of " both ships in fault." In The Oratava and The Janet, 
 11th May, 1839, and The London Merchant, 20th May, 1840, it 
 was so applied ; and beyond this the examination of the records 
 has not been carried. It may be assumed that if , since 1840, 
 the rule had been applied in any case of " neither ship in fault," 
 or "insufficient proof," such a case would have been reported; 
 and no such case appears in the books. It may therefore be 
 taten to be a fact that for fully a century (since 1789) the rule 
 has only been applied in cases of " both ships in fault " ; never 
 in the case of " neither in fault," or in the case of " insufficient 
 proof." Nay, further, in such cases the plaintiff's action has 
 invariably been dismissed, and generally with costs. Several 
 
 («0 This is the case called The The Celt, 3 Hag. 32 L 
 Monarch, and referred to in a note to («) The Monarch, 1 W. Rob. 21.
 
 ITS HISTORY IN ENGLISH LAW. 14 J 
 
 instances of this will be found referred to in a former pao-e (o\ 
 Yet neither has the decision of Sir James Marriott in The Reso- 
 lution and The Langton, nor have any of the previous decisions 
 between the years 1677 and 1789, in which the rusticum Judicium 
 was applied in cases of doubt and mere accident, been reversed, 
 overruled, or, so far as the writer is aware, even referred to (;;) 
 or discussed. Not having been reported, they appear to linvo 
 altogether escaped observation ; so much so that in IJai/ v. 
 Le Neve (^1824) Lord Giflard states that the advocates (of whom 
 Dr. Lushington was one) who appeared in that case, in answer 
 to a question from the House, acknowledged that they were not 
 aware of any case in which the rusticum judicium had ever been 
 applied in England. A note of l^he Peiersjield was sup[ilied to the 
 House by Lord Stowell, who was a member of the House, but 
 does not appear to have heard the appeal. It is singular that 
 that learned judge was not (it seems he was not) aware of the 
 decisions in The Resolution and in The Friends Goodwill, both of 
 which occurred in 1789, the year of the decision in The Peters- 
 feld, and of which one was in direct conflict with his dicta in 
 The IVoodrop Sirns and The Lord Melville. 
 
 The view of the Legislature, as shown by sect. 25, sub-sect. 9, 
 of the Judicature Act, clearly was that the rule applies onl}' 
 where both ships are in fault. It cannot be supposed that an 
 Act passed manifestly with a view to make the law uniform in 
 all the Courts would have left the rule of division of loss 
 applicable in Admiralty in case of doubt and mere accident, 
 whilst, for the sake of uniformity, it extended the rule where 
 both ships are in fault to the Common Law Divisions of the 
 High Court. 
 
 (o) See the cases cited above. The Afarpesia (1872), L. R. 4 P. D. 
 
 p. 143. note [I). To these may be 212. 
 
 added the lollowin": decisions of {p) In Ilaij \. Le Neve,&c&»e in 
 
 Lord Stowell : The Flora, 28th June, the reign of Queen Anno was ro- 
 
 1815; The Robert, 9th June, 1S18 ; ferred to {semhlt, one of the eases 
 
 The Vroic Janetze, 2nd Feb. 1820; decided between 1707 aad 1718 
 
 The Bettiij Caines (1827), 2 Hag. 28 ; cited above), but not with nfereuce 
 
 to the point here uuder discussion. 
 
 M.
 
 146 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. 
 
 Limitation of In this country the limitation of shipowners' liability depends 
 entirely upon statute. It is said by writers of authority that 
 
 statutory. 
 
 Maritime 
 and foreign 
 law upon the 
 subject. 
 
 by the maritime law the shipowner's liability for collision is 
 limited to the value of ship and freight [a) ; and this, it is 
 believed, is the law in most or all foreign countries at the 
 present day. Whether such a rule of the maritime law (b) 
 ever existed, it is immaterial hero to inquire. No such rule 
 has ever been recognized by the Courts of this country, either 
 at common law or in Admiralty {c). By the municipal laws 
 
 («) 3 Kent's Comm. § 218 ; 4 
 Phillimore's International Law, '2nd 
 ed. 628; Valin sur I'Ordonnance de 
 la Marine, 1. 2, tit. 8, Art. 2 ; Cours 
 de Droit Comm. Mar. Boulay-l'aty, 
 vol. i. 263—298 : Pardessus Droit 
 Commercial, Pai't 4, tit. 2, ch. 3, 
 s. 2 ; Emerigon Cont. a la Gros^e, 
 cli. 4, s. 11 ; and see per Bradley, J., 
 in llic Jos. W. Dyer v. The Xatioial 
 /Steamship Co., 14 Blatchf. 483, 487 ; 
 and per Ware, J., m The Reheeen, 
 Ware's Rep. 188, I'ji, 198 ; The 
 Phehe, Ware, 263. The Consolato 
 del Mare, en. 141, 182, provides that 
 in certaiu cases the ship her-ielf , and 
 the managing owner, shall be liable 
 to the merchant for the loss of his 
 goods, but the other OA\Tiers only to 
 the extent of their shares. But it 
 seems that for damage caused by 
 their own fault, as where the ship's 
 equipment is deficient, the part 
 owners were liable to the full extent. 
 See ibid. 194. 
 
 Upon contracts with reference to 
 the ship entered into by his agent, 
 it seems that the shipowner was 
 liable only to the ship's value. See 
 ibid. cc. 209, 244. 
 
 [b) As to whether a general mari- 
 time law binding upon the Courts of 
 this country ever in fact existed, see 
 
 per Willes, J., Lloi/d v. Guibert, L. R. 
 1 Q. B. 115, 124- per Brett, L. J., 
 The Gaetano, 7 P. D. 143 ; The Leon, 
 6 P. D. 148 ; The I'atria, L. R. 3 A. 
 & E. 436, 461, 462. 
 
 (c) See The Dinidee, 1 Hag. Ad. 
 109, 120; The Carl Johanii, veievved 
 to 3 Hag. Ad. 186 ; The Aline, 1 W. 
 Rob. Ill; The Volaut, ibid. 383; 
 27ie Mrlluna, 3 W. Rob. 16, 20 ; The 
 JFild Hanijer, Liush. 553, 564; JJ'il- 
 son V. Dickson, 2 B. & Aid. 2 ; Gale v. 
 Laurie, 5 B. & C. 156, 164; Copey. 
 Doherty, 4 K. & J. 367, 378 ; Stoom- 
 vaart Maafschappy Kederlands v. Pen- 
 insular and Oriental Steam Nar'ujation 
 Co., 7 App. Cas. 795, 814. The dictum 
 of Parke, B., in Brown v. Wilkinson, 
 15 M. & W. 398, appears to be in- 
 correct. In Voynet c. I'omlinson, 
 decided by the Delegates in 1738 
 (the collision occurred in 1733), the 
 sentence was for full damages, a 
 sum which must have largely ex- 
 ceeded the value of the wrong- doing 
 ship and her freight. The loss on 
 the plaintiff's ship. The Eleanor, is 
 stated in the pleadings to have been 
 2,000/., and the value of the defen- 
 dant's ship. The Wilhelmina, and her 
 freight 680/. (600/. -f80/.). The case 
 is interesting also upon another point. 
 It shows that cargo on board the
 
 ITS ORIGIN AND HISTORY, 
 
 14< 
 
 of Holland, France, and other continental nations, the 
 liability of shipowners, not only for the torts but also for the 
 contracts of the master of their ship, has for more tlian two 
 centuries been limited to the value of the ship and f reiglit {</) . 
 It is perhaps due to this fact that limited liability has been 
 said to be a principle of tlie general maritime law. But its 
 origin cannot be traced either to the Roman law or to any of 
 the medioeval codes of maritime law. In both these systems 
 it is either implied or expressly stated that the ^vTong-doer in 
 a collision shall make full compensation (e). 
 
 The contract of commande, or joint adventure of shipowners It originntoc] 
 and merchants, correspondino: in some respects to the xociVfr P®^'"'?"* "' 
 en commandite, or partnership with limited liability, of modem 
 times, is perhaps the origin of the widespread doctrine of 
 limited liability of shipowners. This kind of association 
 extensively prevailed in the Mediterranean in the Middle 
 Ages, and is frequently mentioned in the Consolato del Mare. 
 As regards third parties, it seems that the liability of the 
 shipowner upon contracts entered into by his agent, or com- 
 
 "wroiig- doing ship, as -well as the 
 ship herself, was formerly liable for 
 the loss. The WUhehmna had a 
 cargo on board worth from 15,000/. 
 to 20,000/., and this was arrested 
 and not released until its owners 
 had given bail in 4,000/., notwith- 
 standing their contention that cargo- 
 owners were not liable for the 
 damage. See Mfirsden Ad. Gas. 
 314 ; Ad. Ct. Records, Miscell. 
 Bundles, Ser. IV. bdle. 20; ibid. 
 Delegates' Processes, vol. 4 8 'J, 
 No. 1048. 
 
 [d) Emerigon, Gontr. a la Grosse, 
 eh. 4, s. 11 ; Bouiay-Paty Gours de 
 Droit Gommercial Maritime, vol. i., 
 pp. 2G3— 298. See also The Mary 
 Ann, L. R. 1 A. & E. S, 11. 
 
 (c) As to liability for collision by 
 the Roman Law, see Dig. lib. 4, 
 tit. 9 ; Dig. lib. 44, tit. 7, fr. 5 ; 
 Dig. lib. 45, tit. 5, fr. 1. As to the 
 niedijcval codes, the Laws of Oleron, 
 Art. 15 assumes that the wrong- 
 doer sliall pay full damages— <om« xen 
 domnim/cs — tot sen dcaimatffes. Sec 
 Black "Book, Rolls Ser. 1. 108; ibid. 
 vol. ii., pp. 229, 449. So the Gou- 
 Kolato del Mare, cap. 155 : " E si 
 dan li fa, deulo li tot esmcnar c 
 
 L 
 
 the collision is 
 sia tengut dc 
 . . per ceo (vnr 
 and see ibid. 
 ettrct. So the 
 Art. 29: De 
 
 restituar," but if 
 accidental, "no li 
 esmcnar tot lo dan . 
 no es sa culpa ' ' ; 
 cap. 158, to the like 
 Wisby Sea Laws, 
 schipper is s('liuldich myt synon 
 schjpluden to delendc den scliadcu 
 mank sik : and the Hambiu-gh Gode, 
 Art. 23, he schal erne gans den schirden 
 bet even ; Black Book, iv. 373; and 
 the Gotland Gode, Art. 65, so schal 
 hre ciiic den »chaden al hel geldtn. 
 And by the Flanders Sea Laws, 
 Art. 15, the master who lays out his 
 anchor so as to damage another ship, 
 si siin dativel sculdich te hrtcrnn ; and 
 Art. 31 of the Gotland Gotle iy the 
 .same effect; Bhick Book, iv. 88. 
 So the nilc as to dividing the loss 
 assumes that, but for it, the ship 
 run down would recover nlle die 
 schade (Flanders Code), allv dm 
 schadtn (Gotland Gode), Art. 30, 
 schadeu (Gotland Godo, Art. 30, 
 Black Book, iv. 88). In the In- 
 structions to the Admiral in tin' 
 Black Book of the Admiralty, datini,' 
 circ. 1337—1351 (Hla<k Hock, i. ;>7), 
 the wrong-door in a cuUixion is to 
 raako plainc amende. 
 
 2
 
 148 
 
 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. 
 
 mittee in such an association, with reference to the ship, was 
 
 limited to the value of the ship (./). 
 
 Protection is J^ ig not Until the beffinninff of the seventeenth century 
 at the root of . . ^ . "^ 
 
 it. So avowed that we find protectionist doctrines put forward upon grounds 
 
 y Lrrotius. q£ public policy as a reason for limiting shipowners' liability. 
 Grotius, writing in the year 1625, says that the principle of 
 limitation of owners' liability upon the contracts of the 
 master prevailed in his day, and for a long time pre- 
 viously had prevailed in Holland {g). And he approves the 
 principle as being consonant with natural justice, and 
 necessary for the encouragement of shipping (//). Liability 
 for collision is not expressly noticed, but the principle 
 which limited liability in the case of his contracts, probably 
 applied equally to protect owners from unlimited liability for 
 their master's torts. The ride of continental law which 
 limits the shipowner's liability upon his master's contracts 
 has never been adopted in England ; the liability of _ a 
 shipowner upon contracts entered into by the master as his 
 agent having always been, as it is at the present day, 
 unlimited. 
 
 More than one writer (t) has pointed out the analogy 
 between the law, which limits shipowners' liability to the 
 value of ship, and the noxal action — iio.ra' daUtio — of the 
 Eoman law. The law of deodand has also been thought to 
 be founded on the same idea, which seems to personify 
 the inanimate object with which the injury is done and 
 to identify it with the actual wrong-doer. In the face of 
 the express provisions of the Code of Oleron and other 
 sources of English maritime law, which require the wrong- 
 doer to make full compensation to the sufferer in a collision, 
 there is difficulty in accepting this view as to the origin of 
 limited liability. 
 Connection The rule of unlimited liability, which seems to have been 
 
 between 
 
 Analogy of 
 noxal action 
 
 — noxcedcdilio 
 
 (/) Cf. Consolato del Mare, 
 cc. 209, 244. 
 
 {g) De Jure Belli et Pacis, 1. 2, 
 oh. 11, s. 18: " Apud Hollandos 
 ubi mercatura prideni maxime viguit 
 . . . . et nunc et olim constitutum 
 ne exercitoria etiam universi (exer- 
 citores) amplius teneantur quara ad 
 
 pe^timationem navis, et eorum quae 
 in navi sunt." 
 
 [h) * ' Absterrentur enim homines 
 ab exercendis navibus si metuant ne 
 ex facto magistri quasi in infinitum 
 teneantur"; ibid. 
 
 (i) See Bynkershoek, Qujest. Jur. 
 Priv. 1. 4, c. 20 ; Holmes on the 
 Common Law, p, 30.
 
 DU 
 
 HISTORY IX ENGLISH LAW. 149 
 
 adopted from the civil law into the medii^val codes, was limitation of 
 in the case of inevitable accident to some extent nn .ditied \i^[!u, "J"^ 
 by the rule of division of loss. And in some of the later ^<>^- 
 codes there are traces of the rule of division of loss beiusr 
 extended to cases of collision by negligeoce (/•) ; but the 
 limitation of liability to the value of ship and freight 
 belongs to a later date. 
 
 In the case of damage done by a sliip belonging to Cnueotiou 
 foreigners resident abroad, and where service of a writ of I'A"^*''^" 
 
 " ltmit<tl 
 
 summons cannot be effected, the damages recoverable are, liability' and 
 
 in practice, limited to the value of the ship and freight, t\\\^!'^ ^ " 
 
 the irs arrested by the Admiralty Com't. The statutory 
 
 limit of liability is doubtless connected with this fact ; Init 
 
 the arrest of the ship was adopted, in the first instance, in 
 
 order to compel her owners to appear, and not because 
 
 their liability was limited to the value of the ship (/). 
 
 The history of the singular legislation in this country TIi^to^y of 
 which prevents the sufferer in a collision between ships from i^'.';-!,i^||„, 
 recovering damages beyond a sum fixed by reference to the >»r"fi the 
 size of the instrument Avith which the damage is done, is as 
 follows : Until the year 1734, by the common law of 
 England and by the maritime law as administered in the 
 Admiralty Court of this country, the liability of ship- 
 owners for damages by collision was, as has been stated 
 above {i)i), unlimited. In that year an Act (7 Geo. '2, c. lo) 7 Geo. 2, 
 was passed limiting shipowners' liability for loss of cargo 
 by theft of master or crew to the value of the ship and 
 freight (//). This Act was passed in consequence of the 
 decision in Boucher v. Laicnon (o), by which the shipowners 
 
 (^•) See Droit Maritime de la making the owner answerable, or 
 
 Suede, 3 P<frdetis. 129, 173, 174; demandinfr rfparati(ju as atrainKt 
 
 Dantzic Sea Lawt*, Art. 51, Black him heyuud the va.ue of tlu-Mhij); 
 
 Book, iv. 349. though, as he points out. Bynkor- 
 
 (/) Though, as pointed out by shock thought that, as against tliu 
 
 Sir J. Jervis, in Thf Bold Biicclmich, master, there is a remedy in 
 
 7 Moo. P. C. 267, 282, arrest of the solidum. 
 
 ship in Admiralty is not exactly (;//) See >,iipta, p. 146, n. (a). 
 
 analogous to the process of foreign (/') Sutton v. MitrlicU. 1 T. R. IS, 
 
 attachment. See also mipra, p. 71. is a decision under this Act, tliat the 
 
 '^\\Q. dictum vii Parke, B., to the con- owners were not liable beyond the 
 
 trary in Brun-n v. WilkinHon^ 1.5 M. statutf)ry limit for a rolilnry of 
 
 & W. 3^1, is probably iucorret't. cargo in which one of the crew was 
 
 Dr. Browne (Civ. Law, ii. 397) concerned. 
 
 thought that in an action in rein for {o) Ca«. temp. Har.lw. Ho. See 
 
 collision, there is no pretence for per I3uller, J., I'a'cs v. Hall, 1 T. R. 
 
 c. 15.
 
 150 
 
 LIMITATION OF LlAlilLTrY. 
 
 26 G-eo. 3, 
 c. 86. 
 
 53 Geo. 3, 
 c. 159. 
 
 Avere hold liable for loss of a cargo of bullion taken on 
 board in Portugal and afterwards stolen by the master. 
 The fact tliat Holland and other maritime nations of Europe 
 had previously passed similar laws, for the protection and 
 encouragement of their shipping, appears to have influenced 
 the Legislature in passing the measure (p). By 26 Greo. 3, 
 e. 86, the relief afforded by the previous Act was extended to 
 cases of theft by persons other than the crew, and to cases of 
 loss by fire (</). Limitation of liabilty in case of collision 
 was first created by 53 Greo. 3, c. 159. This Act, after 
 reciting that it was expedient to encourage the owning of 
 British ships (r), fixed the limit of shipowners' liability for 
 damage to other ships and to cargo on board either of two 
 ships in collision at the value of the ship sued and the 
 freight she was earning or under contract to earn. The 
 Act was confined to sea-going British ships, and under it 
 questions arose as to the amount of the shipowners' liability 
 when freight had been paid before the collision (.s), or never 
 
 75, 78. Boucher v. Lawaon is clearly 
 the case referred to in the petition of 
 shipowners set out in the Journals of 
 the House of Commons, Sess. 1733, 
 p. 277. The petitioners, after refer- 
 ring to the decision, complain that 
 they, " when they became owners 
 of ships, did not apprehend them- 
 selves exposed to such hazard, or 
 liable as owners to any g-reater loss 
 than that of the ships and freight ; 
 and of the insupportable and un- 
 reasonable hardships to which our 
 laws in this case subject them ; and 
 to which no owners of ships are 
 exposed in other trading nations" ; 
 and thej^ represent to the House 
 " that, unless some provision be 
 made for their relief, trade and 
 navigation will be greatly dis- 
 couraged, since iiwners of ships find 
 themselves, without any fault on 
 their part, exposed to ruin, &c., «S:c., 
 &c." A very similar petition, ask- 
 ing for an alteration in the law by 
 which shipowners were made liable 
 for damage done by their ships, when 
 they (the owners) were not on board, 
 was presented to Parliament in the 
 fifteenth or early sixteenth century. 
 It was not successful. " Le Roy 
 sadvisera " was the answer. See 
 
 Ancient Petitions, 6264. 
 
 {p) See per Lord Stowell, The 
 Bundce, 1 Hag. Ad. 109, 121, per 
 Abbott, J., Gale v. Laurie, 5 B. & C. 
 156, 163 ; per Lord Blackburn, 7 
 App. Gas. 812; and see supra, p. 147. 
 The Commons Journals for the year 
 1733 contain several petitions from 
 shipowners for relief in other matters. 
 Another Act of the same year— 53 
 Geo. 3, c. 87 — was passed tor their 
 relief. 
 
 [q) Hunter v. 31' Gown, 1 Bligh, 
 573, was a decision that this Act 
 did not apply to inland craft, such 
 as a Clyde gabbert. 
 
 (r) There does not appear to have 
 been any considerable discussion in 
 Parliament upon the principle of 
 either this or the subsequent Acts 
 limiting shipowners' liability. See 
 Commons Jotu'nals, vol. 68, p. 670 ; 
 133 Hansard's Pari. Deb. pp. 574 
 seq. Upon the Act of 1862 there 
 was some discussion of details, but 
 little was said as to the principle or 
 policy of the Act: Hansard, vol. 165, 
 p. 1932; vol. 166, pp. 2217 seq. ; 
 vol. 167, pp. 735, 750; vol. 168, 
 pp. 1 seq. 
 
 (s) Wilson V. I)ickson, 2 B. & 
 Aid. 2.
 
 HISTORY IN ENliLIs-lI LAW. 
 
 I'd 
 
 earned (t), as to the time at which the ship's vahie was to be 
 taken for the purpose of the Act {h), and as to the ship's 
 appui'tenances which were to be included in the valuation {x). 
 The preamble shows that limitation of liabiHty was founded 
 upon considerations of policy and not of justice "The 
 principle of limited liability is that full iiideniuity, the 
 uatui-al right of justice, shall be abridged for politii-al 
 reasons " (//). As to the justice of the Acts limiting lia- 
 bility, opinions have differed widely (z) ; and it is possible 
 that the construction of the Acts has not been unaffected by 
 these opinions (a) ; but there is no reason why they should 
 be construed otherwise thau according to the fair and natural 
 meaning of their words {h). 
 
 By 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, ss. oO-i, 500, the same limit was i: & is Viot. 
 fixed for damages recoverable for loss ot' life or personal 'vij '*'"''' * ' 
 injury, with a provision that in such cases the value of the 
 ship should be taken at not less than 15/. per toti(r) ; and 
 the statutory limitation was extended to foreign as well as 
 British ships. Under all these Acts the value of the ship 
 and freight at or immediately before the collision had to be 
 ascertained, a fruitful source of litigation aud expense. 
 
 To obviate this {d), and also in order that bad aud iufurior 
 ships should not have an advantage, in case of collision, over 
 good aud valuable ships (c), 2> & 20 Vut. c. 0-i was [tasked, -j,-) & 2i5 Viut. 
 
 o 
 
 (<) Cannan v. Meaburn, 1 Biug. 
 465. 
 
 {i() Broun v. Wilkinson, \h M. & 
 
 W. ;i9i. 
 
 [x] 'the Dundee, 1 Hag. Ad. 120; 
 Gale V. Laurie, 5 B. & C. 156 ; 'The 
 Trliuii;, 3 Hag. Ad. 114, i>t ra, p. 158, 
 were dei-isioti.s under this Act. 
 
 (y) I'er Dr. Lushiuglun, 'The 
 Anmlia, 1 Moo. P. C. N. S. 471, 473. 
 
 (z) "An Act suffi(;iently tyrauiiical 
 as it is": per Brett. L.J. 'The 
 Eltnck, 6 P. D. 127, 136. Similar 
 opinions are expressed in 'The ^'or- 
 th.,,ni,ritt, L. R. 3 A. & E. 6, 13 ; 
 (Jhapinan v. Iloijfil Nttherlands Sleam- 
 ship Co., 4 i'. JJ. lo7, lo4; 'The 
 Anddbisian, 3 P. D. 182, 190; and 
 per Dr. Lushiugton, supra. A 
 diti'erout view was taken by BiUt, J., 
 ill 'The Warkicorth, 9 V.I). 20,21. 
 And oee per Mellish, L. J., in London 
 
 63, 8. .)!. 
 
 <^- 6'. IF. JiaiL Co. V. James, L. R. S 
 Ch. 241, 2r)2. 
 
 (a) See per Abbott, C. J., Gale v. 
 Laurie, 5 B. & C. l-5d, 163 : per 
 Brett, L. J., 4 P. D. 184; 6 P. D. 
 136 ; per Dr. Lushington, TheBenaren, 
 14 Jur. 581. 
 
 {b) See /;••'• Butt, J., 'The ll'ark- 
 wurlh, M P. D. 2'». 
 
 [e] ^V(.f'/« V. lloberU, 1 3. k H. 
 739 ; L'l/cistcr v. Lnyan. 4 K. A; .1. 
 72-1 ; hubrte v. Hchruder, 6 Sim. 2'.M ; 
 2 M. A: Or. 489 ; Gruimjer v. M<irl\n, 
 2 B. «Sc S. 4.i6 ; Afiu-an SU-ininhip 
 Co. V. sSuanzi/, 2 K. & J. 660, uru 
 decisionN under tl\is Act. 
 
 (d) See per Lord Biackburu, 7 
 App. Cas. 811, SI 5. 
 
 («) Hansard, l*arl. Debates, vol. 
 16.), p. 1932. 'Mv. iMilner liibs m's 
 sj>ee(;h un introducing tbo Hill : 
 Lindsay's History of Merchant 
 Shipping, vol. 3, p. 408.
 
 1'j2 limitation of liability. 
 
 That Act (sect. 54) struck a rough average value for all ships 
 at 15/. or 8/. per ton, the valuation to be at the higher or 
 lower rate according as the collision was accompanied by loss 
 of life or personal injury or not. In 1894 it was repealed, 
 but in substance re-enacted, by 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, s. 503, as 
 follows : — 
 57 & 58 Vict Q /) The owner of a ship, British or foreign, shall not, where 
 ' ' all or any of the following events take place without their actual 
 
 fault or privity ; (that is to say), 
 
 (a) Where any loss of life or personal injury is caused to 
 
 any person being carried in the ship ; 
 
 (b) Where any damage or loss is caused to any goods, 
 
 merchandise, or other things whatsoever on board 
 the ship ; 
 
 (c) Where any loss of life or personal injury is caused to 
 
 any person carried in any other vessel by reason of 
 the improper navigation of the ship ; 
 
 (d) Where any loss or damage is caused to any other vessel 
 
 or other things whatsoever on board any other vessel, 
 by reason of the improper navigation of the ship ; 
 
 bo liable in damages beyond the following amounts ; (that is to 
 
 say), 
 
 (1.) In respect of loss of life or personal injury, either alone 
 or together with loss of or damage to vessels, goods, 
 merchandise, or other things, an aggregate amount 
 not exceeding fifteen pounds for each ton of their 
 ship's tonnage ; and 
 
 (11.) In respect of loss of, or damage to, vessels, goods, mer- 
 chandise, or other things, whether there be in addition 
 loss of life or personal injury or not, an aggregate 
 amoimt not exceeding eight pounds for each ton of 
 their ship's tonnage. 
 (2.) For the purposes of this section, — 
 
 (a) The tonnage of a steamship shall be her gross tonnage 
 without deduction of engine room ; and the tonnage 
 of a sailing ship shall be her register tonnage : Pro- 
 vided that there shall not be included in such tonnage 
 any space occupied by seamen or apprentices and 
 appropriated to their use, which is certified under 
 the regulations scheduled to this Act with regard 
 thereto ;
 
 STATUTE NOW IN FOKCK. lo3 
 
 (L) Where a foreign ship lias been or can be measured 57 & 58 Vict, 
 according to British law, her tonnage, as ascertained '^- ^^' *• ^^^• 
 by that measurement, shall, for the purposes of this 
 section, be deemed to be her tonnai»-e • 
 
 (c) Where a foreign ship has not been and cannot be 
 measured according to British law, the surveyor- 
 general of ships in the United Kingdom, or the chief 
 measuring officer of any British possession abroad, 
 shall, on receiving from or by the direction of the 
 Court hearing the case, in which the tonnage of the 
 ship is in question, such evidence concerning the 
 diniensiims of the ship as it may bo practicable to 
 furnish, give a certificate under his hand stating 
 what would in his opinion have been the tonnage of 
 the ship, if she had been duly measured according to 
 British law ; and the tonnage so stated in that certi- 
 ficate shall, for the purposes of this section, be 
 deemed to be the tonnage of the ship. 
 
 (3.) The owner of every sea-going ship or share therein shall 
 be liable in respect of ever}' such loss of life, personal injury, 
 loss of or damage to vessels, goods, merchandise, or things as 
 aforesaid arising upon distinct occasions to the same extent as if 
 no other loss, injury, or damage had arisen. 
 
 The operation of this enactment is extended to owners, Dumajjo iiy 
 builders, or other persons interested in a ship built in any ^^^^^S^>^^*^^*^ 
 part of the King's dominions, and not registered, but dues 
 not extend to the owners of a ship after it has become a 
 foreign ship (/). 
 
 By t)3 & 64 Yiet. c. 32, s. 1, it is further extended " to all Dumape to or 
 cases where (without their actual fault and privity) an}- loss authorities. 
 or damage is caused to property or rights of any kind, 
 whether on land or water, or whether fixed or moveable, by 
 reason of improper navigation or management of the ship." 
 And by sect. 2 of the same Act the liability of dock, canal, 
 harbour, and conservancy authorities is limited in a novel 
 manner by reference to the tonnage of the largest sliip that 
 has, within five years of the damage, used the dock or waters 
 over which the authority has jurisdiction. 
 
 (/) Gl & G2 Vict. c. 14, s, 1, aud 6 Ed. 7, c. 48, s. G8.
 
 154 
 
 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. 
 
 Tonnage Tlie enactments relating to tonnage measurement are 
 
 measurement. 
 
 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, ss. 77—87, and 6 Edw. 7, c. 48, 
 ss. 54 and 55. In order to understand the cases decided upon 
 the corresponding sections of former Acts, it will be convenient 
 to summarize these sections. Section 77 gives the rule for 
 measuring a ship's " tonnage " for the purpose of ascer- 
 taining her " register tonnage." Section 78 provides 
 for the deduction, in the case of steamships, of the space 
 occupied by the machinery from her " gross tonnage," 
 in order to ascertain her " register tonnage." Section 79 ; 
 sect. 54, M. S. A., 19U6, provide for the deduction, in all 
 ships, of (1) spaces used for the accommodation of master or 
 crew ; (2) spaces used for the working of capstan, helm, or 
 anchor, for the keeping of charts, signals, and other 
 instruments of navigation, or boatswain's stores (hereinafter 
 called navigation spaces) ; (3) spaces occupied by the donkey 
 engine and boiler in certain cases, and any space (other than 
 a double bottom) adapted only for water ballast ; and, in case 
 of a sailing ship, spaces used for storing of sails. None of 
 these spaces can be deducted, unless certain provisions as to 
 certificates have been complied with. Section 80 makes 
 special provision for screw steamships measured before 
 26th August, 1889. Section 81 provides for ships having a 
 double bottom ; the words (taken from 52 & 53 Vict. c. 43, 
 s. 5) that the ship's depth " shall be taken to be the upjjcr 
 side of the inner plating of the double bottom, and that 
 uj)per side shall, for the purposes of measurement, be deemed 
 to represent the floor timber " mentioned in the rules for 
 measuring which are scheduled to the Act, have been the 
 subject of decisions (,(/). Section 82 provides that the tonnage 
 measured in accordance with the Act and entered on the 
 register shall be the " tonnage " of the ship, until le-measure- 
 ment. Section 83 is as to fees. Section 84 provides that, 
 upon an Order in Council being made in that behalf, the 
 ships of any foreign country shall, for the purposes of the 
 Act, be taken to be of the tonnage specified in their certificates 
 of registry ; with power for his Majesty to revoke such 
 Orders and to order re-measurement of foreign ships in 
 
 {(/) The Cordillera)!, (1904) P. 90 ; 9 Asp. 506 ; The Zanzibar, (1892) P. 233.
 
 TONNAGE mka.suki:mi:nt loo 
 
 certain eases. The above certificate of registry, together 
 with an alfidavit showing that certain water ballast spaces in a 
 French vessel were not available for cargo, was held to be 
 sufficient evidence of the propriety of deluctiug the space 
 occupied by these tanks witliout a certificate of a surveyor 
 nnder sect. 81 (r/). And now by M. S. Act, 1906, s. 55, 
 any space shown by tje certificate of registry or other 
 national papers as deducted from tonnage shall be deemed to 
 have been certified under the prin^upal Act. Orders in 
 Council of the following dates were made under former Acts 
 with respect to the ships of the countries named ; and under 
 sect. 745 of the Merchant Shipping Act, ls!)4, these Orders 
 are still in force : — 
 
 America, United States, 30th July, 18()8, 3rd October, 
 189-3; Austria, 19th August, 1871 ; Belgium, 17th October, 
 1881; Denmark, "iiith February, 18t)8, 30th December, 
 1878, and 21st November, 1895; France, 5th May, 1873; 
 Grermany, 23rd July, 1889, and 22nd February, 1896; 
 Grreece, I4th August, 1879 ; Hayti, 3rd May, 1S82 ; Italy, 
 30th September, 1873 ; Japan, 27th January, 1885 ; Nether- 
 lands, 3rd May, 188.'^; Norway, 17th May, 1876, an<l 2nd 
 February, 1881; Russia, 20th November, 1880; Spain, 
 17th March, 1875, and 5th August, 1875; Sweden, 17th 
 March, 1875, 3rd May, 1882, and 18th August, 1882. 
 
 Section 85 provides that dues payable on a ship's tonnage 
 shall be paid in respect of space occupied hy deck cai-go ; but 
 it does u()t appear that the owner's liability for collision is 
 increased by carrying deck cargo. Sections 86, 87 are mainly 
 administrative. 
 
 By 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, s. 509, the provisions as to limita- tIio A.t 
 tion of liability are applied to the whole of his Majesty's ;|}J"ji'''Tyi'.^ 
 dcmiinions. In some of tliese, however, laws have been duminious. 
 passed which are not wholly in accordance with the Imperial 
 
 Act(/0. 
 
 The Act applies in all cases of collision, wliether th(* ships ii applUs t.> 
 are both British, or both foreign, or one Britisli and one ."n Valors" 
 
 (ff) See note '//) on opposite pa^'o. see Ocimjiaii li'ii/ Tratinporlalion Co. 
 
 (h) In St. Lucia the limit is 15/. v. Fisher, Tuppur'n Kep. Ontiirio, 
 
 per ton: Civ. Code, 2270. As to 383. 
 the Canadian Act, 4i Vict. c. 2'J,
 
 156 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. 
 
 foreign (/) ; whether the action is in Admiralty or at 
 law (A-). 
 Decisions There have been several decis^ions upon the Acts limiting 
 
 ^^^ ^^ liability. The most recent cases, relating to tonnage measure- 
 
 ment, may be taken first : — 
 
 The ship's register is not conclusive as to tonnage. If the 
 tonnage is in fact different from that shown by the register, 
 the liability is measured by the actual and not by the tonnage 
 on the register (l). 
 
 The wording of the Acts {/ii), which have been superseded 
 by the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, was confused, and that 
 of the present Act is not altogether clear, as to the measure 
 of liability. " Tonnage," " gross tonnage," " r>^gister 
 tonnage," " registered tonnage," and "burden " are not used 
 in the same sense throughout the Acts. 
 
 The principal difficulty has been as to the spaces allowed 
 to be deducted. Under the Acts in force in 1878 it was 
 decided (ii) that crew spaces on the upper deck could not be 
 deducted under 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 21 (4) ; and further, 
 that the requirements of 30 & 31 Vict. c. 124, s. 9, as to 
 certificates must, even where the ship is foreign, be complied 
 with, before any deduction can be made in respect of crew 
 spaces not on the upper deck. By the next case, T/ie 
 Palermo {o), decided under the same Acts, in 1884, it was 
 held that the provisions as to certificates need not be complied 
 with in the case of crew spaces on the upper deck, which 
 could be deducted under 17 & 18 Vict. c. Iu4, s. 21, sub-s. 4, 
 notwithstanding 30 & 31 Vict. c. 124, s. 9. The Umbilo(p) 
 turned on 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 54, and 52 & 53 Vict, 
 c. 13, s. 3. It was held that a steamship could not deduct 
 the " navigation " spaces mentioned in the later Act. In 
 
 (i) The Amalia, 1 Moo. P. C. N. S. (/;/) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, ss. 20 — 
 
 471; Br. & Lush. 151; including 29; 30 & 31 Vict. c. 124, s. 9; 
 
 yachts (unless excluded by contract), 34 & 35 Vict. c. 110, s. 12 ; 52 & 53 
 
 The Satamta, (1897) App." Gas. 59. Vict. c. 43. 
 
 {k) Charleied Mercantile Bank of (u) The Franconia, 3 P. D. 164, 
 
 India, iS;c. v. Ncthcrland Steam Navi- where Burrell v. Sunpson, 4 Ct. of 
 
 gation Co., 10 Q. B. D. 521. Sess. Gas. 4th ser. 177, was not 
 
 [l) The John Mclnt.^re, 6 P. D. folljwed ; The Cathaij, 9 Asp. M. G. 
 
 200. And see The Dione, 5 Asp. 100. 
 
 M. C. 347 ; The Franconia, 3 P. D. (o) 10 P. D. 21. 
 
 164 ; The Re:epla, 14 P. D. 131. [p) (1891) P. 118.
 
 DECISIONS rPOX THE ACTS. 157 
 
 The Petrel {q), it was held that notwitlistanding the use of the 
 words "register tonnage" in 30 & 31 Yict. c. 1-24, s. 9, 
 sub-s. 4, and notwithstanding the repeal of 17 i*!: 18 Yiet. 
 c. 104, s. 21, sub-s. 4, by 52 & 53 Vii-t. c. 43, s. 1 , sub-s. 2, cer- 
 tificated crew spaces could be deducted. Those words, it was 
 said, referred to " total gross tonnage as registered, and not to 
 the register tonnage mentioned in the Act of 1854." Lastly, 
 in The Pilgrim (r), it was held that in a sailing ship, not- 
 withstanding the decision in The Umhilo, " navigation " 
 spaces could be deducted. 
 
 The above cases, all decided upon Acts now repealed, are 
 probably all superseded by the present Act, except The 
 Umhilo, which seems still to be an authority for holding tliat, 
 in a steamship, " navigation " spaces cannot be deducted. 
 The language of the Act of 1894 being far from clear, it has 
 been thought better to mention all the cases used in con- 
 struing the repealed Acts. 
 
 The Brunei {s), whose tonnage liability was in question, 
 was a tug whose gross tonnage was 35'99 tons, engine-room 
 space 31 tons, and crew spaces (uncertified) 6 tons. It was 
 held that she was under 15 tons " burden " within the 
 meaning of 57 & 58 Vict. c. tO, s. 3, and that although 
 unregistered, her owner's liability was limited to 35*99/. x 8, 
 i.e., 287/. 18«. 4r/. 
 
 Beneficial owners, as well as registered owners, are entitled Beneficial 
 to the benefit of limited liability (/). So also is a charterer "^V"i", , 
 
 •J ^ ' ^ I'lltltllll to 
 
 to whom the ship is " demised " [u), that is to say, the shij) is limit liability, 
 let by the owner and hired by the charterer so as to be under 
 the control of the latter (r). 
 
 By 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, s. 502, the liability of the owner is " Without 
 not limited where he is the actual wrong-doer ; the Act ownerM') 
 applies only where the collision occurs without the "actual '"■•"■'1 *'«"1^ 
 fault or privity " of the owner. The meaning of these words 
 was discussed in llie War],- north (.r), the facts of which case 
 
 {q) (1S93) P. ;520. within 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, h. 117. 
 (r) (1895) r. 117. (") 6 Ed. 7, c 4S, s. 71 ; luul wo 
 
 (h) (1900) P. 24. Sir John Jacknon, Ltd. v. Ownns of 
 
 it) The Spirit of the Ocean, Br. & S.S. IShuche. (190S) A. C. iJG. 
 
 L. 336; The Brinio, infra, p. lo9. [v) Bftiimwu/t v. Fiinnss, flSi):!) 
 
 In IIiKjhes V. Sutherland, 7 Q. B. D. A. C. 8. 
 
 100, a per.son who had contracted to (x) 9 P. D. 145. 
 
 buy a ship was held to be owuer
 
 158 
 
 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. 
 
 Master part- 
 owner. 
 
 Co-owners : 
 one actually 
 in fault. 
 
 What ships 
 are entitled to 
 the benefit of 
 the Act. 
 
 Ship must he 
 reo'istered. 
 
 are stated later (p. 161). The effect of the words is to protect 
 the shipowner, not only against the legal consequences of 
 negligence in his servants or agents, but also from any 
 imperfections in the ship which cause collision. An owner 
 navigating his ship with his own hand, or, it seems, under 
 his own orders as master, would not be entitled to the benefit 
 of the Act. 
 
 If it is intended to make a master who is also part-owner 
 liable beyond the statutory limit, as for a collision caused by 
 his actual fault or privity, he must be sued as master in the 
 first instance (//). It is not clear what constitutes fault or 
 privity depriving an owner of the benefit of the statute. 
 Where the master, who was also part-owner, was on board, 
 but not on deck, at the time of the collision, and the ship 
 was properly in charge of the mate and pilot, it was held 
 that there was no fault or privity on the part of the 
 master (s). 
 
 The fact of the master of the wrong-doing ship being a 
 part-owner and personally in fault for the collision will not 
 deprive his co-owners of the benefit of the statute (ei) ; but 
 he is himself liable for full damages {b). Where the master 
 is a part-owner, it is not necessary for the co-owners, in order 
 to obtain judgment limiting their liability, to prove that the 
 master was not privy to the collision. They r.re entitled to 
 the usual declaration limiting their liability, with a reserva- 
 tion of the injured person's rights against the master (c). 
 
 Under 17 & IS Vict. c. 1U4, and the previous Act, 53 
 Geo. o, c. 159, sea-going ships only were entitled to the 
 benefit of limited liability. The Act of 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. 
 c. 63) applied to " any " ship ; it seems that any foreign ship 
 and any British ship [d), sea-going or otherwise, is entitled 
 to the benefit of the Act now in force; but a British ship 
 that has to be registered will not, after three months from her 
 
 («/) The Volant, 1 W. Rob. 383. 
 
 (s) Tlie Obeii, L. R. 1 A. & E. 102. 
 See Kidsun v. McArthnr, 5 Ct. of 
 Sess. Cas. 4th ser. 1)36. 
 
 («) The Spirit of the Ocean, Br 
 L. 336 ; The Obey, supra ; Kichon 
 McyLrthur, mpra ; 1 he Eiiipuaa, 
 P. D. 6 ; Wilmn v. Dwkxo)/. 2 B. 
 
 & 
 
 V. 
 
 5 
 
 & 
 
 Aid. 2, was a timilar decision under 
 
 53 Geo. 3, c. 159, s. 1. 
 
 (//) 17 & IS Vict. c. 104, s. 516. 
 7'he Truoie, 3 Hag. Ad. 114, is a 
 decision upon the Mniilar exception 
 in 63 Geo. :<, C lo9. 
 
 (,•) The Cricket, 5 Asp. M. C. 63. 
 
 {dj As to the meaning of " shij) " 
 in the Merchant Shipping Acts, see 
 p. 303, ii/f/(t.
 
 WHO AND WHAT SHIPS ENTITLKD. ^o9 
 
 launch {supra, p. 151), be entitled to the benefit of the Act 
 unless she is registered. Craft under fifteen tons employed 
 solely upon the coasts or in rivers of the United Kingdom or 
 some British possession within which the managing owners are 
 resident, and certain fishing and coasting craft on the New- 
 foundland and neighboui-ing coasts, need not be registered (<•). 
 
 Where, before the passing of 61 & 6"J Vict. e. 14 {siipni, 
 p. 153), an unregistered ship was negligently launched from 
 a builder's slip on the Mersey and damaged a vessel atloat, it 
 was held that the liability of her owners (who were British) 
 was not limited by the Act, and they were liable for the 
 whole loss (./'). But a ship bought by British subjects from 
 Dutch owners (r/), and not yet registered as Britisli, was 
 allowed to limit her liability in respect of the collision, wliii-h 
 occurred when she still belonged to Dutch vendors (//). 
 
 There is no limitation in respect of goods transhipped after Gomls tmn- 
 and in consequence of a collision caused by the fault of the coliiMoVunY 
 carrying ship, and subsequently lost by the negligence of lost- 
 those on board the ship to which they were transhipped. 
 T/ie Bernina, by her own fault, was in collision with The 
 Bus/lire. Without the assent or knowledge of the cargo- 
 owner, and in order to carry the cargo to its destination, 
 the master of T/ie Bernina transhipped his cargo from The 
 Bernina, which had been injured in the colHsion, to The 
 Brixham and Avehury. These two ships subsequently went 
 ashor , and were lost with their cargoes by the negligence of 
 those on board. After t eir loss, The Bernina owners insti- 
 tuted an a tion to limit their liability, and obtained the usual 
 j udgment. The cargo-owners made no claim in the limitation 
 action, but instituted an action against The Bernina owners for 
 loss of the cargo. It w^as held that they were not prevented 
 from recove ing damages in this action by the judgment in 
 the limitation action (/). 
 
 {e) 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, s. 3 ; The 1891. 
 
 Brunei, (190U) P. 24. See, as to (/() Reported 90 L. T. ./..unial, 
 
 tishiiif' craft, s. 373. 21.>. 
 
 (/) The Awialasian, 3 P. D. 182. (t) The llmiwa, 12 P. D. •>(.. ll.r 
 
 Ci.B>iU.shColHmljiaTuu'iiif/a7idT,nii.,- hills of lading of 7'//c hn.rliiiin and 
 
 port Co. V. fieuell, 9 Uuxal's Kfp. 'J he Aivhunj i-.\cfptc I n.-liK<'i"''' <>*" 
 
 (Canada) 527. the master ai.d <rew. wj.ile tl.oM- of 
 
 (()) r//eL'W«io,Ad.Div.,Jan.27ll>, TUc Bernina did not. It wi. li.ld
 
 160 
 
 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. 
 
 Liability 
 limited in 
 contract as 
 well as tort. 
 
 Liability 
 where two 
 or more 
 collisions. 
 
 Damage by 
 
 tug or tow : 
 measure of 
 liability. 
 
 The liability of shipowners is limited in respect of damages 
 recoverable in an action upon the contract to carry as well as 
 in respect of a mere tort. So carriers by sea, or partly by 
 sea and partly by land, may limit their liability as against 
 passengers or cargo-owners (/.•). 
 
 The owners of every sea-going vessel (/) are liable for 
 losses occurring upon separate occasions to the extent of their 
 statutory liability in each case. The rest of sect. 503 applies 
 to all foreign and registered British ships, whether sea-going 
 or not; but sub-sect. 3 follows the Act of 1854 in confining 
 the operation of the clause in question to sea-going vessels. 
 Where -^ steamship struck a tug and also the ship to which 
 the tug was passing her tow-line, it was held that the amount 
 for which the steamship was liable was to be calculated as 
 upon one collision and not upon two {m). The question is, 
 whether the two collisions are the result of the same act of 
 negligence ; if they are, sect. 503 (3) applies, but not other- 
 wise. If the wrong manoeuvre which caused the first collision 
 might have been corrected before it caused the second collision, 
 it is held that the two collisions are not caused by the same 
 act of negligence, and that the owner of the wrong-doing 
 ship is liable in respect of two, and not only one collision. 
 Thus The Schuan, by wrongly starboarding across the bows 
 of The Albano, caused a collision between The Albano and 
 The Moggie. Very shortly afterwards, but not so soon but 
 that the helm might have been altered so as to avoid a 
 second collision, The Albano struck The Delmio. It was held, 
 under 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 506, that The Albano was liable 
 for both collisions {n). 
 
 Where a steamship salvor was towing another, and both 
 ran into and damaged a third ship owing to the negligence 
 
 this was immaterial. 3[oreu-ood v. 
 I'oUolc, 1 E. & B. 743, is a similar 
 decision upon 26 Geo. 3, c. 8G, s. 2. 
 
 [k) London ^- S. W. Rail. Co. v. 
 James, L. R. 8 Ch. 241 ; The Nor- 
 mandy, L. R. 3 A. & E. 152. 
 
 [I) ^bl ii 58 Vict. c. 60, s. 503 (3), 
 reproducing 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, 
 c. 506. 
 
 [m) The Rajah, L. R. 3 A. & E. 
 539. Cf. The Bernina, 12 P. D. 36 ; 
 
 The Douglaa, 7 P. D. 151. In The 
 Creudm, 5 Asp. M. C. 585, Butt, J., 
 stated the question to be whether 
 the first collision caused the second. 
 In 63 & 64 Vict. c. 32 {supra, p. 153), 
 there is (s. 3) special provision for 
 several losses occurring on one 
 occasion. 
 
 («) TheSchu-an, The Albam, {\S92) 
 P. 419.
 
 VARIOUS CASES. 
 
 101 
 
 (lisclmrj^fHl by 
 siiikiiiir of 
 tluir ship. 
 
 of the towmg ship, it was held tliat tlie towing sliip was 
 alone liable. The owners of the towing and the towed ship 
 being the same, it was held that their liabilitv was to the 
 extent of 8/. per ton upon the tonnage of the towing ship (o). 
 But where, in a ease of ordinary towage, the collisx^n was 
 between tug and third ship, and all tln-ee were lield in fault, it 
 was lield tluit the total liability of tug-owners and tow-owners 
 was measiu-ed by the tonnage, not of the tug, but of tlie 
 tow (p). 
 
 If the wrong-doing ship is sunk in tlie collision, or sub- 
 sequently to it, the owners are not thereby discharged from 
 
 liability ((j). 
 
 Lord Campbell's Act (r), enabling the representatives of Combined 
 persons killed by negligence to recover damages, is not f,f &^f vict 
 repealed or affected by the Merchant Shipping Acts, except c.*'g3."8. 5^ " 
 so far as those Acts limit the extent (s) of the shipowner's SunpiTu-s 
 liability. Act. 
 
 It will be observed that the shipowner's liability in respect 
 of injury to persons or goods on board another ship, or to 
 another ship, is limited only where such injury is caused by 
 " the improper navigation " of his own ship ; and that his 
 liability as carrier is limited whether the loss arises from 
 improper navigation, or from some other cause. There has 
 been some doubt as to the meaning of the words *' improper 
 navigation." In T/ie Warhcorth, the effect of the Act was 
 stated by Brett, M. R., to be that the owner's liability is 
 limited for "all damage wrongfully done by a ship to 
 another whilst it is being navigated, where the wrongful 
 action of the ship by which damage is done is due to 
 the negligence of any person for whom the owner is 
 responsible" {t). 
 
 " Improper 
 iiavi'ration.' 
 
 {o) The America)) and The Syria, 
 L. II. b P. C. 127. 
 
 {p) The Englishman and The Aus- 
 tralia, (1894) r. 239. 
 
 {f/) The Normandy, L. R. 3 A. & 
 E. 152; The Cakiitla, 17 W. R. 744; 
 Brown v. fri/kinmn, lo M. & W. 
 391. In America, it seems tliat if 
 the wrong-doing vessel is sunk, the 
 owners are discharged : 2 Purstjns 
 on Sliipping (ed. 18()9), 120—140; 
 9 U. S. Stat, at Large, 63.*) ; Norwich 
 
 M. 
 
 Steamboat Co. v. Tl'rit/ht, 13 W'M. 
 104. 
 
 ('/•) 9 & 10 Vict. c. 93; 27 & 2S 
 Vict. c. 95. 
 
 (.v) Gladholm v. Barhr, L. R. 1 
 Ch. 223. 
 
 {t) I'cr Brett, M. R., The ll'ark- 
 ivorth, 9 P. D. 145, 147. As ro the 
 meaning of " improper navigation " 
 in an insurance case, see Ciinadu 
 Shipping Co. v. Ihitiah Shipuuiurs' 
 Mutual Protecting Annociation, 22 
 
 M
 
 1^- LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. 
 
 In that case the collision was caused by the ship's steam 
 steering gear failing to act at the critical moment. The gear 
 failed to work owing to a certain pin not being in its place. 
 The pin had worked or fallen out of its socket owing to its 
 not being, as it should have been, a " split " pin. It did not 
 appear by whom the improper pin had been inserted. It was 
 held by the Court of Appeal, affirming the decision of 
 Butt, J., that the collision and loss was caused by improper 
 navigation, without actual fault or privity of the owners, and 
 that their liability was limited by the Act. In the Court of 
 Appeal (n) it was held that, the statute being necessary only 
 where there has been negligence for which the owner must be 
 responsible, it must be assumed that the damage done by 
 T//0 Warkicorth was caused by negligence in fitting the 
 steering gear, for which negligence the owner was responsible. 
 " Improper navigation means improper navigation by the 
 owner of the ship. Now in the eye of the law the owner does 
 improperly navigate his ship, if, owing to the negligence of 
 some one for whom he is responsible, his ship does damage 
 to another. It is impossible for us to treat ' improper ' as 
 equivalent to ' unskilful ' ; on the contrary, it means 
 ' wrongful.' A person who uses his ship, which is not in a 
 condition to be so employed, does in reality improperly navi- 
 gate her " [x). 
 
 An injury done to a vessel in tow by her tug during the 
 performance of the towage contract was held to be caused by 
 " improper navigation " within the meaning of the Act, and 
 the tug-owner's liability was limited (//). 
 
 It seems that a collision between a ship being launched and 
 another afloat, caused by the fault of those in charge of the 
 launch starting her at a wrong time, is injury by im])roper 
 navigation within the meaning of the Act (~). 
 
 Q B. D. 727 ; 23 Q. B. D. 342 ; 846 : 4 Asp. M. 0. 27, note ; 45 
 
 Good V. London Steamship Owners'' L. J. C. P. 783. Alitir in Canada : 
 
 3hitual Protecting Association, L. R. British Cohimbia Towage (|- Transport 
 
 6 C P. 563 ; Carmichael v. Liverpool Co. v. Sewell, 9 Duval's Rep. 527. 
 
 Sailing Ship Owners^ Mutual Lndem- (;) See The Andahisian, 3 P. D. 
 
 fiiti/ Association, 19 Q. B. D. 242. 182. where, however, the point, 
 
 («) 9 P. D. 145. though raised in ars^i-ument, was not 
 
 (.j) Fer Bowen, L. J., The irark- mentioned in the judgment. See 
 
 tvorth, 9 P. D. 146, 148. aWypcr Brett, M. R., The Ifarkirorth, 
 
 {■;/) IFahlberg v. Young, 24 W. R. 9 P. D. 145, 147, as to the effect of
 
 IMPROPER NAVIGATION — INTEREST AND COSTS. 1^^ 
 
 The shipowner is liable beyond tlio sum to which his Shipowuer 
 liability is limited by the statute for interest on the amount the statutory 
 of his statutory liability from the date of the collision to pay- |^""^'J'"^ ^ 
 ment into Court, whether the claims are in respect of life or costa. 
 property (a). In the ease of limited liabilit}' this is the rule, 
 whether the ship was earning freight at the time of collision 
 <ir not (b), and whether there are several claims or only 
 one(c). And he is liable beyond the statutory amount for 
 the costs of the action (d). 
 
 The o^T3er of a ship sunk by collision who, admitting that )\'i-oiiv'-door 
 the collision was caused by the fault of his own ship, obtains of lusfmiit 
 a decree for limitation of his liability, and pays into Court J;;',;"!:"'^"* 
 the statutory amount of his liability, does not thereby escape Umitiuj? his 
 
 - -, P ^ • p ^ L • ' liiibilitv. 
 
 from the legal consequences of his wi'ongtul act in causing 
 the collision, except so far as the Act expressly relieves him. 
 The owner of a ship sunk in the Thames paid into Court the 
 statutory amount of his liability. His ship was raised by the 
 Thames Conservators (who have statutory powers to raise 
 ^Tecks and reimburse themselves for the expense of raising 
 them by sale of ship and cargo), he undertaking to pay the 
 cost of raising. It was held that the shipowner was bound 
 to hand over cargo on board to its owner, and that the cargo- 
 owner was not liable to pay him anything by way of salvage 
 or general average contribution {e). 
 
 The Act applies only where tlie injury is to a ship or '^[f^''l']'ll^^^^^y 
 boat (./"), or to persons or goods on board a ship. The to craft, and 
 
 neo-lio-enceon shore cau sins: improper report of tliis ciise is incorrct ; that 
 
 iiaviifation on the water. " it was not a ease of collision, but ot 
 
 (/?) ne Cathir, (1897) P. 178; a ship capsizing through improper 
 
 Si)«'ct:r Y. llartland (ISGl), 2 H. & stowage. 
 
 N. 570 ; The Anudia, 5 N. R. 164, {n) The Dundee, 2 Hag. Ad. 13/ ; 
 
 34 L J Ad 21 ; The Citij of Ex parte lttnj>ie, I Q. B. 0S2, are 
 
 note 
 
 JUmws Ayrcs (1871), 1 Asp. M. C. decisions to this ettect under forniei 
 
 \£,^- African Steamship Co. y.^wonzy, Acts. A hke rule prevails in 
 
 2 K. & J. 660 ; General Iron Screiv America : The 11 anata, •' Otto^ (.00. 
 Collier Co. V. Sch'irmanns, 1 J. & H. ie) The EUrxck, 6 P. D 12/. In 
 
 180; Nixon v. lioherU, 1 J. & H. The Cnjstal, (1894) App. Cas o08 ; 
 
 739 are similar decisions under The Harrington, 13 P. D. 48, the 
 
 former Acts. liability of the shipowner for the 
 
 lb) TheNorthu,nbria,-L.Ti.:iA.& expense of removing the wreck 
 
 E. 6. As to the justice of the under 10 & 11 Vict. c. 27, s. .)0, aud 
 
 practice compared with that at 40 & 41 Vict, c 16, was discussed 
 common law, see per Lord Esher, (/) The word "boat J'-; ""J 
 
 M. R., 13 P. D. 118. occur in paiagnplis (1) and (.; •'! 
 
 \e) Smith'v.' IMi/, 1 Q. B. D. sect. .04. 
 131. It has been stated that the 
 
 m2
 
 164 
 
 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. 
 
 goods or 
 persons on 
 board. 
 
 Liability of 
 shipowner 
 carrying in a 
 ship not his 
 own. 
 
 Where the 
 carrier is a 
 railway 
 company. 
 
 Other cases 
 of unlimited 
 liability. 
 
 Actions by or 
 against the 
 Crown. 
 
 Liability for 
 damage to a 
 light-ship. 
 
 Liability of 
 cargo to 
 arrest. 
 
 Liability of 
 
 liability for damage to a pier, wharf, or other object ashore, 
 and for damage to property afloat, other thau that mentioned 
 in the Act was until recently unlimited (r/) ; it is now limited 
 by 63 & 64 Vict. c. 32 {/i). 
 
 The liability of a person who contracts to carry persons, 
 animals, or goods by sea, and carries them in a ship not 
 owned by himself, is not limited by the statute. But the 
 liability of a railway company (/) in such a case is limited as 
 regards animals and goods (A-) , and also, it would seem, as 
 regards loss of life or personal injury to passengers ; but the 
 words of the Act are somewhat obscure as regards passen- 
 gers (/). 
 
 The liability of owners navigating their own ships, of 
 pilots, harbour and dock masters acting in charge of ships, of 
 partners in a shipping adventure who work but do not own 
 the ship (hi), seems to be untouched by the Act, and to be 
 unlimited. 
 
 As against the Crown there are in the Act no words 
 limiting the liability of the subject {)i) ; and since no action 
 for collision can be brought against the Crown, there is of 
 course uo statutory limitation of its liability. In the case of 
 an action against the officer in charge of a King's ship his 
 liability is unlimited ; but whether or no damages would in 
 such a case be paid in full depends, apparently, tipon the will 
 of the Crown. 
 
 If a vessel wilfully or negligently injures a light-ship, in 
 addition to her liability for damages, she incurs a penalty of 
 501. (o). Notwithstanding the words of the Act, the liability 
 for damages is probably limited to the statutory amount in 
 this, as in other, cases. 
 
 The liability of cargo to be arrested in order to compel 
 payment of freight is not affected by the Act (;;). 
 
 The liability of a London Trinity House pilot in respect of 
 
 {ff) See Elver Wear Comiiiissioiiers 
 V. Adamson, 1 Q. B. D. 546 ; 
 ■1 App. Gas. 743. 
 
 (//) Supra, p. 153. 
 
 [i) 34 & 35 Vict. c. 78, s. 12. 
 
 (A) Including passengers' luggage : 
 The Ste.la, (li)UO) P. 161. 
 
 (/) See per Lord Blackburn, Doolan 
 
 V. Midland Rail. Co., 2 Ai)p. Cas. 
 792, 809. 
 
 {»)) As in Steel v. Lesier, 3 C. P. D. 
 121. 
 
 («) See The Zoc, 11 P. D. 72. 
 
 (()) 57 & 58 Vict. c. GO, s. 666. 
 
 Ip) The Orpheus, L. R. 3 A. & E. 
 308.
 
 VARIOUS CASES. 16") 
 
 neglect and want of skill is limited to 100/., the ainount of 'IVimtylIou^o 
 the bond required to be executed by him upou his appoint- ^* "^" 
 ment, together with the amount of his pilotage fee (q). 
 
 The liability for damage caused by a ship owned by a Li.il.ility for 
 limited liability company is ultimately measured by the ^l^'n'-'J-'^' K^ 
 amount oi the assets of the company, amongst which the hy ciu^rlo sliip 
 moneys payable under a policy on the ship will be included. '""'I'''"-^'- 
 Where the whole assets of the company consist of the ship 
 that does the damage, and she is sunk in the collision, the 
 injured party is without redress. 
 
 The effect of the statute limiting owners' liability when il u.iui.iin.i 
 operates in coniunction with the rule as to division of loss is "i'*"'^'"':""'" 
 fully discussed in a previous chapter (r). It may liere be liuiiiiity und 
 stated shortly that, where both ships are in fault, and the |uvUou?>f 
 damage to ship A. and to cargo on board her is greater than ''^'•■"*- 
 that to ship B., and B. limits her liability pursuant to the 
 statute, the damages recoverable by A. will be so much of 
 the sum representing B.'s statutory liability as bears to 
 the entire sum the ratio which the difference between the 
 losses on the two ships bears to t'.e aggregate losses of 
 owners of cargo on board A. and other persons entitled 
 to claim against B. ; and, further, that B. can recover 
 nothing (•!>•). 
 
 The Act provides (sect. oOG) that insurances effected lusunmres 
 against any of the events in which the liability of the ship- vi^j,.,.e 
 owner is limited, and occui'rino: without actual fault or |l'^'l''''/ "* 
 privity of the owners, shall not be invalid by reason of tlie valid, 
 nature of the risk. There seems no doubt that such insur- 
 ances are valid apart from the Act (t). 
 
 Where the amount of the fund in Court is insufTicient rrioHtios of 
 to satisfy in full chums in respect of loss of life and loss of ',.^.spl.,,t „f 
 carffo, the former are entitled to the whole of that part (»f tli(> joss <.f life and 
 fund which represents the 7/. per ton ; and they are cntitlcil 
 to prove against the residue of the iund jjari jja^ii with the 
 cargo claimants. The latter have no pi'iority of jjroof 
 
 (q) 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, h. 620. {() There seems to have Ik'cii im 
 
 (>■) Supra, p. 127. idi'ii tliat hucIi iiisuiaii<'<-H iiii|.'lit. lir 
 
 (.v) Stountvaarls Maatschappi/ No- invalid fur want of iiitin-t in tin- 
 
 derlaiidn v. Pcuiiisular and Oricitlal in.surer : Hansard'^ I'.irl. Del'., 
 
 Steamship I\'avirjatwn Co., 7 App. Cas. vol. 166, p. 2227. 
 
 795.
 
 166 
 
 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. 
 
 Proof by the 
 Crown. 
 
 Liability 
 where some 
 claims settled. 
 
 Right of 
 bottomry 
 bond -holder 
 on freight, 
 where wrong- 
 doer limits his 
 liability. 
 
 against the part of the fund which represents the 8/. per 
 ton {ii). 
 
 The Crown raaj^ prove against the fund in Court, both by 
 the general law and by 31 & 32 Yict. c. 7!^, s. 3 (.r). 
 
 In Scotland it has been held that where the shipowner has 
 settled out of Court some of the claims in respect of a 
 collision for which his ship was in fault, he is entitled, upon 
 a petition for limitation of his liability, to take into account 
 the sums previously paid in respect of such claims ; and that 
 the other claimants are not entitled to any more than they 
 would have recovered if none of the claims had been 
 settled (//) . As to the application of the Act where some 
 claimauts have recovered damages in an action abroad, see 
 The Cmthic {z)\ and if damages have been assessed in a collision 
 action, and subsequently a limitation action is commenced by 
 one of the parties to the collision action, the amount of the 
 assessment in the collision action is not binding on the 
 claimant against the fund in this limitation action {a). 
 
 Where a ship negligently damages another, and the owners 
 of the latter obtain a judgment limiting their liability under 
 the statute, the holder of a bottomry bond on freight earned 
 by the injured vessel is entitled to share rateably in the 
 amount to which the liability of the wrong-doer is limited [h). 
 
 («) The Victoria (No. 2), 13 P. D. 
 125. See Nixon v. liohcrls, 1 J. H. 
 H. 73ii ; Lcyccster v. Loi/tni, 26 L. J. 
 Ch. 30(1, decided upon 17 & 18 Vict. 
 c. 104, s. 514 : BnrrcU v. Simpson, 4 
 Ct. of Sess. Cas. 4th ser. 177. 
 
 {x) The Zoe, 11 P. D. 72 ; The 
 
 Winkficld, (1902) P. 42. 
 
 (//) Rankine v. Raschen, 4 Ct. ol 
 Sess. Cas. 4th ser. 725. 
 
 [z) (1897) P. 178, 
 
 («) Van Eijfk v. SomerviHc, (1906) 
 A. O. 489 ; 10 Asji. 263. 
 
 [b] The Empma, 5 P. D. 6.
 
 167 
 
 CHAPTEPx VTII. 
 
 TLG AND TUNS, 
 
 It is a principle of Admiralty law established l»v a series of ForsLino 
 decisions, that where one ship is in tow of another, the two Ji"a t.'i^ranf 
 ships are, for some purposes, bv intendment of law, re<>arded tr«'"t«'<l "••* 
 
 , 1 "• 1 • • 1 1 ^'"*^ ship. 
 
 as one, the command or governing power being with the tow, 
 and the motive power with the tug. 
 
 Therefore, in applying the collision regulations, the Court Fortbopur- 
 usually treats the tug and her tow as one ship, and that rc^uin'tions^ 
 a steam or sailing ship according as the toNnng ship is 
 under steam or not (a). But a tug with a ship in tow has 
 not the same facility of movement as if she were unin- 
 cumbered. She is not, therefore, in the same degree, mistress 
 of her own movements, and in some cases she cannot, by 
 stopping or reversing her engines, at once stop or back the 
 ship in tow (b). This, however, is a question of fact, and if 
 it is practicable to comply with the regulations a tug omitting 
 so to do will be held to blame (c). In taking measures to 
 avoid a third vessel a tug has to consider her tow ; and a step 
 that would be right, and take her clear, if she were unin- 
 cumbered, may bring about a collision between her tow tind 
 the ship which she herself has avoided {(/). Although, there- 
 fore, it is the duty of a tug with a ship in tow to comply, so 
 
 {(I) The aicadoii, It Moo. P. C. 97 ; 
 The American and The Syria, L. R. 
 G P. C. 127, 132. The same has 
 been ht-ld in Auieriua : Xnv Yo'rI., 
 ^■c. Co. V. Thiladdfjhia, d|X'. Co., 2!. 
 How. 461 ; TJlc Ivanhoev. The Martha 
 M. Heath, 7 Bened. 213 ; The CivilUi 
 and The liestless, 6 Bened. 309; 13 
 Otto, f 99 ; The Farewell, 8 Queboo 
 L. R. 87. There has been no de(;i- 
 sion as to a wailing ship towinj^' 
 another, but there can be little doubt 
 
 tliat the principle .stated in tlie text 
 would be ap])lied in tlii.s (ra.sc iilsd. 
 
 (Ij) The Lord Haix/ur, (!«:<()) P. 2.S ; 
 The Siiracaxe, 9 Wall. ()72 ; Imt tlie 
 " stop :ind reverse " rule \vasnp)>lieil 
 iu The Fred. IV. Chase, 31 Fed. Rep. 
 91. 
 
 (f ) The Challenge and Dae d' A iimalr, 
 (1905) P. 19.S; 10 Asp. lOf). 
 
 (d) See The Arthar Uindim und 
 The liidependeiiee, Lusli. 270 ; The 
 Kiii(jston-by-thv-lSca, 3 W. Rob. 162.
 
 cases. 
 
 168 TUG AND TOW. 
 
 far as is possible, with tlie regulations for preventing collisions, 
 it is also the duty of a third ship to make allowance for the 
 incumbered and comparatively disabled state of a tug, and to 
 take additional care in approaching her {e). Thus, a sailing 
 ship has the right of way as against a steamship towing other 
 craft, b;it she is not entitled under all circumstances to insist 
 upon this right. 
 American rjy\^Q application of this rule, and of others of the collision 
 
 regulations, as applied to tug, tow, and a third ship, has 
 received more attention in the courts of America than in those 
 of this country. Some of the decisions are not easy to 
 reconcile, but there seems to be a tendency to throw a greater 
 burden upon sailing ships, and other craft which prinid facie 
 under the regulations have the right of way, than is 
 recognized by the English Courts. This is doubtless owing 
 to the extreme length and unwieldiness of the tows that are 
 common in American waters. The following cases illustrate 
 the general drift of American decisions : — 
 
 Where a tug was towing seventeen canal boats, and a 
 sailing ship, with plenty of sea room, had the wind free, held 
 that the latter was in fault for not keeping out of the way of 
 the tug and tow(/). But where a tug deliberately went 
 on without altering her course, relying upon the sailing 
 ship, which was beating to windward in a river, going about 
 when signalled to do so by the tug, the tug was held in 
 fault ( [/). Again, a schooner was held in fault for not having 
 tacked short of the tug and tow, and the tug for having 
 attempted to go ahead of the schooner (A) . 
 
 A schooner, A., close-hauled, was heading to cross a 
 tug with barges in tow. Owing to the presence of anotlier 
 schooner, B., which had the wind free, and was overtaking 
 the tug, it was, at the outset, the duty of both tug and 
 schooner A. to keep their courses. When B. had cleared both, 
 A. stood on, fouled the tow line, and was struck by the first 
 barge of the tow. It was held, in America, that A. was in 
 
 (e) The American and T/>e St/r'ui, The Mai/umba, 21 Fed. Eep. 476. 
 L. R. 6 P. C. 127; The La Plata, {rj} the Hoivard Carroll, 41 Fed. 
 
 Swab. 220, 298. Cf. The Bose CnJkin, Rep. 159. Cf. The Marion W. Page, 
 
 52 Fed. Rep. 328. 36 Fed. Rep. 329. 
 
 (/) The A. P. Cranmer, 1 Fed. (h) The li:le of Pines, 2-i Fed. Rep. 
 
 Eep. 255; 8 Fed. Rep. 523. Cf. 498.
 
 THEIR RESPECTIVE LIABILITIES. lO'J 
 
 fault for not having gone about : and that the tug was also 
 in fault for not having eased so that the tow line might have 
 slacked for A. to pass over (/). 
 
 On the other hand, a tug is not at liberty to increase un- 
 necessarily the risk and dangers of navigation by having in 
 tow a train of excessive length. Thus a tug having in tow 
 three ocean barges with a scope of hawser between each barge 
 of 150 fathoms, so that she and her tow were together at least 
 two-thirds of a mile in length, was (in America) held in fault 
 for collision with a ship at anchor in Chesapeake Bay(7). 
 Though such a tow might be proper in the open sea, it was 
 held to be improper in the Bay, where ships Avere likely to be 
 met with. Similarly, where a tug in a fog, with two barges 
 in tow on a long tow line, chose to cruise about across the 
 entrance to Boston Harbour, waiting for the fog to clear, and 
 a collision occurred with a ship leaving the harbom*, the tug 
 was held in fault for unnecessarily obstructing the fair- 
 way (A). The risk to other craft which arises from the 
 practice of towage at sea with hawsers of great length throws 
 upon the tug and tow the duty of exercising the greatest 
 caution (/) where there is a long tow line out, but such a tow 
 line is not in itself evidence of actual negligence {>n). 
 
 The principle that the tug and her tow are in law regarded Whctlur tug 
 as one ship has been applied in Admiralty so as to make one JJI^ l]l[y,^'Z 
 of them liable for a collision with a third ship caused by the tlmt (.m- in 
 fault of the other. Unless the actual wrong-doer in these the fault Of 
 cases is the servant or agent of the owner of the ship sued, '^'^ ''^*'''''- 
 the condemnation in Admiralty of the ship sued appears to 
 conflict with the principle laid down in some of the cases (//), 
 that the responsibility of the owner at law and the liability 
 of the ship in Admiralty are always concurrent. It is neces- 
 sary, therefore, to consider in some detail tlie respective 
 liabilities at law of the owners of the tug and of the owners 
 of the tow, and in Admii-alty of the tug and of tlio tow, where 
 
 (i) The Minnie C. Taylor, 52 Fed. (/) The Gladiator, 79 Fed. Rop. 115. 
 
 Rep. 32:3. ("0 '^^"^ Vatirnce, 1G7 Fed. li«'p. 
 
 (/) The John 11. M">J, 52 Fed. 855, at p. 8G0, Jiml eases tliere eited. 
 
 Rep. 882. (") ^ principle which has not 
 
 {k) The Admired &hlei/, lid Fed. alwayf been adhered to: i^upra, 
 
 Rep. 378. PP- '0 ■"■'/■
 
 170 
 
 TUG AND TOW. 
 
 The tug is 
 the servant 
 of the tow ; 
 meaning of 
 the expres- 
 sion. 
 
 Tow liable in 
 Admiralty 
 for the fault 
 of her tug-. 
 
 there is a collision between the tug and a third ship, or 
 between the tow and a third ship. 
 
 It is a term of the ordinary towage contract that, as regards 
 the conduct and navigation of the two ships, the tug and 
 those on board her shall obey the orders of those on board 
 the tow (o) . This relationship between the two ships is ex- 
 pressed by the saying, to be met with in some of the cases, 
 " that the tug is the servant or in the service of the tow " (p). 
 This expression has led to the tow being held in Admiralty 
 liable for the fault of those on board the tug, where such 
 fault leads to a collision between the tow and a third ship ; 
 and insurers of the tow have consequently been held liable, 
 upon the collision clause in a policy, for damages paid by the 
 tow to a third ship in respect of a collision between the tug 
 and a third ship caused by the fault of the tow {q). 
 
 In The Ticonderoga {)•), a vessel in tow of a steamship, 
 which by the terms of her charter-party she was bound to 
 employ, struck and injured a third ship. The collision was 
 caused by the fault of those on board the steamship. It was 
 hold by Dr. Lushington that the tow was liable in Admiralty. 
 " In cases of one vessel coming into collision with another, 
 and the vessel proceeded against having been in charge of a 
 steamer, there can be no doubt whatever that the vessel which 
 has the steamer in her employ is responsible both for her own 
 acts and those of the steamer " (6-). 
 
 A barque in tow of a tug was approaching the entrance of 
 the Regent's Canal Basin. The tug, without orders from the 
 barque (which was in charge of a comjmlsory pilot), im- 
 properly altered her course, and thereby caused the barque to 
 strike and injure the pier head It was held by Sir E. Philli- 
 more that the barque and her owners were liable : " The tug 
 was the servant of The Sii/quaai (the barque), and The Sinquad 
 is responsible for what the tug did"(/). It seems to have 
 
 (y) See infra, p. 171. 
 
 [p] See per Sir R. Phillinioro in 
 T/ie iVani, 5 P. D. 14, 16 ; nc 
 Siiiquasi, 5 P. D. 244 ; per Sir R. 
 Collier in The Amerlcaji and The 
 Sijria, L. R. 6 P. C. 127, 132 ; and 
 per Jeune, P., in The Enfjlishman 
 and The Ai^tralia, (1894) P. 239 ; 
 
 The Arh.iu W. Spies, 70 L. J. Ad. 25. 
 
 (y) The Xiohe, JleCotva// v. Baiiie, 
 (189 J) App. Cas. 401. 
 
 (r) Swab. 215. 
 
 (*•) AUfer in Canada, The WUliani, 
 4 Quebec L. R. 306. 
 
 [t] The SinqiMsi, 5 P. D. 241.
 
 THEIK KESPECTIVE LIABILITIES. 171 
 
 been held, also, that uuder the special cireumstauees of the 
 case it was the duty of the tug to alter her course without 
 waiting for orders from the tow. 
 
 In The Bianca (u) it seems to have been assumed that the 
 ship proceeded against, the tow, was responsible for the fault 
 of those on board the tug. And in T/ic American and Tlw 
 S//n'a Sir R. Collier stated the law to be that " the tug is in 
 the service of the tow; the tow is answerable for the 
 negligence of her ser\ant, and is for some purposes identified 
 with her" {.r). 
 
 It seems clear, therefore, that in Admiralty the tow is 
 liable for a collision between herself and a third shi[) by tlio 
 fault of those on board the tug ; and further, that her liability 
 is independent of the question whetlier those on board the 
 tug are the servants of the owners of the tow, in the sense 
 that the latter would be liable at law for the negligence of 
 the former. There seems reason to think that the habit of 
 personifying the ship, which, as pointed out above, has pro- 
 duced confusion in other cases, has led to the condemnation 
 in Admiralty of a ship in tow for the fault of those on board 
 her tug, without sufficient consideration of the question 
 whether the wrong-doer is a person for wliose acts the owner 
 of the ship sued is liable at law. The rado (Iccidendi in Tlir 
 Ticonderofja, The Sii/qiiasi, and other cases above cited, seems 
 to have been as follows : the collision was caused by the fault 
 of the tug ; the tug is the serv^ant of the tow ; therefore the 
 tow is liable for the collision (//). The soundness of this 
 reasoning appears to depend upon the assumption that the 
 ship with which the wrong-doer does the wrong, or on board 
 which he happens to be when the wrong is done, is in 
 Admiralty herself a wrong-doer — a proposition whicli, at the 
 present day, there would be difficulty in establishing. 
 
 The reason for the rule that, under ordinary circumstances, ]i..iiM.' 
 the tug must obey the orders of the ship in tow, is said to be, |i'iVi,i"i" ' 
 in order that there may be no divided responsibility and no ri>i>"iiMi>iiiiy. 
 double command. " I am well aware," said Dr. Lushington, 
 *' that mischief may in some instances arise from pilots (in 
 
 (a) 8 P D 91 T/ie Americim iiml Th' Si/i'i", L. K. 
 
 (x) L. R. 6 P. C. 127, i;i2. P. C. 127, 132 ; Th,: Manj HoHns.ll. 
 
 ij) See also ijer Sir R. Collier in 1 P. D. 201.
 
 172 
 
 TUG AND TOW. 
 
 Whether tow 
 liable for 
 collision 
 between tug 
 and third ship 
 by fault of 
 tug. 
 
 Collision 
 between tug 
 aud third shii) 
 by fault of 
 tua'. 
 
 charge of the tow) having entire control over steam tugs, and 
 giving directions contrary to the judgment and experience of 
 the masters of steam tugs, conversant as they are with every 
 part of the waters in which they are employed. At the same 
 time, I feel still greater difficulties woidd he occasioned by 
 two conflicting and independent authorities being exercised 
 in the navigation of one and the same vessel "(s). These 
 observations were made with reference to towage of a heavy 
 ship at sea. Different considerations arise where the towage 
 is in a river, harbour, or other frequented and confined water, 
 and the craft in tow are barges, canal boats, or other craft 
 haviug little or no control over their own movement. And 
 although it may, in some cases, be expedient that the respon- 
 sibility for the navigation of tug and tow should be vested 
 in one person, that is no reason for making owners of craft 
 in tow liable for the negligence of persons on board the tug 
 who are not their servants or agents (a). 
 
 Whether the doctrine that the tug is the servant of the 
 tow, so as to make the latter liable for the negligence of the 
 former, would be carried so far as to make her (the tow) 
 liable in Admiralty for a collision between the tug and a 
 third ship, has not been decided. It has been held that a 
 ship may be sued and condemned in x4.dmiralty for negligence 
 on her part which causes a collision between two others (b) ; 
 but it seems doubtful whether a tow, free from fault as 
 regards those on board her, could be condemned for a collision 
 between her tug and a third ship caused by the fault of those 
 on board the tug, who were not in the employment of the 
 owners of the tow. 
 
 In the cases above considered the collision was between the 
 tow and a third shiji, and the action was against the tow. In 
 the following case the collision was between the tug and a 
 third ship. 
 
 A tug was towing a ship in charge of a compulsory pilot. 
 The tug struck and injured a third ship. It was held that, 
 assuming the collision was caused entirely by the fault of the 
 
 (c) T/ie Christina, 3 W. Eob. 27, 
 33. Cf. The Duke of Sussex, 1 W. 
 Rob. 270. 
 
 (fl) As pointed out in The Quick- 
 
 step. 15 P. D. 196. 
 
 [h) See The Sisters, 1 P. D. 117, 
 and cases cited supra, p. 28.
 
 LIABILITY OF TOW FOR FAULT OF TUG. 1"'^ 
 
 pilot of the tow iu wrongly directing the tug's eoiu-se, still 
 the tug was liable for the injury to the third ship (r). It 
 was fm-ther held, the pilot being corapulsorily in charge of 
 the tow, that the exemption from liability which usually 
 accompanies compulsory pilotage did not protect the tug. 
 
 The American and The Si/n'n [d) was not a case of ordinary n,- Antnirau 
 
 ,.,,,.„ / .., Til T"; und Tfif Syria. 
 
 towage, and m it different principles were apphoable. J/ie 
 Si/n'/i and The American belonged to the same owners. The 
 Syria was disabled in a foreign port. The master of The 
 American took her in tow in order to bring her to England. 
 On the passage home, by tlie fault of those on boanl The 
 American, a collision occurred between The American and a 
 third ship. The Aracan. The Syria also struck and iujuivd 
 The Aracan. It was held that The American was liable for 
 the whole of the damage, and that The Syria was not liable 
 at all. The American was not employed by the master of 
 The Syria, but took her in tow partly for the benefit of tlie 
 common owners, and partly to obtain salvage from tlie 
 owners of cargo on board The Syria. It was held that, the 
 case not being one of ordinary towage. The Syria was not 
 liable for the fault of The American. But it seems to have 
 been assumed by the Court that, if the case had been one of 
 ordinary towage, The Syria would have been liable. It had 
 been held by Sir R. Pliillimore in the Court below that The 
 American and The Syria were in law one ship, and that 
 therefore The Syria was liable in Admii-alty for the faulty of 
 The American. This decision was reversed by the Privy 
 Council upon the ground above stated, that the general rule 
 did not apply, because here the governing power was witli 
 the towing ship and not with the tow. 
 
 The same principle was applied in The Qidchsfep (e). The 
 steamship Charles Dickens, in the river Tees, was iu collision 
 with a hopper barge in tow of The Qnichsfcp, by her own 
 fault in having no look-out, and by the fault of The Qairh.sfrp 
 in having no towing light. Tliore was no fault on thr part 
 of those on board the barge, wlio could do nothing to avoid 
 
 (.) The Man,, o P. D. U. Thr (./) L RM A^_& E. 226; ..n a,,., 
 
 decision upon this i.-iiit wa-^ wm>- L K. 1 . O. i-'. 
 ce8.-ary, tho tug being heiselt iii W Ul.V.lJi>. 
 
 fault.
 
 17'4 TUG AND TOW. 
 
 the collision, A Divisional Court (Sir J. Hannen and Butt, J.) 
 held that The Quiclisfrp owners were liable for half the loss, 
 and that the barge owuers were under no liability. In re- 
 viewing the cases, the Court dissented from the view of 
 Dr. Lushington, that the inexpediency of having a divided 
 command would in itself be a sufficient reason for making the 
 ship in tow liable (_/') ; the real question being, whether or 
 no those on board the tug were the servants or agents of the 
 owners of the tow (r/). 
 
 Tow lashed These principles would appear to exonerate from liability 
 
 a ongside tug. ^ civmib barge or other craft lashed alongside a tug and navi- 
 gated wholly by tlie tug, whether the damage to the third 
 ship is by contact with the tug or craft alongside. Much of 
 the towage in New York harbour is of this character, heavy 
 floats loaded with railway cars being commonly transported 
 in this way. The case of a large steamship, under steam 
 herself, with a tug alongside to assist her in stopping or 
 turning, is different (//). 
 Liability at ^e propose now to consider the liability at law of the 
 
 law of tutr- p 1 J 
 
 owners aud of owuers 01 the tug and of the tow respectively for a collision 
 
 tow-owners. Ijetween the tug or the tow and a third ship. First, where 
 
 between tow the collision is between the tow^ and a third ship by the fault 
 
 b^Vut'^f"^ of those on board the tow. In this case there is no difficulty : 
 
 tow. the tow-owners are liable for the damage caused by the 
 
 negligence of their servants, tlie crew of the tow. And it 
 
 seems equally clear that tlie tug-owners are not liable. They 
 
 are in no sense masters or employers of the crew of the tow ; 
 
 and the doctrine that tug and tow are in law one sliip can 
 
 have no application in such a case. 
 
 and third sldp Secondly, the case of a collision between the tow and a 
 by fault of third ship by the fault of those on board the tug. It seems 
 '^' that in this case the crew of the tug, though the general 
 
 servants of the owners of the tug, are held to be also the 
 servants of the owners of the tow, so as to make the tow- 
 owners liable for their negligent acts in the course of the 
 
 (/) J>'fr, p. 171. 24 How. 110, 122. 
 
 (c/) Following the language of (//) Cf. T/ie E. A. Packer, 49 Fed. 
 
 Lord Tenterden in Laiiqher v. Rep. 9.'. Cf. The Deionian, (1901) 
 
 Pointey, 5 B. & C. 547, 578: and P. 221. 
 of Clifford, J., in Sturgis v. Boyer,
 
 LIABILITY OF TOW FOR FAULT OF TUG. J~j 
 
 towage (/). In The Sinqunni [infra), and TJie Englialntint) ami 
 Tho AiistraJia {i>)fra, p. 17()), wliere tug and tow were both in 
 fault, and in TJie Devonian {fiipra, p. 55), where the tug olong- 
 side had a wrong riding light, the tow-owners were hold liahle. 
 The liability of the tug-owners in such a ease seems clear. 
 
 Thirdly, a collision between the tug or the tow and a third Betwivn tngr 
 ship by the fault of those in charge of the tow in wrongly uVnl* I'lVn by 
 directing the course of the tug. Hero the tug-owners wouhl ^='."j' "^ t*jw 
 be liable as employers of the actual wrong-door, the helmsman ,mliTst<i tn>r. 
 of the tug, and not the less so because their servant is bound 
 b}^ the towage contract to obey those on board the tow (/•). 
 And it is conceived that the tow-owners would also be liable ; 
 for it was the wTong order given by their servant that caused 
 the collision. If no order were given by those on board the ^Vhe^^' tow 
 tow, the owners of the tug would be liable, since it is the foVug"'"" "^ 
 duty of those on board the tug to keep both tug and tow 
 clear of other ships without waiting for orders from the tow (/). 
 And it seems that the owners of tlie tow are also liable in this 
 case. Assuming that those on board the tug are not the 
 servants or agents of the owners of the ship in tow, it seems 
 that the omission to direct the tug to keep clear of the tliird 
 ship is negligence making the owner of the tow liable for the 
 damage to the third ship {>n). 
 
 A strong opinion to this effect was expressed by Sir J. 
 Hannen in The Niobe (»). The ship Niohe was being towed 
 from G-reenock to Cardiff by the tug Flying Serpent. It was 
 a sea towage, and the scope of tow rope was 100 fathoms. 
 The steamship Va/etfa, on a N.E. by E. course, sighted tlio 
 lights of The Fhjinfj Serpent three miles off on her port bow. 
 The Valetta kept her course. The Fhjing Serpent, on S.S.W. 
 course, struck The Valetta on her port bow with her stem and 
 starboard bow. There was a bad look-out on The Niohe, and 
 in consequence her helm was not ported until it was too hite 
 
 (i) See lionrke v. White Moss (Jol- Q. B. D. 890. 
 
 Her,/ Co., I C. P. D. a.56 ; 2 C. P. 1). (/.) See Fenton v. Ihih/n, Stram 
 
 •m- Dahiell V. Turer, E. B. & E. PaclM Co., 8 A. Ac E. S:{,x 
 
 899, where it seems to have been {/) The SivqwiM, ^^ IWI.'liX. 
 
 thoiif^ht that the charterei-s, tis well [m) See Th>' /w/</y///, L. \i. •< A. \- 
 
 as the owners, micrht be liable: E. 48 ; and the cii-s.-s on b.st |mire. 
 
 John.'ion V. Lindsuf,, ti Q. B. D. oOfi ; («) 13 P. D. 5.,. 
 Jones V. Corporation of Liverpool, 14
 
 176 TUG AND TOW. 
 
 to avoid collision. The Court was advised by the assessors, 
 and held, that it was the duty of The Niohe to have ported 
 before she did, and that by so doing she would either have 
 girted the tug, and so forcibly altered her course, or would 
 have attracted the tug's attention, warned her of the danger, 
 and caused her to alter her helm. Tlie fault of the tug was 
 not contested, her owners admitting liability. Under these 
 circumstances it was not necessary to decide the question of 
 law as to the liability of the tow-owner for the negligence of 
 those on board the tug ; but Sir J. Hannen expressed the 
 opinion that where the collision would not have occurred if 
 those on board the tow had not been negligent in directing 
 the course of the tug, the tow-owners would be liable for 
 a collision between the tug and a third ship ; and further, 
 that their liability arises not from the existence of any 
 relationship of master and servant between them and the crew 
 of the tug, but because of the control which the towage con- 
 tract gives them over those on board the tug. Quarman v. 
 Burnett (o), said Sir J. Hannen, was not an authority against 
 the liability of the tow-owners in such a case, their liability 
 being similar to that of the passenger in a jobbed carriage, 
 who takes upon himself to direct the driver. 
 Between tug Fourthly, for a collision between the tug and a third ship, 
 bf fauifof '^ caused partly by the fault of those on board the tug, and 
 tug and tow. partly by the fault of those on board the tow, the tow-owner 
 is liable for the whole (/>) ; or, where all three ships, tug, 
 tow, and third ship are in fault, for half the loss. Thus, 
 where the tug and third ship were both injured, and each 
 sued the other, judgment went against both tug and tow for 
 half the loss of the third ship, and against the third ship for 
 half the loss of the tug {q). 
 Sufldcn In The Niohe {.si(pra) it was proved that the collision would 
 
 ^l^cSng^ not have happened if there had been a proper look-out on 
 coflision. ° board the tow, and that the tow could have controlled the 
 
 (o) 6 M. & W. 499. ship should, on payment of the 
 
 (jo) The Niobe, 13 P. D. oo. See amount of the judgment, be ordered 
 
 further as to this case, <«/;■«, p. 274. to assign to the tow-owners the 
 
 (<7) The Englishman and The Ans- judgmeut Rgainst the tug. The 
 
 tralia (No. 1), (189 1) P. 239. In application, purporting to be founded 
 
 this case the owners of the tow on 19 & 20 Vict. c. 97, s. 10, failed : 
 
 applied that the owners of the third S. C. (No. 2), (1895) P. 212.
 
 LIABILITY OF TOW FOR FAULT OF TUG. 1 ' ' 
 
 movements of the tug. But if the movement of the tug 
 
 is so sudden that those on board the tow could not have 
 
 controlled it, the tow-owner (it was said by Sir J. Haunen 
 
 in Tlio Niohe) would not be liable. In The Sfonncock (r), 
 
 where the tug on a safe course suddenly departed from it 
 
 and thereby caused a collision between the tow and a third 
 
 ship, it was held tliat the tug was liable to indemnify the 
 
 tow for damages paid by the latter for the colHsion. The 
 
 dictum of Sir J. Hannen as to the non-liability of tow-owTier 
 
 for sudden manoeuvres of the tug is not easily reconciled 
 
 with the doctrine that " the tug is the servant of the tow," 
 
 or with the decision in The Sinqitasi {s). 
 
 The doctrine that the tug is the servant of the tow is Liability 
 
 inapplicable where not only the motive power, but also the comiuimd is 
 
 command, is with the tug. Thus, where the towing ship is a ^^^ ^^*^ *"^- 
 
 salvor, and the command of both ships has been expressly or 
 
 impliedly handed over to those in charge of her ; or where 
 
 she has picked up a derelict, or is towing a fleet of dumb 
 
 barges, it would seem that the towing ship and her owners 
 
 are alone liable for damage done by herself or her tow ; and 
 
 this was the effect of the decisions in T//e American and T/ie 
 
 Syria, and in The Quicksfep, mentioned above (i). 
 
 Where a ship in tow is in charge of a compulsorj^ pilot, CompiUsory 
 
 , , P p pilot III charge 
 
 there is doubt whether the tug and her owners are tree trom of tow. 
 liability for a collision between a third ship and the tug or 
 her tow caused entirely by the fault of the pilot. The ship 
 in tow and her owners are clearly free from liability in such 
 a case(»)- In a case decided under H Geo. 4, c. 125, 
 Dr. Lushington said: — "If a licensed pilot is on board 
 (a vessel in tow), and his orders are obeyed, the owners are 
 absolved from responsibility for damage occasioned by such 
 vessel. But if the pilot was to be deprived of his autliority, 
 and the (tug) steamer was not bound to follow his directions, 
 and a collision ensued, the (tug) steamer would be the agent 
 of the owners of the vessel in tow, and the o\vners of tliat 
 vessel would no longer be protected by the Act of Parlia- 
 
 (r) 5 Asp. M. C. 470. («) T/>r Ocmu Wave, L. R. :< V. C. 
 
 («) 5 P. D. 241- 20o- 
 
 {t) Supra, p. 173. 
 
 M,
 
 178 
 
 TUG AND TOW. 
 
 Tug employed 
 cornpulsorily. 
 
 Can tow- 
 owner by 
 contract with 
 tug- owner 
 free the tow 
 from Uability 
 to third 
 parties ? 
 
 ment"(;r). These observations seem applicable at the 
 present day as regards the liability of the ship in tow 
 when a pilot is on board and in charge by compulsion of law. 
 And there would seem to be difficulty in holding tlie owners 
 of a tug to be liable for acts of her crew for which the 
 compulsory pilot is responsible, and which are negligent only 
 so far as they are in pursuance of his orders. In The Mari/^ 
 however, it was considered by Sir R. Phillimore that in 
 Admiralty the tug would be liable in such a case {y) ; but the 
 point was not expressly decided, for those on board the tug 
 were, in fact, negligent. It was held by Dr. Lushington in 
 several cases that the tug is free from liability in such a 
 case (s) ; and although these decisi<ms were not under the 
 existing Pilotage Act, the reasons upon which they were 
 founded seem to be equally cogent at the present day as 
 regards the non-liability of the tug-owners. Where there is 
 negligence on the part of the tug-owner or the tow-owner, 
 compulsory pilotage will, of course, be no defence [a). 
 
 In some harbours {b) the local Act requires that the tug 
 belonging to the harbour authority shall be employed, or, if 
 not employed, shall be paid for by ships entering the 
 harbour. There has been no decision as to the liability of the 
 shipowner for damage done by his ship when in tow of such 
 a tug. It would seem that the principle applied in the case 
 of compulsory pilotage would exempt him from liability. 
 The liability of the harbour authority would depend upon the 
 question whether the crew of the tug are the servants or 
 agents or not. In some cases the harbour tug is chartered 
 and not owned by the harbour authority. 
 
 The question whether the owner of a tow can by contract- 
 ing with the tug-owner that he shall have entire control of 
 the tow discharge himself from liability to a third ship for a 
 collision between the tow and the third ship has not been 
 
 {x) The Bukeof Si'ssex, 1 W. Rob. 
 270, 273. 
 
 («/) 5 P. D. 14. 
 
 (s) The Duke of Sussex, 1 W. Rob. 
 270, 273 ; The Christina, 3 W. Rob. 
 27. And see The Ocean IVave, L. R. 
 3 P. C. 205 ; The Gipsy King, 6 Not. 
 
 of Cas. 282, 288. 
 
 (a) As in The Belgic, 2 P. D. 57, 
 where the tug had insufficient 
 power. 
 
 [b] Cf. the Llanelly Harbour Act. 
 59 & 60 Vict. 186 (local).
 
 LIABILITY OF TOW FOR FAULT OF TUG. 179 
 
 decided. Having regard to the decisions (c) as to the liahiHty 
 in Admiralty of chartered and other ships out of tlieiV 
 owners' possession, it is possible that the tow may be held 
 liable iu Admiralty in such cases, though, as it seems, her 
 owners are not liable at law. The practice of tug-o^smers, 
 however, is not to enlarge, but to minimise, their "respousi' 
 bilities, and they frequently protect themselves by a special 
 contract against the liabilities which the ordinary towage 
 contract thi^ows upon them. The terms of the towage contra'^'t 
 are usually very large, and exonerate the tug-owner from 
 almost any kind of loss, and sometimes go so far as to 
 indemnify the tug-owner against the result of his negligence. 
 Thus where a tug was held liable in an action by the owners 
 of cargo on a barge which was in collision with the tug, the 
 owners of the tow under such a contract were held liable to 
 indemnify the tug-owner in respect of damages and costs (d). 
 
 Where both tug and tow are in fault for a collision with a Tu? and tow 
 third ship, judgment goes against both ships in Adnm-alty, JudllMn!. ,1?"'^ ' 
 as it would at law go against the owners, for the whole «^7«'"'*t Jn.th, 
 (^f the damage, jointly and severally. An application to J^vemily"' 
 limit the judgment against each ship, tug and tow, to half 
 the loss (as is the practice in America {e) ) in the fii'st 
 instance, was in a recent case refused. The Admiralty rule 
 of division of loss, as applied in this country, has, it was said, 
 nothing to do with such a case (/). 
 
 The case of collision between a tug and her tow presents Betwwn tuj? 
 no difficulty. Each vessel must exhibit ordinary care and ""*^ ^*'^*'- 
 seamanship in keeping clear of the other, and must discharge 
 such obligations as the towage contract casts upon her. A 
 schooner, in casting off from her tug, ran into her stern, by 
 reason of her not porting and also by reason of the tug not 
 starboarding, as was proved to be the custom in America. 
 Both were held to be in fault {(/). So a tug, in assisting to 
 
 (c) The Lemington, The Druid, The For a case of all three in fault, 
 Tasmania, supra, pp. 71 ««y. judfjj'ment b\ default for tlic wlmlc 
 
 (d) The Millu-all, (1905) P. 15o ; lobs against tow, and jud^niicnt fur 
 10 Asp. 15, 110, 113. half the h)SH a-ruiiiMt tug, wi- Thr 
 
 {e) Infra, ly. 182. Aforr/oiffr!/ mu\ Thr llltieLi-i>rk, (IIMIO) 
 
 (/) The Avon and The Thomas P. 1. 
 
 Joliffc, (1891) P. 7: The Emjtishman (j/) The WiUhim H'. //'»-«/, Gti I'Vd. 
 
 and The Australia, (1894) P. 239. Rep. 601. 
 
 N 2
 
 180 
 
 TUG AND TOW. 
 
 Two tugs in 
 charge of one 
 ship. 
 
 Responsi- 
 bility for 
 employment 
 of tug. 
 
 Liability of 
 tug and tow 
 in America. 
 
 American 
 cases. 
 
 dock a big liner, got too close to her propeller, which was 
 being worked from time to time, and was struck by it. She 
 was held to be in fault for being in such a position {/i). 
 
 Where two or more tugs are engaged in towing the same 
 ship, difficult questions arise as to their respective liabilities 
 for damage to or by themselves or the ship. In an American 
 case where the ship was put ashore by the negligence of one 
 or both tugs, both of which were acting under the command 
 of the master of one of them, both were held liable (?'). 
 
 The responsibility for the employment of a tug in ordinary 
 cases rests with the master, whether the shij) is in charge of 
 a pilot or not. But if the employment of a tug is necessary 
 for the safety of the ship herself, or for the safety of other 
 ships, the master would not be justified in refusing to employ 
 a tug upon the pilot's advising him to do so (/.•). If a vessel 
 in tow is under way when she ought not to be moving, as in 
 a dense fog or in a crowded dock at night-time, the presence 
 on board of a compulsory pilot would not, it seems, exempt 
 the owners from liability for damage done by her (/). 
 
 The decisions of the American Courts as to the duties and 
 liabilities of a tug and her tow are very numerous. They are 
 not altogether consistent with the English cases, which were 
 for some time dominated by the doctrine — often a misleading 
 one — that the tug is the servant of the tow. The different 
 character of much of the towage service in American waters, 
 where towage of hulks and large barges at sea on tow ropes 
 of great length (ni) is common, and where large fleets of 
 barges are constantly being navigated in harbours and on 
 inland waters in charge of one or more tugs, probably accounts 
 for the somewhat different view of the law taken by the 
 American Courts. The law as to the liability of tow and tug 
 has been thus stated by the Supreme Court : " Cases arise, 
 undoubtedly, where both the tug and tow are jointly liable for 
 
 [h] The City of New York, 54 Fed. 
 Rep. 181. 
 
 (i) The Arturo, 6 Ted. Rep. 308, 
 where there is an interesting judg- 
 ment of Lowell, C. J. 
 
 [k) The Julia, Lush. 224 ; Burrell 
 V. Macbrayne, 18 Ct. of Sess. Cas. 
 4th ser. 1048; The Gertor, 7 Asp. 
 M. C. 472. Cf. The Agamemnon, 1 
 
 Quebec L. R. 333 (duty of ship at 
 anchor, and driving, to employ tug) ; 
 The Arran, 9 Quebec L. R. 278 
 (cable parting). 
 
 (/) See The Borussia, Swab. 94. 
 
 (;h) The Mount Hope, 84 Fed. Rep. 
 910 ; and The John H. May, 52 Fed. 
 Rep. 882 (the tow lines and tows 
 were two-thirds of a mile long).
 
 AMERICAN CASES. 
 
 181 
 
 the consequences of a collision ; as where those iu charge of American 
 the respective vessels jointly participate in their control and 
 management, and the master and crew of both vessels are 
 either deficient in skill, omit to take due care, or are guilty of 
 negligence in their navigation. Other cases may well be 
 imagined where the tow alone would be responsible ; as where 
 the tug is employed by the master or owners of the tow as 
 the mere motive power to propel their vessel from one point to 
 another, and both vessels are exclusively imder the control 
 and direction and management of the master and crew of the 
 
 tow But whenever the tug under the charge of 
 
 her own master and crew, and in the usual and ordinary 
 course of such an employment, undertakes to transport 
 another vessel which, for the time being, has neither her 
 master nor crew on board, from one point to another over 
 waters where such accessory power is necessarily or usually 
 employed, she must be held responsible for the proper 
 
 navigation of both vessels Assuming that the tug 
 
 is a suitable vessel, properly manned and equipped for the 
 undertaking, so that no degree of negligence can attach to 
 the owners of the tow on the ground that the motive power 
 employed by them was in an unseaworthy condition, the 
 tow, under the circumstances supposed, is no more responsible 
 for the collision than so much fi'eight{/0- And it is not 
 perceived that it can make any difference in that behalf that 
 a part or even the whole officers and crew of the tow are on 
 board, provided it clearly appears that the tug was a sea- 
 worthy vessel properly manned and equipped for the enter- 
 prise " (o) . This statement contains a fuller and more correct 
 exposition of the principles upon which the respective duties 
 and liabilities of tug and tow are to be determined than can 
 be gathered from the doctrine that the tug and the tow are 
 by intendment of law one ship, or that the tug is the servant 
 of the tow. It was quoted and adopted by 8ir James llanuon 
 in The Niohe {p). 
 
 In accordance with the principles here laid down, in some 
 
 (n) Cf . The Alabama and The Game- [<>) Sturffis w Boytr, J 1 1 low . 1 1 0. 
 
 A 2 Otto, 695. (/') 13r. D. ..0.
 
 182 TUG AND TOW. 
 
 cases. 
 
 American cases both tug and tow (q), in others the tug alone (r), or the 
 tow alone («), have in America been held liable for damage 
 done to other ships by tug or tow. Where both the tug and 
 her tow have been sued and held liable in Admiralty, the 
 decree has gone against each of them for half the damages, 
 with power for the plaintiff to have recourse against either 
 of them for the balance, in case of failure of the other to pay 
 her full moiety of the damages {t). The English Court has 
 refused to adopt this practice (u). 
 
 The vast amount of trade that is done in America by 
 towage, some of it of a character that is almost unknown in 
 this country, has created a class of cases which have no 
 parallel in our books. In these many novel points of law 
 and seamanship have been decided. For example, whether a 
 tow of two-thirds of a mile in length is lawful and proper {.r), 
 whether it is necessary that there should be some means of 
 communication between tug and tow, whether fog-horns or 
 signals must be sounded on all or any of the craft in tow (y), 
 whether the tow line must be cast off in certain cases to enable 
 other craft to cross the line of the tow, are amongst the 
 questions which are frequently discussed in American Courts, 
 but seldom in the Courts of this country. A few of the cases 
 illustrating points that may arise in our own Courts, and the 
 
 [q) The Coleman and The Foster, for collision between a tow, lashed 
 
 Brown Adm. 456 ; The Maybey and alongside, and a third ship. 
 
 The Cooper, H Wall. 204 ; The Shu- (t) The Virginia Ehrman and The 
 
 bert and The Einar, 45 Fed. Rep. Agnese, 7 Otto, 309 ; The City of 
 
 497 ; The Alex. Fohom and The Hartford and The Unit, 7 Otto, 323 ; 
 
 Mary B. Mitchell, 44 Fed. Rep. 932 The 'Atlas, 3 Otto, 302 ; The Juniata, 
 
 (tug in fault for speed, tow for being ibid. 337 ; The Sterling and The 
 
 under sail) ; The City of Alexandria, Equator, 16 Otto, 647 ; The Webb, 
 
 31 Fed. Rep. 427. 14 Wall. 406 ; Munks v. Jackson, 66 
 
 (r) Smith v. The Creole and The Fed. Rep. 57 1 . 
 
 Sampson, 2 Wall. C. C. Rep. 485; (m) The Avon and The Thomas 
 
 The Ogemaw, 32 Fed. Rep. 919. Jolijfe, (1891) P. 7 ; The Englishman 
 
 Cf. The William, 4 Quebec L. R. and The Australia (No. 1), (1894) P. 
 
 306. 239. 
 
 («) The Cambridge, The Underhill, {x) The H. M. Whitney, 86 Fed. 
 
 and The Chase, 4 Hened. 366 ; Cush- Rep. 697 ; The Gladiator, 79 Fed. 
 
 ing V. The Owners of The John Eraser, Rep. 445 ; The Mount Hope, 84 Fed. 
 
 21 How. 184 ; The Clarita and The Rep. 910. 
 
 Clara, 23 Wall. 1 : The Galatea, 2 [y) The Raleigh, 44 Fed. Rep. 
 
 Otto, 439 ; The Imperial, 38 Fed. 781 ; The H. M. Whitnei/, 77 Fed. 
 
 Rep. 614. In The Ji. B. Forbes, 1 Rep. 1001 ; 86 Fed. Rep. 697 ; 
 
 Sprague, 328, and The Rescue, 2 The Harold, 84 Fed. Rep. 698 ; 
 
 Spi'ague, 16, the tug was held liable The W. H. Gratwick, 81 Fed. Rep. 
 
 590,
 
 AMERICAN CASES. 183 
 
 application of the principles laid down in Sfunjes v. Boyer, American 
 are given below. 
 
 A barque and a schooner in tow of two tugs, and with T"*^' '^^^'^ 
 their officers and crews on board, were navigating New 
 York harbour. Those on board the vessels in tow took no 
 part in the navigation as regards directing the courses of their 
 tugs, and both were taken bj their tugs into water wliere 
 under the local rules they had no right to be, and where they 
 fouled each other. It was held that, though both tugs were 
 in fault, neither of the ships in tow was in fault, and that 
 neither of them was liable in damages to the other (s) . There 
 can be little doubt that, in this country, each would have been 
 liable for half the loss of the other. 
 
 Where a tug, for her own purposes, and without the con- 
 sent of the other ship, took hold of a vessel alongside a wharf 
 to move her, it was held that the tug was liable for any 
 damage the vessel might do, whether those on board her might 
 have avoided it or not {a). 
 
 Where one member of the tow got adrift and did damage 
 whilst the tug was " singling out " her tow, it was held that 
 the tug was liable (b). In another case the tug was held 
 liable, because her master had negligently moored to a wharf 
 three of his barges, one of which got adrift and fouled a ship 
 at anchor (f). In another (c/) case the tug was held liable, 
 because she had more craft in tow than she could manage. 
 So where a steamship, in order to extricate herself from 
 danger caused by a heavy raft iu tow of two tugs, put her 
 engines full speed ahead, broke the raft up, and forced her 
 way througli it, it was held that she was not liable for 
 the damage to the raft which the tugs were unable to con- 
 trol {e). 
 
 In a heavy gale blowing across their courses, the tows of 
 two tugs sagged to leeward and damaged each other. Both 
 tugs were held in fault for not keeping the tows clear of each 
 
 (z) The Doris Hckhoff, 50 Fed. Rep. own fault. 
 134; [c] The r. 1. Nevim, llu HuU- 
 
 la) The JJc7i Uooletj, 6 Fed. Rep. auake, 67 Fed. Rep. 15S. 
 318/ {d) The liichmuud, Th, K. Jhipns- 
 
 (b) The Blanche L., 68 Fed. Rep. ha^^mi, 63 Fed. Rop. 1020. 
 939; The It. C. Veit, 56 Fed. Rep. [e) The Athabasca, 15 In-d. Ivcp. 
 
 122, where the tow got adrift by her 60 1 .
 
 cases. 
 
 184 TUG AND TOW. 
 
 American other (/). A tug with a long tow rounding a bend in a 
 river, where there was a cross set of tide, was held in fault, 
 as against a third ship, for allowing her tow to sag across 
 the river so as to occupy half the starboard side of the fair- 
 way (^). 
 
 Where the pilot of a barque in tow, who was specially 
 employed to take her through a narrow and dangerous 
 passage, being in charge of both tug and tow, proposed to go 
 on one side of a rock, but the tug, seeing other craft in the 
 way, without orders from the pilot, and in spite of his 
 remonstrances, altered her course in order to go on the 
 other side of the rock, upon which the barque took the 
 ground, it was held that the tug was liable for the 
 damage (A). 
 
 If the tow-line parts, by reason of the tug suddenly going 
 ahead and putting an unnecessary strain upon it, and damage 
 is done to a third ship, the tug is liable (0 ; but if it carries 
 away because it is improperly made fast on board the tow, the 
 tow is liable (/.). 
 
 A tug, being unable to come to terms with her tow, a 
 schooner, as to the charge for towing, cast off the tow-line, 
 so that the schooner went against a dock and was damaged. 
 The tug was held liable (/). So where a tug salvor started 
 to tow off a lee shore without getting the ship's anchor, and 
 set another ship adrift by fouling her anchor with the anchor 
 of the first ship, the tug was held liable for the consequent 
 loss of the second ship (m). 
 
 A tug took her tow so close to a ship at anchor that, on 
 suddenly changing her course, the tow-line parted, and the 
 tow fouled the ship at anchor. The tug was held liable («)• 
 
 A tug was held in fault for a collision between her tow and 
 a third ship, caused by a squall which might have been fore- 
 seen, and guarded against by anchoring (o). 
 
 (/) The Robert Burnett, 46 Fed. {I) The A. M. Ball, 43 Fed. Rep. 
 
 Rep 415 170. 
 
 {g) The Alicia A. Washburn, 19 {m) The Addie B., 43 Fed. Rep. 
 
 Fed. Rep. 788. 163. ^, ., , , , , 
 
 (h) The Strathay, 27 Fed. Rep. (w) City of Philadelphia v. Gavag- 
 
 562. nin, 62 Fed. Rep. 617. 
 
 (i) The Young America, 26 Fed. (o) The Toimg America, 25 Fed. 
 
 Rep. 174. Rep, 207. 
 
 {k) The Natchez, 73 Fed. Rep. 267-
 
 A^fEEICAN CASES. 185 
 
 A long and heavy tow of barges in a winding river, with American 
 a strong tide, requires two or more tugs to control it ; one of ''*'^'^^- 
 these is, in America, styled the principal or governing tug 
 and the other the "helper." A principal tug, lying at 
 anchor, with her tow astern, has been held liable for not 
 causing her '' helper " to sound a fog-horn, in accordance 
 with local rules, as she lay alongside the two {p). 
 
 A tug and the third ship were both in fault for a collision 
 between the tow and third ship. The tow sued the tug, and 
 a decree passed for the whole of the loss against tlie tuo- (the 
 third ship not being sued {q) ). 
 
 Where a collision may be avoided by casting off the tow 
 line, it is the duty of the tug (or tow) to do so (/•) . 
 
 Two tugs were moving an ocean steamship in New York TuK'Hud t..w 
 harbour. The officers and crew were on board the liner, but ^'^ ViMv. 
 were acting under the orders of the master of one of the tugs, 
 who was in charge of the operation. It was held that the 
 tow and both the tugs were liable for a colHsion between tlie 
 tow and a third ship. The owner of the two tugs had under- 
 taken, as " independent contractor," to- move the steamship, 
 and the tug-master was in charge of the whole manosuvi-e. 
 Nevertheless, the tug-owners and the owners of the steamsliip 
 were held liable as joint tort-feasors. Both ships being 
 damaged, the tow and the two tugs were held liable in equal 
 shares for the damage to the third ship, and the damage to 
 the tow was divided between herself and the two tugs (s). 
 
 So where the pilot of a barque in tow was in charge of the 
 navigation of tow and tug, and a collision occurred between 
 the barque and a third ship, both tug and tow were held 
 liable (0- 
 
 Wliere a tug was partly in fault for damage to the tow b}' 
 collision with a pier, the rule of division of loss was applied 
 as between tug and tow, the damage having been caused by 
 the fault of both (u). And so where a schooner laslicd along- 
 side her tug was damaged by collision with a third ship, both 
 
 (j») The Raleigh and The Niagara, Rep. 824. 
 
 44 Fed. Rep. 781. Cf. The James (*) 7V(e /;j-/>/v.s.s, 5.> Fed. Rop. Slto. 
 
 Berwind, 44 Fed. Rep. 693, where \t) The Maggie S. Hart, US Fed. 
 
 the tug and tow were under way. Rep. 76.'). 
 
 (q) The Troy, 28 Fed. Rep. 861. (m) The Junty Jcnks, 61 Fed. lU'p. 
 
 (r) The F. W. Wheeler, 78 Fed. 1021.
 
 TUG AND TOW. 
 
 Tow alone 
 liable. 
 
 she and lier tug were held in fault for navigating in water 
 forbidden by local rules (x). 
 
 A barge made fast to a tow, unknown to the tug ; she 
 broke adrift and did damage. It was held that the tug was 
 not liable (z/). So also where a lighter was fast to a ship in 
 tow, which gave the order to the tug to go ahead before the 
 lighter had cast off ; the lighter being damaged, it was held 
 that tug was not Hable (s). 
 
 Where a tug was so small that she was controlled by the 
 helm of her tow, which by her weight took charge of her 
 when the course was altered, it was held that the tow was 
 alone liable (a). 
 
 A tug brought a ship alongside a schooner at a wharf. 
 The ship in tow negligently put out her fender so that it 
 broke the schooner's rail. The ship was held alone in 
 fault (6). 
 
 A schooner in tow, with her mainsail set, was struck by a 
 gust of wind, sheered out of the wake of the tug, and struck 
 a bridge. She was held alone in fault (f). 
 
 A large steamship was being hauled out of her dock in 
 New York harbour, stern foremost, by a tug. She put her 
 engines astern, and, gathering too much way, struck and 
 damaged the dock. It was held that the tug was not 
 liable (d). 
 
 A large steamship was approaching her pier under her own 
 steam, in charge of a pilot, and assisted by tugs ahead and 
 astern. She struck and sent adrift a float moored near the 
 pier. Held that the steamship, and not the tug, was 
 liable (e). 
 
 The Supreme Court (./') has held that the tow is identified 
 with her tug to the extent " that she cannot escape the con- 
 
 (x) The Maryland, 19 Fed. Rep. 
 551. 
 
 {>/) Anylo-Australiaji St. Na,v. Cu. 
 V. Cornell Steamboat Co., 32 Fed. Rep. 
 798. 
 
 (z) The Jack Jewett, '23 Fed. Rep. 
 927. 
 
 (a) Biscell v. The Alexander, 3 Fed. 
 Rep. 671. 
 
 [b) Wilsey v. The Celestial Empire, 
 2 Fed. Rep. 651. 
 
 (c) Streteh v. Tiiff Margaret, 2 Fed. 
 Rep. 255. And see next page as to 
 the duty of the tow to follow in the 
 tug's wake. 
 
 \d) The John A. Carme, 49 Fed. 
 Rep. 682. 
 
 ie) Car Float, No. 4, 89 Fed. Rep. 
 877. 
 
 (/) The L. P. Dayton, 13 Dav. 
 337.
 
 AMERICAN CASES. 187 
 
 sequences, if the collision was caused wholly or in part by the -\meriian 
 fault of that (her own) tug." •'^'''• 
 
 It has been held that a tug with a fleet of barges or canal 
 boats in tow, though she is not, like a ronimon cai'rier, 
 liable as insurer of the cargo on board her tow {g), is 
 generally liable for damage to the craft in tow or the cargo 
 on board them, and also for damage to third ships by the 
 tow {/l). 
 
 It is an implied term in the ordinary contract of towage, as Tl'*> icntnict 
 interpreted in this country, that the tug shall exercise reason- I't.s tormsVnd 
 able care and skill in its performance (i), and that she shall P'^rfonuuncf. 
 implicitly obey the orders of the ship in tow {k). If no 
 orders are given by the latter, it is the duty of the tug to 
 take such a course as will caiTy herself and her tow clear of 
 collision and other dangers (/ ) ; but it seems to have been 
 held in the Privy Council (w), that it was not a bread i of 
 duty for the tug to pursue a course which, though imprudent, 
 the pilot of the tow acquiesced in. 
 
 Notwithstanding the rule that, under ordinary circum- puty of tug 
 stances, the tug must obey the orders of the ship in tow («), waters, 
 it is obvious that in crowded waters, with ships passing and 
 repassing in all directions, frequent and sudden alterations in 
 the course of the tug must be made to clear passing craft. 
 Under such circumstances it is the duty of the tug to keep 
 herself and her tow clear of other vessels without waiting for 
 orders from her tow (o). 
 
 (ff) The Stranger, Brown, Ad. 281 ; Civilta and The IteslUss, 13 Otto, 699. 
 The Margaret, 4 Otto, 494. (m) Smith v. 67. Lawrence Tow 
 
 (A) See 1 Parsons on Shipping, ^""^ ^^«-' ^■^\ 'I ^- ^- '•^'^^- ^^^ 
 
 ed. 1869, 536; The Quickstep, 9 P'^'' Lord Blackburn, Spaight v. 
 
 Wall. 665. As to the duty of the Tedcastle, 6 App. Ciis. 217, 222. In 
 
 tug with regard to the making up America considerable resrwiisibihty 
 
 and navigation of the tow, see i« thrown on the tug Tims it has 
 
 infra, pp. 188 et seq. been held that it is the duty of the 
 
 ,.v ^, ^ , . /,or,oi » ri tug to be acquaintwl With the waters 
 
 (t) The Ratata, (1898) App. Gas. ^^^ navigates, and to keep her tow 
 
 ^^"" clear of local dangers : The Lady 
 
 (Jc) The Chriitina, 3 W. Rob. 27 ; pi/ce, 21 Wall. 1; The Webh, U 
 
 6 Moo. P. C. 371 ; Smith v. St. Law- \y.,ii. 406 ; The Margaret, I Otto, 
 
 rence Tow Boat Co., L. R. 5 P. C. 494. 
 
 308 ; The Julia, Lush. 224 ; Spaight („) The Christina, 3 W. Rob. 27, 
 
 V. Tedcastle, infra; The Isca, 12 \iZ \ in The I)i(kt(f Sussex, XVf .Roh. 
 
 P. D. 34 ; The Niohe, 13 P. D. 55. 270, the decision was to the saniw 
 
 (I) Spniyht v. Tedcastle, 6 App. etiect, and upon similar grounds. 
 
 Cas. 217 ; The Singuasi, 5 P. D. 241 ; («) See The S,n,/uasi, h P. J). 211, 
 
 The Altair, (1897) P. 105; The supra, p. 187; The hca, 12 P. D.
 
 188 
 
 TUG AND TOW. 
 
 Duty of tng 
 to warn tow 
 of dan O'er. 
 
 Damage by 
 tug to tow. 
 
 Mutual duties 
 of tug and 
 tow under the 
 towage con- 
 tract. 
 
 Duties of 
 the tug. 
 
 Although it is the duty of the tug to obey the orders from 
 the shi]3 iu tow, her duty does not end here. It has been 
 ah-eady stated that, in the absence of orders from the tow, 
 she is bound to show proper care and skill in the course she 
 takes and in the performance of the towage service. And 
 if the orders she gets from the ship in tow are manifestly 
 wrong, it is her duty, even if the orders are given by a pilot 
 in charge of the tow, to warn the tow of her danger. " The 
 vessel and the lives of the crew are not to be risked because 
 there is a law which imposes the ordinary responsibility upon 
 
 one individual It is not for the steamer (the tug), 
 
 knowing the danger, to maintain, as it were, a sulky silence, 
 and make herself, as it were, instrumental in the destruction 
 of life and property" {p). But except in case of manifest 
 incapacity or error on the part of the pilot, it would seem that 
 it is not the duty of the tug to exercise a discretion as to 
 carrying out the pilot's orders ; nor would she be justified in 
 disobeying them, although there may be risk of collision in 
 carrying them out. 
 
 Where the tug, in performance of a towage or salvage 
 service, negligently damages her tow by collision, or in any 
 other way, she forfeits her right to towage or salvage remu- 
 neration {q). And in an action upon the towage contract 
 she cannot recover salvage for services rendered to the tow in 
 consequence of collision (r). 
 
 The following points have been decided with reference to 
 the mutual duties under the towage contract of tug and tow. 
 The tug must be sufficient as regards seaworthiness, equip- 
 ment and power to perform the service she undertakes {s), 
 and there is an implied warranty by her owner that she is 
 so {f). If she supplies the tow-rope, she is responsible for its 
 
 34 ; The India, Ad. Div. 7th Den. 
 1886. 
 
 {p) The Duke of Manchester, 4 
 Not. of Gas. 575, 582 ; 5 Not. of 
 Gas. 470. The tug was, in this 
 case, performing a salvage service. 
 As to the duty of the tow to warn 
 the tug of danger, see The Niobe, 
 13 P. D. 55. 
 
 [q) The Christina, 3 W. Rob. 27 ; 
 Tlie Altair, (1897) P. 105 ; The Duke 
 
 of Manchester, ubi supra, as to salvage. 
 But see The Sweepstakes, Brown, Ad. 
 509, where a set-off was allowed. 
 
 {r) The Ejemmett, 4 Asp. M. G. 
 274 ; 5 P. D. 227. 
 
 («) The United Service, 8 P. D. 56 ; 
 9 P. D. 3; The Minnehaha, Lush. 
 345 ; The Ratata, (1898) App. Gas. 
 513. 
 
 [t) The Undaunted, 11 P. D. 46.
 
 THE CONTRACT OF TOWAGE. 
 
 189 
 
 sufSciency («). She must show ordinary skill, care, and 
 diligence in performing the towage service (x). She must 
 generally obey the orders of the tow as regards course, speed, 
 alterations of the helm, stopping and going ahead (//), and 
 also orders with reference to the tow-rope, its scope, making 
 it fast and casting it ofp (;:). If the course is left to her, she 
 is responsible for its safety {a). It is her duty to keep a 
 vigilant look-out, both on her own account and on account of 
 her tow, since the latter cannot always see ahead (h). If slie 
 is compelled to cast off her tow, to save herself from collision, 
 or for any other reason, it is her duty to pick up her tow 
 again as quickly as possible {c). 
 
 A tug, being overrun by a heavy sailing ship in tow with 
 canvas set, cast her off, and shortly afterwards the tow ran 
 into a light-ship. She paid for the damage to the light-ship 
 and sued the tug. It was held that the tug was justified in 
 casting her off, and was not liable (d). 
 
 In America it has been held, in the case of a tug with a Ameritan 
 number of barges and river craft in tow, that it is the duty of <^"'*^''*- 
 the tug to arrange and make up lier tow ; to see that the tow- 
 lines are sufficient and properly made fast ; and generally to 
 superintend and navigate the tow, so that other ships are not 
 injured by it, and so that the barges do not injure each 
 other {e). 
 
 Tug-owners are held liable for getting their tows ashore (/") ; 
 for attempting to cross a dangerous bar in heavy weather, so 
 that the ship in tow capsizes and is lost (fj) ; for continuing 
 
 (u) The Robert Dixon, 4 P. D. 121 ; 
 5 P. D. 54 ; The Echo, 7 Benei. 70 ; 
 The A. R. Wetmore and The Epsilon, 
 5 Bened. 147 (American;. 
 
 {x) The Julia, Lush. 224 ; The 
 Ratttta, supra ; British Columbia Tow- 
 age and Transport Co. v. Sewell, 9 
 Duval's Rep. (Canada) 527. 
 , (y) See cases, pp. 18o seq. 
 
 (z) The Energfi, L. R. 3 A. & E. 
 48 ; The Julia, Lush. 224. 
 
 (a) The AUair, fl897) P. 105. 
 
 (b) The Jane Bacon, 27 W. R. 35. 
 
 (c) The Annapolis and Thn Golden 
 Light, Lush. 355. 
 
 \d) The Loyal and The Chal/cni/er, 
 14 Quebec L. R. 135. 
 
 {e) The Quickstep, 9 "Wall. 605 ; 
 
 The Stranger, BiowTi, Ad. 281 ; The 
 Cayuga, 16 Wall. 177 ; The Francis 
 King. 7 Bened. 1 1 ; The Sipacusi , 
 12 Wall. 167. 
 
 (/) The Arturn, 6 Fed. Kep. 308 
 (two tugs towing one ship) ; The 
 J. jr. i'axon, 24 Fed. Rep. 30 J ; 
 The E. E. Simpson, 60 Fed. Rep. 
 452 ; The S. If. Morris, 59 Fed. 
 Rop. 616; The S. S. iru/irlm, ibid. 
 1 69 ; aliter, if the danger is uu • 
 known: 7 he I'ivrrepont, 42 Fod. 
 Rep. 687. 
 
 {(/} Humboldt Lumber, Sfe. Ansocia- 
 tiou, 60 Fed. li<'p. 12S. Of. 7'hr 
 liordcntown, 40 Fed. K<p. 682 ; 'The 
 Yo'ing America, 25 Fed. Kop. 207.
 
 190 
 
 TUG AND TOW. 
 
 I^uties of 
 the tow. 
 
 to tow an ice-barge full of water, so that she broke in half 
 and damaged another of the barges in tow [h). If the crew 
 of a ship in tow abandon her for their own safety, it has been 
 held in America that the towage contract is at an end {i) ; 
 but if, through stress of weather or otherwise, the tow gets 
 ashore, it is the duty of the tug to stand by and to do her best 
 to extricate her {k). If a collision or other damage is caused 
 by the tug suddenly going ahead and putting an unnecessary 
 strain upon the other craft (/), or upon the tow-line, so that it 
 parts, the tug is liable {ni). 
 
 A craft known by her owner and by the tug-owner to be 
 unseaworthy was taken in tow and sank. It was held that 
 both were liable and the loss was divided [n). So, where both 
 tug and tow attempted to force their way through ice which 
 damaged the tow (o), and where a craft in tow struck a pier 
 partly by the tug's fault, and partly by her own fault in 
 having no man at the helm (^;), the loss was held to have 
 been caused by the fault of both. 
 
 The duty of the ship in tow is to du'ect the course, and 
 generally to give orders as to the conduct and navigation of 
 the two ships {q) \ to keep a good look-out, and, in case 
 of danger, to attract the attention of the tug by hailing or 
 in some other manner, so as to warn her of the danger (r) ; to 
 follow in the wake of the tug as nearly as possible (s) ; to 
 have proper lights exhibited {t) ; in frequented waters to have 
 the tow-rope so made fast that it can be readily cast off {n) ; 
 and to give the order to slip when necessary {x). 
 
 [h) Scott V. Cornell Steamboat Co., 
 59 Fed. Rep. 638. 
 
 [i) The W.J. Keyser, 56 Fed. Rep. 
 731. 
 
 [k) The Yuimg America, 26 Fed. 
 Rep. 174 ; The Pres. Briariy, 24 
 Fed. Rep. 478. 
 
 (/) The LuckenhacJc, 15 Fed. Rep. 
 924. 
 
 (w) The Al2jha, 27 Fed. Rep. ';59. 
 
 (w) The William Kraft, 33 Fed. 
 Rep. 847. 
 
 (o) The E. A. Packer, 42 Fed. Rep. 
 92. 
 
 {p) The Jontif Jenks, 54 Fed. Rep. 
 1021. Cf. Oonolly v. Ross, 11 Fed. 
 Rep. 342 ; The William Murtatujh, 3 
 Fed. Rep. 404 ; The William Cox, 9 
 Fed. Rep. 672 (cases of loss divided). 
 
 {q) See the cases cited, supra, 
 
 pp. 186 seq. 
 
 [r) The Niobc, 13 P. D. 55. It 
 was here held that this was a duty 
 of the tow as regards a third shij) 
 with which she was in collision. 
 
 {s) The Jane Bacon, 27 W. R. 35 ; 
 The Stranger, Brown, Ad. 281 ; The 
 Maria Martin, 12 Wall 31 ; The 
 Ciampa Emilia, 53 Fed. Rep. 155 ; 
 The Jacob Brandow, 39 Fed. Rep. 
 831 ; The Sagua, 42 Fed. Rep. 461 ; 
 as to damage done by the sudden 
 sheering of a disabled ship in tow, 
 see The Edivin Hawley, 41 Fed. Rep. 
 606. 
 
 [t) The Mary Eovnsell, 4 P. D. 204. 
 
 {?<) The Jane Bacon, 27 W. R. 35. 
 
 [x) The Energy, L. R. 3 A. & E. 
 48.
 
 THEIR MUTUAL LIABILITIES. 1^)1 
 
 In The Jane Bacon (//), a ship in tow was held liable for 
 the capsizing of a smack by the tow-rope, which canght her 
 mast. Tlie tug altered her helm and passed on one side of 
 the smack ; the tow, instead of following in the tug's wake, 
 altered her helm in the opposite direction and endeavoured 
 to pass on the otlier side of the smack. The tow-rope, being 
 thus spread, eauglit the smack's mast and capsized her. 
 
 The mutual rights and liabilities of the tug and tow in case Mutiml rifihts 
 of a collision between tliemselves, and in case of a collision "" tu^^lud '"* 
 between either of them and a third ship, have been the tow in ca«e 
 subject of decisions, and appear to be as follows : — (i) botwi-i-u 
 
 As between the tug and her tow, the latter woidd be solely t\'5"»'**''^'*^*- 
 
 TllP IT • 1 (2) botWl'l'll 
 
 liable for a collision caused to the tug entireh' bN- the im- one of tliom 
 proper orders of those on board the tow, whetlipr the collision '^^j " ' '"^ 
 were with the tow, or witli a third ship. Thus, where a ship, 
 having engaged a tug off Dungeness to take her to Gravesend, 
 ordered her to take the tow-line on board at a time when the 
 state of the weather made it unnecessary and dangerous for 
 her to do so, it was held that the ship in tow was liable for a 
 collision between herself and the tug which occurred whilst 
 the line was being passed from the one ship to the other {z) . 
 
 In the case of an ordinary towage, if no orders are given 
 by the tow as to avoiding a third ship, and a collision occurs, 
 between the tow and the third ship, it has been lield that the 
 tow, being in fault for giving no orders, cannot recover 
 against the tug, either for injury which she lierself received 
 in the collision, or for damages which she was compelled to 
 pay to the third ship. And this appears to be so, although 
 the tug could with ordinary care have avoided the collision. 
 A barque in charge of a compulsory pilot was being towed T/ie Energy 
 up the Thames. She fell in with a brig working up the river 
 against a head wind. The pilot gave no orders to the tug, 
 and the tug improperly attempted to cross the bows of the 
 brig. The barque east off her tow-line and attempted to go 
 under the brig's stern, but failed to clear her. The collision 
 might have been avoided if the tug had cast off the tow-line. 
 The pilot gave no orders throughout. The ijarque was sued 
 
 [y) 27 W. R. 35. Cf. Thr li'. A. [z) Tbr Julia, Lush. 224; and mw 
 
 Xet;m«ff, «6Fed. Rep. r,!!. Thf Rohvrt Dixon, I PI* l-'l ; fi 
 
 P. D. 04.
 
 192 
 
 TUG AND TOW. 
 
 Whether 
 tow -owners 
 affected by 
 contributory 
 negligence on 
 part of com- 
 pulsory pilot 
 in charge 
 of tow. 
 
 Rule of 
 division of 
 loss. 
 
 by the brig, and damages were recovered against her. In 
 an action brought by the barque again&t the tug, it was held 
 that she could not recover these damages, being herself 
 partly in fault for the collision (a) . 
 
 This case has been the subject of some discussion. It 
 appears to have been assumed that the negligence of the pilot 
 was contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiffs, or 
 for which they were responsible, so as to prevent them from 
 recovering for a loss caused partly by the fault of the tug. 
 That this would be so where the pilotage is not compulsory is 
 clear ; but there is considerable doubt whether the case is the 
 same when the pilot is in charge by compulsion of law, and is 
 not the servant or agent of the shipowner. This question was 
 discussed, though not decided, in a case before the House of 
 Lords. The question was as to the liability of the tug for 
 damage to the tow caused by her getting ashore owing to the 
 tug's negligence, there being also negligence on the part of 
 the compulsory pilot of the tow. It was held (in Ireland) 
 that the tow could not, in such a case, recover against the tug. 
 The view taken of the facts by the House of Lords rendered 
 the decision of this question unnecessary ; but Lords Selborne 
 and Blackburn intimated their opinion that under such cir- 
 cumstances the owners of the tow would not be prevented by 
 the negligence of the pilot from recovering against the 
 tug(i). 
 
 A further question arises in such a case, whether the rule 
 of equal division of the loss applies as between the tug and 
 her tow. "Where, again, a tug. A., was in fault for a collision 
 between her tow, B., and a third ship, C, and C. was also 
 in fault for having an improper light, it was held in America 
 that the rule of equal division of loss applied as between C. 
 and A. (c). Where a pilot cutter was made fast alongside a 
 
 (a) The Enerfiy, L. R. 3 A. & E. 
 48. And see Smith v. St. Lawrence 
 Toiv Boat Co., L. R. P. C. 308 ; 
 The Robert Dixon, 4 P. D. 121 ; 5 
 P. D. 54. As to County Court juris- 
 diction for breach of towage con- 
 tract, see The Isca, 12 P. D. 34. 
 
 [b) Spaight v. Tedcastlr,''l6 App. 
 Cas. 217. The same question was 
 considered in Utidman v. Dublin Port 
 
 and Docks Board, Ir. Rep. 7 C. L. 
 
 518 ; and The Adam TV. Spies, 70 
 L. J. Ad. 25 ; in the latter case Sir 
 F. Jeune was prepared to hold that 
 M. S. Act, 1894, s. 633, protected 
 the owner. See also British Columbia 
 Towinq and Transport Co. v. Sewell, 
 9 Duval's Rep. (Canada) 527. 
 
 (c) The James Gray and The John 
 Fraser, 21 How. 184.
 
 INCIDENTAL RTOHTS AND TJAP^TTJTIES. 
 
 193 
 
 tow, and owing to the negligence of tlie tugs, nnd of those in 
 the pilot cutter in not slipping their rope, the pilot cutter was 
 sunk by a third vessel, it was held that the pilot cutter was 
 entitled to recover half her damages fi'om the tugs (d^. 
 
 In America, the rule of division of loss is applied ixi cases Anu«ricj»n 
 of collision between a tug or tow and a third ship, in a manner *^"'***'- 
 for which there is no precedent in this country. Thus W(» 
 have seen that where tug and tow are both in fault, the 
 decree, in America, goes in the first instance against each for 
 half the damage to the third ship. So where the tug was in 
 fault for a collision between tow and third ship, and the third 
 ship was also in fault, the tug was held liable for half the 
 damages (e). But tug and tow are jointly and severally liable 
 for the damage to the third ship, and the latter may sue 
 either or both (/). It is held that, as between the t«'o wrong- 
 doing ships, the right of apportioning the damages is a sub- 
 stantial right, and, if one only is sued, she has a right to liave 
 the other brought in as a co-defendant ; and that, in order to 
 avoid multiplicity of suits, all the wrong-doers should be sued 
 in the first instance (g). 
 
 In this country, where all three ships, tug, tow, and third 
 ship, were in fault for a collision between tug and third ship, 
 judgment went against tug and tow, jointly and severally, 
 for half the loss (h). So in America, where tug and tow are 
 both in fault for damage to the tow by breach of the towage 
 contract, whether by collision (/) or not (/.•), the rule of 
 division of loss is applied. 
 
 A tuff in a gale being over-run by her tow, cast her off. Tow m 0..I- 
 The tow afterwards came into colhsion with a lightsliip, tor i.ein-cast ,,h 
 which, in an action by the owners of the latter, she was lield ^^ tu^r. 
 
 {d) Tlie Harvest Home, (1905) P. 
 177; 10 Asp. 118. 
 
 («) The Jamen Gray and The John 
 Fraser, 21 How. 184. In The Energy, 
 L. R. 3 A. & E. 48, this point was 
 not considered. 
 
 (/) The Charles Allen, 11 Fed. 
 Rep. 317; The Atlas, 3 Otto, 302; 
 The Franconia, 16 Fed. Rep. 149; 
 The Annie Williams, 20 Fed. Rop. 
 866 ; although the fault of one is 
 gross, and of the other slight : The 
 Franeonia, supra. 
 
 M. 
 
 (g) The Hudson, lo Fed. Rep. 162. 
 For other American casos on those 
 points, see supra, p. 182. 
 
 (A) The EiKilishman and Tlif Aus- 
 tralia, (1894) P. 239 ; and see ««/;;vi. 
 p. 176, note (<?), as to this case: Thr 
 Avon and The Thomas Joliffe, (1891) 
 
 P. 7. 
 
 (t) The Jontii Jcuks, hA Fed. Rop. 
 1021 ; The Expum, fi'l Fod. Hoji. 
 890. 
 
 (i) The William Kraft, 33 I'od. 
 
 Rep. 847. 
 
 o
 
 194 TUG AND TOW. 
 
 in fault. She subsequently sued the tug, alleging that the 
 collision was caused by the effect of the tow ropes, after being 
 cast off, upon her steering. It was held by a Canadian Vice- 
 Admiralty Court that the tug was justified in casting off her 
 tow under the circumstances; it being also found as a fact 
 that the tow was guilty of negligence, and that her steering 
 was not affected by the tow-rope (/). 
 Tug under- Where the towage contract is not upon the ordinary terms, 
 
 dutief "^'''''''^ ^^^ ^^® ^^S undertakes a larger responsibility as to the con- 
 duct of the tow than is usual, it may be her duty to act 
 without orders from the tow {m) . 
 
 The facts of The Tasmania {n) have been already stated. 
 The collision there was between the tug and her tow, and 
 was caused by the fault of the master of the tug, who was 
 the servant of the charterer and not of the owner of the tug. 
 It was held that the tug was not liable in rem because the 
 tug-master, the wrong-doer, was not the servant of the 
 owners of the tug, and because the charterers and the tug 
 were by the terms of the towage contract protected from 
 liability for negligence of the tug-master. 
 Tug injured In an unreported case a tug, A., towing a vessel, B., was 
 rfanofhfr'"'''''' struck and injured by the tow-rope of another tug, C, which 
 tug towing was ahead of A., and also towing B. It was held that the 
 same sHp. ^j^mage was caused by the fault of C. in having too long a 
 scope of tow-line out, and also by the fault of A. in not 
 keeping clear of the tow-line (o). The rule of division of loss 
 appears to have been applied. 
 Recovery by For injury the tug receives herself, or for damages which 
 tow*'"'^'"''* she is compelled to pay in respect of a collision between her- 
 self and a third ship, she cannot recover against the tow, 
 unless the collision was caused by improper orders, or other- 
 wise by the negligence of the tow. Where she could herself 
 have avoided the collision, had she exercised ordinary care, 
 she clearly could not recover against the tow merely on the 
 ground that the latter gave no orders (/j). For we have 
 seen that under certain circumstances it is her duty to 
 
 (Z) The Loyal v. The Challenger, 14 (o) The Lighy Grand, Ad. Ct. 
 
 Quebec L. R. 135. 30th April, 18S4. . , „ ^^ ^,, 
 
 {m) See The Isca, 12 P. D. 34. {p) See The Smqnasi, 5 P. D. 241. 
 (h) 13 p. D. 110.
 
 INCIDENTAL RIOHTS AND LIABILITIES. 19'5 
 
 keep clear of other ships without waiting for orders from the 
 tow. 
 
 The liability of the owner of the tng for damage done to Limitation of 
 the tow, by improper navigation of the tug in the perform- liability.' 
 ance of the towage contract, is limited by the statute in this 
 as in other cases of collision (7). 
 
 Tlie owners of a ship that takes another in tow are not OwTi«>r« of n 
 the less liable for a collision between the two ships, caused ti ['^ 
 
 by the negligence of the towinff-ship, because shp is enerao-ed ^'"P ''^' l'"'''*^' 
 
 1 • 1 mi 1- o 11 • . , for .•ollision 
 
 as a salvor or quasi-salvor. The stearasliip ThcHfi fell m with hotwoen 
 The 8ardi.« in a disabled state. The master of T/n^ Thefh '"^{'^^^^.l 
 agreed to tow the latter to port. He had received no instruc- 
 tions from his owner as to offering towage or salvage service 
 to other ships, but the policy of insurance effected upon Tho 
 Thetis, and her bills of lading, contained provisions as to her 
 performing such services. In attempting to take TJie San/is 
 in tow The Thetis negligently ran into and sank her. It was 
 held that the master of The Thetis was acting within the 
 scope of his emploympnt in undertaking to tow The Sanlis, 
 and her owners were held liable for the collision (r). 
 
 In one case it was contended that, the tuff beino; the servant r>"'f""(* "^ 
 
 " ciiinnioii I'lii- 
 
 of the tow, the doctrine of common employment (s) applied, pioymont does 
 as between the tug and the servants of the owners of the tow, DetwJI^ tu^ 
 so as to prevent the owners of the tug recovering against the ii"d si-rvantH 
 tow and her owners damages for a collision between tug and t,,^ 
 tow caused by the fault of the tow. This argument did not 
 succeed (/). 
 
 For a collision caused by the fault of the tug in taking ljnproi>or 
 an improper number of vessels in tow either between tlie ^},jp.< i„ t„„.. 
 vessels in tow, or between one of them and a stranger, the 
 owners of the tug would prima facie be liable to the ownei-s 
 of the tow upon the towage contract {>(). It is not unusual 
 for tug-owners to relieve themselves from this liability by 
 expressly contracting that they shall not be answerable for 
 the negligence of their servants on board the ttig (.r) . 
 
 {<,) Wahlberg v. Younrj, 45 L. J. W. \. 
 
 C. r. 783. {!■) Thr Julia, LuhIi. 224. 
 
 (r-) The Thetis, L. R. 2 A. & E. («) Sou 7V*tf United Strvire, 8 1' l> 
 
 36.5. .^G ; 9 P. D. 3. 
 
 («) Priestly v. Futvler, a M. & (a:) The United Srrvirr, u/ii xupra. 
 
 o2
 
 196 TUG AND TOW. 
 
 The mere fact that one of the vessels in tow strikes and 
 damages another vessel in tow, raises no presumption of 
 negligence on her part. It was so held where the leading 
 vessel in tow took the ground, and the following vessel ran 
 into her {i/). 
 With whom Where two or more ships are in tow of the same tug, and 
 reste^^^re ^ no agreement has heen come to hetween them and the tug as 
 more than one ^^ which ship is to have the command, it has not been decided 
 vesse IS in ^.^^ whom the command rests (::). Where the craft in tow 
 are barges, it would probably be held to be in the tug (a) ; 
 and the fact that the craft in tow are vessels capable of inde- 
 pendent movement, when not in tow, would seem to be im- 
 material. Three schooners were in tow of a tug with their 
 mainsails set. A squall struck them, and a collision followed 
 between the first and third schooner (which had been cast off 
 by the second) . It was held that the third was not in fault {b) . 
 In America, the tug, being responsible for the proper making 
 up of the tow, is liable for a coUision between two of the 
 vessels in tow caused by the bad steering qualities of one that 
 is put astern of the other with which she is in collision c) . 
 But it has been held in such a case that one of the ships in 
 tow could not recover against the tug for damage caused by 
 being under weigh in a thick fog when they ought all to have 
 brought up. It was assumed by the Court that it was the 
 duty of the ship in tow to give the order to bring up (d). 
 Where two vessels were in tow of the same tug, without ob- 
 jection on the part of that one of them which was nearest the 
 tug, and this vessel took the ground and was run into by the 
 other astern, it was held that she could not recover against 
 the vessel that ran into her {e) . 
 
 In a Canadian ease (/) a sailing ship in tow with her 
 sail set was held in fault for a coUision with an overtaking 
 and passing steamship, against which she was driven by 
 
 (y) See Harris v. Anderson, 14 (c) Orhanovich v. The America, 4 
 
 C. B. N. S. 499. Fed. Rep. 337- 
 
 {z\ The Gipsy Kiiiq, 5 Not. of Cas. (d) Smith v. Si. Laivrence Tuw Boat 
 
 282. Co., L. R. 5 P. C. 308. 
 
 Ta) See The Quickstep, 15 P. D. [e) Harris v. At/demon, 14 C. B. 
 
 196. ^- S. 499. 
 
 (i) Law V. Baker, 26 Fed. Rep. (/) The Farewell, 8 Quebec L. R. 
 
 164. 87.
 
 INCIDENTAL RIOHTS AND LIABILITIES. 
 
 19: 
 
 another sliip in tow of the same tug striking her on her 
 quarter. 
 
 The tug can be sued in rem for damage to the ship in tow Admiralty 
 received in a collision caused bv negligent towage, whether {„ i.,,se of 
 such daraao:e is sustained by the tow in a collision with a "^>'1'>^»< 
 
 . . tuwajro. 
 
 third ship or with the tug {;]) . And the tug may be sued in 
 Admiralty for damages which the tow has been compelled to 
 pay to a third ship for a collision caused by the faidt of tlic 
 
 tug(/0. 
 
 Attempts have been made to try the question between tug Tliinl-jviHy 
 and tow, as to the ultimate liability for collision with a third 
 ship by means of the third-party procedure under the Judi- 
 cature Act. The existing rules do not enable a third party 
 to be brought in for such a purpose (/). 
 
 Where the liability is reasonably in doubt, tug and tow 
 may properly be made co-defendants {k). 
 
 prcH-oduro. 
 
 ((/) The Nightuatch, Lush. 542 ; 
 The Julia, ibid. 2'24. 
 
 [h] The Energy, L. R. 3 A. & E. 
 48. It seems that the Admiralty 
 Court has jurisdiction in a claim for 
 damage caused by negligent towage, 
 whether such damage is received in 
 a collision or not : see supra, p. "27, 
 note {b). The Admiralty jurisdic- 
 tion of the United States Courts 
 
 includes all claims arising out of 
 towage contracts : 2 Parsons on 
 Ship. (ed. 1869), 176, IBS ; Th, Webb, 
 
 14 Wall. 406. 
 
 (t) See infra, p. 297. As to the 
 practice in America, see The Hudson, 
 
 15 Fed. Rep. 162. 
 
 (/.) The River Lagan, 6 Asp. M. C. 
 281. Cf. The MyHterg, (1902) P. 
 115.
 
 198 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 FOREIGN SHIPS FOREIGN LAW FOREIGN JUDGMENTS. 
 
 pSbi^ to ^^ collision cases where one or both the ships are foreign, 
 
 foreign ships; questious frequently arise as to the law applicable to the case, 
 
 foreig^ ''^ '^^^ particularly as to the application of British statutes to 
 
 waters. foreign ships. The general rule is that municipal laws are 
 
 binding upon the subjects of the state by which they are 
 
 enacted everywhere, but upon foreigners only when they are 
 
 within its jurisdiction (a). The principle which governs 
 
 questions of jurisdiction, and remedies, has been thus stated : 
 
 " In regard to the merits and rights involved in actions, the 
 
 law of the place where they originated is to govern ... but 
 
 the forms of remedies and the order of judicial proceedings 
 
 are to be according to the law of the place where the action is 
 
 instituted, without any regard to the domicil of the parties, 
 
 the origin of the right, or the country of the act " (b). 
 
 Before the passing of 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, foreign laws, and 
 the general maritime law, touching the steps to be taken to 
 avoid collision, and the extent of the shipowner's liability, 
 differed from the law of this country, and questions of diffi- 
 culty arose in the case of collisions where one or both ships 
 were foreign as to the law applicable to the case. By the 
 Act above mentioned it is provided, with reference to the rule 
 of the road and the extent of shipowner's liability, that in 
 the Courts of this country foreign ships shall be judged by the 
 British law. There are, however, several points upon which 
 
 _ {a) As to the limits of British 14, § 558, 7th ed. p. 702. And see 
 
 jurisdiction, see The Saxonia and Don v. Lippman, 5 CI. & Fin. 1. 
 
 The Eclipse, Lush. 410 ; The Anna- So a foreigner in France suing for 
 
 pohs and The Johanna Stoll, Lush. a collision is subject to the dis- 
 
 295 ; Medina v. Eeijn, The Franconia, abilities {Jin de non recevoir) of the 
 
 2 Ex. D. 63 ; of Admiralty jurisdic- Code de Commerce, Ai-ts. 435, 436 ; 
 
 tion, infra, p. 200. Abordage Nautique, Caumont, M 82, 
 
 {b) Story's Conflict of Laws, Ch. 83. ' vy ,
 
 ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION. U'J^ 
 
 the decisions above referred to {c) are material, and tis to 
 which there is some doubt whether British or foreign law is 
 to prevail. As stated above, the general ride — where the 
 matter is not expressly provided for by statute — is, that as to 
 rights and merits the law of the place of collision {/ex loci)^ 
 and as to remedies and procedure the law of the tribimal {lex 
 fori), is to prevail. The form in which the question may 
 arise at the present day is indicated below. 
 
 Actions for collision are said to be communis jurh, and the Juris.ii.ti..n 
 Admiralty Court never refused to entertain an action merely c\,urts*who/« 
 because both ships were foreign (f/), or their owners not both the shiiw 
 British subjects {e), or because the collision occurred in ""^ oi^'i?"- 
 foreign waters (/). 
 
 The original jurisdiction of the Admiralty probably Limits of 
 
 extended over all waters where the tide ebbs and flows and ->^^l"";"||y 
 
 juris*iiiti"ii. 
 
 where great ships are accustomed to go {g) ; but after the 
 enactment of 13 E,ic. 2, st. 1, c. 5, and 15 E,ic. 2, o. 3, and 
 until the modern statutes enlarging the jurisdiction of the 
 Admiralty Court (A), the Coui-t was liable to be restrained by 
 prohibition from exercising its jurisdiction if the collision 
 occurred in the body of a county (/). Where not prohibited 
 
 {c) See infra, p. 206, as to these 730, prohibition to the Delegates 
 
 eases. (1661), Ad. Ct. Rec. Miscell. Bdle«., 
 
 {d) The Johann Friedrieh, 1 W. Ser. IV. bdle. 17 ; riolet v. Blague, 
 
 Rob. 35 ; The Charkieh, L. R. 4 A. Cro. Jac. 514 ; Violet c. Blake, Ad. 
 
 &E. 120. A.ndiseeThe Evangdistria, Ct. Rec. Libels, File 78, No. 1« ; 
 
 25 W. R. 255 (ownership of a foreign File 79, No. lUO, was a suit for 
 
 vessel) ; In re Smith, 1 P. D. 300 ; detinue of a ship in the Thames. 
 
 The Griefswald, Swab. 430 ; The The case referred to in the report in 
 
 Vivar, 2 P. D. 29. And per Cro. Jac. 514, as of a collision at 
 
 Story, J., The Invincible, 2 Gall. 29 ; Blackwall, was probably either Jlall 
 
 The Anna Johnson, 2 Stuart's V. Ad. c. Cook, Ad. Ct. Libels, File 78, 
 
 Rep. (Canada) 43. No. 72, or Goodync c. Tompkins, ibid. 
 
 ie) In The Courier, Lush. 541, Miscell. Bundle, 250. In lelthasat 
 
 neither of the ships was owned by v. Ormsley, 3 T. R. 315, where thu 
 
 British subjects, and the collision collision was in the Thanios, Lord 
 
 was in foreign waters. Kenyon granted a prohibition, al- 
 
 (/) In The Liana, Lush. 539, though the owner of the ship sued 
 
 decided since 24 Vict. c. 10, the ships was unknown and there wiuj uu 
 
 were owned by Briti.sh subjects, and remedy at comtium law, refusing to 
 
 the coUision was in foreign inland follow Wharton v. I'lls, 1 Sulk. 548. 
 
 waters. So, in J)orriiii/fon'.s Cukc, Moore, 9 1G; 
 
 (g) See per Blackburn, J., licg. v. The Charming Xancg mid The Daw- 
 
 AnderHon,lj.~R.l G.C.U.lQl; Itcg. kirn (1771), Inst. Pap. 54; The 
 
 V. Can; 10 Q. B. D. 76. Smi/ma and The I'rouw A/ana (1801), 
 
 (h) 3' & 4 Vict. c. Go ; 24 Vict. In«t. I'ap. 92 ; Tugnrham v. llanmni 
 
 c. 10. (1762), Marsden, Ad. Cas. 130, all 
 
 (t) Martin v. Green, The Dolphin collisions in the ThuMies, and in 
 
 and The Barbados Merchant, 1 Kob. Elwill v. U'lggett (1604), collisiun in
 
 200 FOREIGN SHIPS FOREIGN LAW FOREIGN JUDGMENTS. 
 
 the Admiralty Court appears to have exercised the juris- 
 diction even where the collision was in the body of a county, 
 at least where the ship sued was foreign, and the plaintiff 
 would otherwise be without a remedy [k). At the present 
 day there is no doubt that the Admiralty Division has juris- 
 diction, and will exercise it, whether the collision occurs 
 within the ebb and flow of the tide or not, and whether in 
 British or foreign waters or on the high seas (/). The liability 
 of a foreign ship that has injured property of a British 
 subject in any part of the world to be detained until satis- 
 faction is made to the sufferer is referred to below (w). 
 
 It has been held (n) that a County Court has Admiralty 
 
 jurisdiction in respect of damages by a collision which occurred 
 
 in a dock connected with a tidal river (the Thames) by a lock. 
 
 And it seems that the Admiralty Division of the High 
 
 Court also has jurisdiction in such a case (o). Dr. Lushington 
 
 exercised the jurisdiction in the case of a collision in foreign 
 
 inland waters — the Grreat North of Holland Canal (p). 
 
 Jurisdiction The common law Courts have jurisdiction, whether the 
 
 law when the ships are British or foreign, and whether the collision occurs 
 
 ''h ^^d'^ ^^ ^^ foreign waters, or elsewhere. " The right of all persons, 
 
 whether British subjects or aliens, to sue in the English 
 
 Courts for damages in respect of torts committed in foreign 
 
 countries, has long since been established ; and, as is observed 
 
 in the note to Mosfi/ii v. Fahrigas (q), there seems to be no 
 
 reason why aliens should not sue in England for personal 
 
 injuries done to them by other aliens abroad, when such 
 
 injuries are actionable both by the law of England, and also 
 
 by that of the country where they are committed : and the 
 
 Weymouth harbom-, the Admiralty sion in the Great North of Holland 
 
 was prohibited ; and later in The Canal) ; The Courier, Lush. 541 ; 
 
 Fiiblic Opinion, 2 Hag. 398 ; The The Mali Ivo, L. R. 2 A. & E. 356 ; 
 
 Eliza Jane, 3 Hag. 335 ; The Lord of as to colonial waters, see The Peer- 
 
 thc Islen, cited in The Public Opinion, less. Lush. 30 ; as to county court 
 
 2 Hag. 398, 402. jurisdiction in case of a collision in 
 
 {li) Fairless v. Thorsen, The Good a London dock, see Reg. v. Judge of 
 
 Intent and The Prince Christian, City of London Court, 8 Q. B. D. 
 
 Marsden's Ad. Gas. 130. As to 609. 
 Admiralty jurisdiction generally, see (w) Infra, p. 200. 
 
 Be Lovio v. Bait, 2 Gall. 398 ; The (n) Peq. v. Judge of City of London 
 
 Volant, 1 Not. of Gas. 503, 509. As Court, 8 Q. B. D. 609. 
 to Canadian inland waters, see 40 (o) Under 24 Vict. c. 10, s. 7. 
 
 Vict. c. 21 (Canada) ; The Picton, 4 {p) The Diana, Lush. 539. 
 
 Duval's (Canada) Rep. 648. [q) 1 Smith's L. C. 11th ed. 591. 
 
 (;) The Diana, Lush. 539 (colli-
 
 ADMIRALTY JUKISDICTION. "301 
 
 impression which had prevailed to the contrary seems 
 erroneous " (>•). 
 
 Neither in the Admiralty, nor in the King's Bench Liability of 
 Division, can a personal action for damages in respect of a 'Serit 
 collision occurring below low-water mark of the coasts of the "broad. 
 United Kingdom be brought against a person not domiciled 
 or ordinarily resident -vN-ithin the jurisdittion, unless the writ 
 of summons can be served within the jmisdiction (.s). 
 
 A foreign ship that has injured a British ship or property Detniti..,, ,,f 
 of a British subject in any part of the world may be detained fliat'h.'j'"'' 
 if found within three miles of the coasts of the United King- "O^rt-d pru- 
 dom so as to compel her owners to abide the event of any British 
 action in the courts of this country for damage caused by -"^J'-'^^- 
 her (t). And it seems that in such a case she is liable in an 
 action in rem. {u). But the ship cannot under this Act be 
 detained in respect of personal injury (.r) ; and it has been 
 doubted whether she could be seized whilst passing the coasts 
 of this country on a foreign voyage {y). 
 
 The question whether an action can be maintained in any Action in this 
 Court in this country for a wrongful act to a pier or break- daniu^/i" to 
 water forming part of the soil of a foreign country has not ^'''•''' "^"^'•"^• 
 been decided. It arose in The M. Moxham {z) , but by consent 
 of the parties, no objection to the jurisdiction was taken. 
 James and Mellish, L. JJ., appear to have had doubts as to 
 the jurisdiction (s). 
 
 Before the enactment of the existing International Ivegu- Law ..f ii..>rli- 
 lations for Preventmg CoUisions at sea, the question oi liability for 
 negligence in all cases of collision was tried by the general "p^^}',[;'j[,'|]f j,, 
 maritime law : in other words, by those rules of seamanship, foreigTi bhips. 
 which, it was assumed, were common to seamen of all 
 nations {a). Thus the rule that a vessel on the port tack 
 should bear up for another on the starboard tack was ajiplied 
 
 (r) FerSelwjn, L. J., The Halley, tion may be seized: 2 Parsons on 
 
 L. R. 2 P. C. 103, 202, 203. And Ship. (ed. 1869), 390. 
 
 see i3cr Brett, M. R., 10 Q. B. D. («) The Bilbao, Lush. 119. 
 
 537 [x) Harris v. Owners of the Fran- 
 
 (V) See below, p. 285. conia, 2 C. P. D. 173. 
 
 \t) .57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, s. 688. (y) See per Cockbuni, C. J., lirg. 
 
 ^,ie Christiana, 2 Hajj. 183, is a v. AVyw, 2 Ex. J) "- •"" 
 
 decision under the similar Act, 1 & 2 (z) 1 P. D. 107 
 
 («) See The 
 
 The Christiana, 2 Hajj- 183, is a v. A'<'yw^2 Ex. J). 63, 21S. 
 decision under the similar Act, 1 «fe 2 
 Geo. 4, c. 75. In America any pro- 
 perty of the owners of the ship sued 
 which is found within the jurisdic- 
 
 Geo. 4, c. 75. In America auy pro- («) See The JJmnJ'rie.s, S\val>. 63, 
 
 perty of the owners of the ship sued 125.
 
 202 
 
 FOREIGN SHIPS — FOREIGN LAW — FOREIGN JUDGMENTS. 
 
 Liability for 
 negligence 
 by maritime 
 law. 
 
 to all ships whether British or foreign. And at the present 
 day, so far as the Regulations do not extend, or where they 
 are not applicable, the test of negligence is the same ; namely, 
 the general practice of seamen, or, as it is sometimes called, 
 the general maritime law. 
 
 The law applicable in this country to cases of collision on 
 the high seas, where one or both ships are foreign, is the 
 maritime law as administered in England, and not the law of 
 the flags {b). By that law the shipowner is liable for the 
 negligence of the master and crew of his ship(c). And it 
 apf)ears that the liability is the same whether the action is in 
 a court having Admiralty juiisdiction or not(c/). In the 
 courts of this country, the rights and duties of persons 
 navigating vessels, whether in British territorial waters or on 
 the high seas, are the same. It is their duty so to exercise 
 their right as to do no damage to the property of others (c) . 
 Thus an English telegraph company sued and recovered 
 damages against the owners of a foreign vessel for injury 
 done to the company's cable, which lay at the bottom of the 
 sea, by the ship's anchor (,/). 
 
 In the case of T/w Leon [g), in an action i)i jier-sonaiii in the 
 Admiralty Division by the owners of a British ship against 
 the owners resident in England of a Spanish ship for damages 
 in respect of a collision between the two ships on the high 
 seas, it was pleaded that the negligence on the part of the 
 Spanish ship (if any) was negligence of the master or crew, 
 for which, by the law of Spain, the master or crew, and not 
 
 [b) The Johann Friedrich, 1 W. 
 Rob. 35 ; The Dundee, 1 Hag. Ad. 
 120 ; The Leon, 6 P. D. 148 ; The 
 Milan, Lush. 388 ; Foote's Priv. 
 Intemat. Law, pp. 308— 403. And 
 see per Lindley, L. J., Chartered 
 Mercantile Bank of India v. Nether- 
 lands India Steam Navigation Co., 
 10 Q. B. D. 521, 545. 
 
 {c) Per Brett, M. R., 10 Q. B. D. 
 537; Coke's Inst. 4th Pt. fo. 146. 
 Semble, only where the master and 
 crew are his agents. It may be 
 noted that the form of sentence by 
 which, according to the ancient 
 practice of the Admiralty Court, 
 the owners intervening for their 
 interest in an action in rem were 
 condemned in damages, was, that 
 
 the collisi(jn having been caused by 
 the fault or negligence of the muster 
 and crew of the ship sued, her 
 owners, therefore, were liable. There 
 is no reference in the sentence to the 
 liability of the owners or of the ship 
 being founded upon the fact of the 
 crew being the agents of the ship- 
 owner. See, however, Waltham v. 
 3Iiilgar, Moo. 776. 
 
 [d) Per Brett, M. R., 10 Q. B. D. 
 537 ; Coke's Inst. 4th Pt. fo. 146. 
 
 {e) Per WiUes, J., Submarine Tele- 
 graph Co. V. Diclcson, 15 C. B. N. S. 
 759, 779. 
 
 (/) Submarine Telegraph Co. v. 
 Bickson, ubi supra. 
 
 (g) 6 P. D. 148.
 
 LIABILITY FOR COLLISION ABROAD OK AT SKA. 203 
 
 the shipowners, were liable. It was held by Sir R. Phillimore 
 that by the general maritime law, and by the law of England 
 as administered in Admiralty, the defendants, the foreign 
 owners, were liable. 
 
 Again, in a ease before the Court of Appeal, an EuglL^li 
 company, registered under the Companies Act, 18(52, were 
 sued in tort by the owners of cargo on board a vessel that 
 was sunk in a collision caused partly by the fault of the 
 defendants' ship, which had a foreign register and sailed 
 under the foreign flag(/0. The defendants admitting that 
 they represented the foreign owners for the purposes of the 
 action, it was held that they were liable. And it was said 
 that even without the admission the decision would probably 
 have been the same, the foreign owners being bare trustees 
 for the defendants {i). 
 
 In an action in a common law court by the owners of a 
 British ship against a French subject for a collision with a 
 French ship on the high seas, it was pleaded that the injury 
 complained of happened out of British jurisdiction, and that 
 it was not committed by the defendant personally, but by the 
 master of the French ship ; that the defendant was a French 
 subject; that by the law of France he was not liable for the 
 acts of the master ; and that by the same law a French cor- 
 poration, who were the proprietors of the ship, and the master's 
 employers, were alone liable. The plea was held good (k) . 
 
 The liability depends, in some cases, upon the law of the Appli«itionof 
 place where the collision occui's, and of the country to which to'^iV:fi!ilitv\or 
 the ship belongs. If it occurs in the territorial waters of a "I'gligcuce. 
 country by the law of which an owner is not liable for the 
 wrongful acts of his officers or crew, it seems that he would 
 not be liable in the courts of this country (/). For the 
 question whether a particular person is liable for an act which 
 is wrongful by the law of the place where it is committed 
 depends on the substantive law of the country where the act 
 
 (/») To enable her to trade with Navigation Co., K) Q. B. D. .'.'il. 
 
 the IDutch East Indies she was regis- 545. 
 
 tered in Holland in the name of a (A) General Ntvum Xaviijittioit Co. 
 
 Dutch company, the members of v. Oillou, 11 M. & W. S77, 80/5. 
 which were the same as those of the {t) See per Brett, M. R., Chmtntd 
 
 English company. Mercantili Bank of India v. Nrthcr- 
 
 (i) Chartered Mercantile Bank of lands India Steam Navigation Co., 10 
 
 India, ^c. v. Netherlands India Steam Q. B. D. 621, 63G.
 
 204 FOREIGN SHIPS — FORKIGN LAW — FOREIGN JUDGMENTS. 
 
 is done (m). In such a case, therefore, it is the lex loci and 
 not the lex fori which governs. Nor is the defendant liable, 
 in this country, for a collision in a foreign country unless the 
 negligence causing the collision is that of a person for whose 
 acts he is responsible by the law of England. " No action 
 can be maintained in the coui'ts of this country on account of 
 a wrongful act either to a person or to personal property 
 committed within the jurisdiction of a foreign country, unless 
 the act is wrongful by the law of the country where it is 
 committed, and also by the law of this country " {n). 
 
 In The M. Moxham an English company, possessed of a 
 pier in Spain, instituted an action in the Admiralty Court 
 against a British ship for negligently injuring the pier. The 
 shipowners, by their answer, pleaded that by the law of Spain 
 they were not liable for the negligence of the crew in the 
 navigation of the ship. The Court of Appeal held that, 
 assuming the Court had jurisdiction, the law of Spain was 
 applicable, and that the plea was good (o) . 
 
 So if the collision occurs in foreign waters by the fault of 
 
 a pilot, the employment of whom is compulsory by the foreign 
 
 law, the owners will not be liable in the courts of this country ; 
 
 and they are not liable here, although by the law of the place 
 
 of collision they would be liable in the foreign court (/>). 
 
 Order of It has been held, where there are several claims against a 
 
 asMpfffe?'* ship, that they must rank and be paid according to British 
 
 fori. law, the matter being governed by the lex fori (q). 
 
 Rule of the The statutory rules as to steps to be taken to avoid coUi- 
 
 road for ^-^ which were contained in the Merchant Shipping and 
 
 loreign snips. ' 
 
 Other Acts previous to 25 & 26 Vict. c. td, were held not to 
 apply in the case of a collision between two foreign ships, or 
 a British and a foreign ship, on the high seas. The question 
 of negligence in such cases was tried by the general maritime 
 law, under which the steps required to be taken to avoid 
 collision were not always identical with those required by the 
 
 (m) Per Hellish, L. J., The M. (o) The M. Moxham, 1 P. D. 107. 
 
 Moxham, 1 P. D. 107, 113. [p) Tlie Halleij, L. R. 2 P. C. 193. 
 
 («) Per Mellish, L. J., in The M. And see The Guij Mannering, 7 P. D. 
 
 Moxham, 1 P. D. 107, 111. And see 52, 132 ; The Augusta, 6 Asp. M. C. 
 
 ji?cr Lord Blackburn, The Vera Cruz, 58, 161. 
 
 10 App. Gas. 59, 72 ; Carr v. Fracis {q) The Union, Lush. 128. 
 Titnes ^ Co., (1902) App. Gas. 17G.
 
 RULE OF THE ROAD FOR FOKEKJN SHIPS. 205 
 
 British statute. A ship, therefore, meeting another on the 
 high seas, had to ohey one rule, if both ships were British, 
 and another, and a different rule, if one were not British (/). 
 This state of things, which coukl not fail to be productive of 
 collisions, led to the adoption of the existing International 
 Regulations (s). No question as to the rule of the road, or 
 as to the law applicable to the particular case, such as ai'ose 
 in the cases decided under former Acts, can now be raised. 
 All maritime nations having adopted tlie regulations, and the 
 Coui'ts of this country being required by the municii)al law to 
 apply the regulations to the ships of all nations that have 
 adopted them, the rule of the road is the same for all ships, 
 and is recognized alike by international, municipal, and 
 maritime law {t). 
 
 Foreign ships, equallv with British ships, are bound to Application 
 know and observe local regulations for preventing colhsions i,j,.,ii n»^'uln. 
 in force in various rivers and harbours of this country {>(). \]['^l^^l ^hips 
 
 Foreign municipal regulations as to ships' lights, and rules A|>pli(nti<.n 
 to be observed in navigating foreign waters, though they J^^^reSila- 
 have not in the courts of this country the force of law, may, tjons to 
 as evidence of negligence, be of importance in determining '" "* "* ' '""" 
 the liability for a collision in such waters. The effect of 
 special regulations made by the Government of this or a 
 foreign country for its ships of war and for ships under 
 convoy is expressly saved by the regulations (x). 
 
 The law by which the owners of a ship that has been in Appli<-ati..ii t<. 
 
 . . . fonipi .ships 
 
 collision are, upon proof of certam circumstances as to in- ^f ruio an u> 
 fringement of the regulations, or as to not assisting the other JIJ"'^";",",;'"""" 
 ship, made liable for the collision, without proof of ac-tual 
 negligence upon the part of their ship, has been considered 
 in a former chapter (//). There seems to be no doubt that 
 
 (r) The Dumfries, Swah. 63; The mulgatcd, see t/*//v(, p. ;J14. 
 
 Saxonia and The Eclipse, Lush. 410 ; [t) The exceptiou formerly exiHt- 
 
 TJie ZoUvercut, Swab. 96 ; The Eliza- injr with regard to ti«hiuK Vf8.sel» 
 
 beth, 3 L. T. 159. The general lights (as to which see ih/z-a, p. .IW) 
 
 maritime law was deemed to have is no longer operative, 
 
 embodied the '-port tack " rule- ('*) .')7 ic 58 Vict. c. GO. «h 41« (2), 
 
 that a Hailing ship on the port tack 421 (2). See 'Ihr ln.nmnl, Mv^h. 
 
 should give way to another on the 374 ; Thf Seine, ib,i. 411. as t.. the 
 
 starboard tack. See The Dum/nex, law on thin subject under the .M.S. 
 
 ubi supra. ■^°*', ^^'*^' lo i- -lak 
 
 {s) As to the circumstances under {x) Art. l.J, iiijra, p. Joo. 
 
 which these regulations were pro- (y) Sii/na, pp. 39 sn/.
 
 206 
 
 FOREIGN SHIPS FOREIGN LAW — FOREIGN JUDGMENTS. 
 
 Defence of 
 ' ' compulsoiy 
 pilotage" 
 available for 
 foreign ships. 
 
 these enactments apply to foreign ships (s), and in all waters, 
 whether British, foreign, or on the high seas. The enact- 
 ment as to infringement of the regnlations has been assumed 
 to apply to a British and foreign ship in collision in British 
 waters and also on the high . seas (a) ; and, apart from the 
 express provision of 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, s. 424, both enact- 
 ments would probably be held to be rules of evidence, or 
 otherwise applicable to foreign ships as lex fori (b). 
 
 The defence of compulsory pilotage is available for a 
 foreign as well as for a British ship. The statutory exemp- 
 tion of owners from liability for damage done by a ship when 
 in charge of a compulsory pilot probably applies to foreign 
 ships (c) ; and, independently of the statute, foreign as well 
 as British owners are not liable for the acts of a person 
 placed in charge of their ship by the state (d). 
 
 (s) Supra, p. 59. 
 
 («) The Englishman, 3 P. D. 18 ; 
 The I'uorwaarts and. The Khedive, 7 
 App. Gas. 795 ; The Vera Cruz 
 (No. 1), 9 P. D. 88. See also The 
 British Princess and The Stdmi 
 Duhrovacki, Ad. Ct. March II — 
 14th, 1878, Mitch. Mar. Reg. ; The 
 Maydehurgh and The Henry IFillard 
 (American), Ad. Div. 16th Jan. 
 1885 ; The Love Bird, 6 P. D. 80. 
 
 (/;) It was held by Dr. Lushington 
 in The ZoUverein, Swab. 96, that 
 sect. 298 of 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, 
 was a kx fori relating to remedies. 
 In that case the section was held 
 not to apply in the case of a colli- 
 sion between a British and a foreign 
 ship on the high seas so as to pre- 
 vent the British ship from recover- 
 ing against the foreigner. The 
 ground of the decision was that the 
 previous section (sect. 296), contain- 
 ing the rule of the road, was a 
 miiuieipal law not applicable to 
 foreign ships on the high seas, and 
 that therefore sect. 298, which de- 
 pended on sect. 296, had no appli- 
 cation to the foreign ship. Since, 
 therefore, the foreigner was not 
 prevented by sect. 298 from recover- 
 ing against a British ship that to 
 which by the maritime law he would 
 be entitled, it was held to be unfaii- to 
 allow the foreigner to avail himself 
 of a breach by the Bjitish ship of 
 the municipal law as a defence. 
 The existing regulations beinff in- 
 
 ternational, it is submitted that the 
 decision in The ZoUrerein, as to the 
 application of sect. 298 of the Act 
 of 1854, affords no ground for con- 
 tending that 67 & 58 Vict. c. 60, 
 s. 419 (4), does not apply to foreign 
 ships. In The .Vevada, 1 Asp. M. C. 
 477, however, the Vice- Admiralty 
 Court -of N. S. Wales held that 
 sect. 33 of the Act of 1862 did not 
 apply to an American ship. In The 
 Gennania, 21 L. T. 44, sect. 29 of 
 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, was applied to 
 a foreign ship ; but Lord Romilly 
 appears to have considered that 
 sect. 33 of that Act (as to " standing 
 by ") applied only to British ships. 
 In The Thuringia, 1 Asp. M. C. 283. 
 nothing was said as to the applica- 
 tion of that section to a foreign ship 
 on the high seas. As to the effect 
 of sects. 57 and 58 of the same Act, 
 see the observations of Lord Chelms- 
 ford in The Amalia, 1 Moo. P. C. 
 N. S. 471, 485. See further as to 
 these enactments, infra, pp. 316 scq. 
 
 (c) As did the former Pilotage Act, 
 6 Geo. 4, c. 125, s. 55. See The 
 Christiana, 2 Hag. 183. 
 
 [d) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 388 ; 
 The Maria, 1 W. Rob. 95, 106. In 
 The Girolamo, 3 Hag. Ad. 169, and 
 other cases under 6 Geo. 4, c. 125, it 
 was held that the statutory exemp- 
 tion of owners from liabilit}' for the 
 fault of a compulsory pilot did not 
 apply so as to exempt the owners of 
 a foreign ship in proceedings in rem.
 
 COMPULSORY PILOTAGE FOR FOREIGN SHIPS. 
 
 207 
 
 The employment of a pilot may, by statxite, be made com- 
 pulsory on a foreign ship visiting this coiintrj', even where 
 she is beyond three miles from the shores of the United 
 Kingdom {e). 
 
 The owners of a British ship, which had been in collision C*>iiii>uls..ry 
 with a foreign ship in the Scheldt, were sued by the foreign |a,j^,!|,^'' 
 ship in this country. The British ship alleged that the 
 collision was caused entirely by the negligence of the ])ilot, 
 whom, by the Belgian law in force in the Scheldt, she was 
 compelled to take. By the Belgian law owners are liabln for 
 the acts of a compulsory pilot. It was held by the Privy 
 Council (reversing the decision of Court below^ that the 
 Belgian law, which imposed a liability upon owners to which 
 they were not subject, either by the law of this country or by 
 any principle of justice, had no application, and that the 
 British owners were not liable (/). 
 
 In a foi-mer chapter it has been stated that tlie common Statnt..ry 
 law right of a sufferer by coUision to obtain irom the wrong- liability 
 doer a full recompense hfis, from time to time, been consider- ^V^;'/;*^;^^ 
 ably modified by British statutes. Until the passing of 25 & 26 
 Vict. c. 63, which preceded the present Act, there was frequently 
 great difficulty, in cases where one or both the ships in colli- 
 sion were foreign, in determining whether the municipal law 
 limiting owners' liability was, or was not, applicable {(/). At 
 the present day no such difficulty can arise. AVhether the 
 ships are both British, or both foreign, or one British and one 
 
 In The Vernon, 1 W. Rob. 316, Dr. 
 Lushington appear.s to have con- 
 sidered that the statutory exemption 
 of owners was lex fori. 
 
 {e) The Annapoim and Tlie Johanna 
 Stoll, Lush. 290. But sec 41 & 42 
 Viot. c. 73. 
 
 (/) The Halley, L. R. 2 P. C. 193 ; 
 iu the Court below, ibid. 2 A. A: E. 3. 
 In this case it seems to have been 
 wrongly assumed that the pilot was 
 in charge of the ship ; this is not 
 always so abroad. See infra, p. 218. 
 
 {(j) The provisions of the Merchant 
 Shipping Act, 1854, did not, in terms, 
 apply to foreigners. Under this Act 
 it was held that the liability of tlic 
 owners of a Briti.sh sliip in collision 
 with a foreigner, within three miles 
 of the shores of the United Kingdom, 
 
 was limited : General Iron Screw Col- 
 lier Co. V. Hehnriii'innx, 1 J. & H. 180; 
 but see The Saxonia, Lush. 410, where 
 this erase was questioned ; tluit the 
 liabiliry of the owners of two foreign 
 ships iu collision on the high sea.s, 
 beyond that distance from the United 
 Kingdom, was unlimited : Cope v. 
 J)ohertt/, 4 K. & J. 367 ; on app. 2 
 DcG. & J. (il4; and that the lialiility 
 of the owners of a foreign shiji iu 
 collision with a Briti.sh shii>, beyond 
 the three-mile limit, was uulimitod : 
 The jnid Ranger, Lush. A53 : even 
 although the foreign ship's liability 
 by the numicipal law of her own »U\o 
 w-ere the same as that of tlic Britinh 
 ship by British law: The ll'ilil l!<nif/n; 
 uln supra.
 
 208 
 
 FOREIfiN SHIPS FOREIGN LAW FOREIGN JUDGMENTS. 
 
 foreign, and whether the collision occurs in British waters or 
 on the high seas, the limit of owners' liahility is the same, 
 namely, that fixed by 57 & 5^ Vict. c. 60, s. 503. 
 
 In The AmaJia {//) it was held that the liability of the 
 owners of a British ship in collision with a foreign ship on 
 the high seas (in the Mediterranean) is limited by the Act of 
 1862. It was contended that the Legislature had no power 
 to alter the rights of foreigners in the case of a collision on 
 the high seas, or to limit the amount of the damages to which 
 by the maritime law they were entitled. It was, however, held 
 by the Privy Council (affirming the decision of Dr. Lushington) 
 that there is no breach of international law in such legislation ; 
 and it was said by Lord Chelmsford, in the course of the 
 judgment, and the decision in the case went upon the prin- 
 ciple, that the owners of a foreign ship in a similar case would 
 be entitled to the benefit of the Act, by which in all cases the 
 liability of the owners of a foreign ship is limited in the same 
 way, and to the same extent, as that of owners of a British 
 ship (^■). 
 
 Rule as to "pj^e rule as to division of loss where both ships are in fault 
 
 division of i p ii 1 
 
 loss applies to lor a Collision appears to have been applied as part oi the law 
 loreigii snips, j^^ritime to all collisions, whether in British or foreign waters 
 or on the high seas, and whether the ships were both British, 
 or both foreign, or one British and one foreign. And the 
 Judicature Act, 36 & 37 Vict. c. 66, extending its operation 
 to tbe Courts other than those having Admiralty jurisdiction, 
 appears to have an equally wide operation {k). 
 
 And the rule has been applied in a case of collision between 
 two ships belonging to the same owners, as between a foreign 
 cargo-owner suing the British owners of a ship sailing under 
 a foreign flag for loss of cargo in a collision caused by the 
 fault both of the carrying ship and of the other ship (l). 
 
 {h) Br. & I-ush. 151 ; 1 Moo. P. C. 
 N. S. 471. 
 
 (i) It seems that the law limiting: 
 owners' liability is not lex fori. Such 
 was the opinion of "Wood, V.-C, in 
 Cope V. Dolterty, 4 K. & J. 367, 384 ; 
 and in The General Iron Screw Collier 
 Co. V. Schurmanns, IJ. &H. 180, 197. 
 In The Amnlia the Privy Council ex- 
 pressed no opinion upon the point, 
 but Dr. Lushington (Lush. p. 153) 
 
 was of the same opinion as Wood, 
 V.-C., in the cases above mentioned. 
 Cf . also per Lord Stowell in The Carl 
 Johan, mentioned in The Girolamo, 
 3 Hag. Ad. 169, 186. See supra, 
 p. 206. 
 
 (k) See supra, p. 123. 
 
 (I) Chartered Mercantile Bank of 
 India v. Netherlands India Steam 
 Navigation Co., 10 Q. B. D. 521.
 
 SHIP OF A FOREIGN SOVEREIGN. 209 
 
 It is a principle of international law that a sovereign prince AiTe*t of sliip 
 
 of a fore ifT" 
 sovereign. 
 
 or state cannot be sued in a foreign court, and, on the same " ^ 
 
 principle, proceedings in rem cannot be taken against the 
 public ship of a foreign sovereign (m). But it has been 
 said {obiter) bj Sir U. Phillimore that if a ship of a foreign 
 sovereign engages in trade slie is liable to arrest, and the 
 sovereign must be taken to have waived the privilege of 
 immunity from arrest which attaches to a public ship of a 
 foreign state {n). It has also been held that it is not in the 
 power of the Crown, without the consent of Parliament, to 
 exempt from liability to arrest the trading ship of a foreign 
 sovereign [o). 
 
 A frigate of the United States was stranded on the south 
 coast of England and received salvage services from an 
 English tug. She had on board, under an Act of Congress 
 and for public purposes, cargo owned by American citizens. 
 The tug-owner sought to arrest the frigate and her cargo in 
 a claim for salvage. It was held that no warrant for arrest 
 could issue either in respect of ship or cargo [p). 
 
 The Parlement Beige, a vessel belonging to the King of the 
 Belgians, commanded and manned by officers and men com- 
 missioned and paid by him, was engaged in carrying mails 
 in connection with the British Post Office, together with 
 passengers and cargo. On her voyage from Ostend to Dover, 
 when close to Dover pier, she ran into a British ship at 
 anchor. Notwithstanding the fact that a convention had 
 been entered into between her Majesty and the King of the 
 Belgians declaring that the mail boats, of which The Parle- 
 ment Beige was one, should be deemed to be ships of war and 
 should not be liable to arrest, it was held by Sir R. Phillimore 
 that she was liable in proceedings in rem at the suit of the 
 owner of the injured vessel. This decision was reversed by 
 the Court of Appeal upon the following grounds : (1) That 
 
 (m) The Constitution, 4 P. D. 39 ; 59, supra ; ^cv the observations of 
 
 T/l Farlement Beige, 5 P. D. 197 ; the Court of Appeal upon th.8 ease. 
 
 Thr Tr/isi/ fl90Gl P. 270, ill which 6 P. D. 217. . „ -r. 
 
 ^:e .W; ieW tlat an undertaking (o) ne Parl.nent ^«V P D. 
 
 to put in bail given under a mis- 12i». In the (..„rt -f Ap ...>il (.. 1 . Jl. 
 
 appSen«ion wa« not a waiver of the 197J this queHfuu wa^ not -/»-'»--l- 
 
 (n) The Charkich, L. 11. 1 A. & E. 
 M.
 
 210 FOREIGN SHIPS — FOREIGN LAW FOREIGN JUDGMENTS. 
 
 the person and the property of a foreign sovereign are exempt 
 from the jurisdiction of a British Court upon the same 
 grounds, namely, that the exercise of such jurisdiction is 
 incompatible with the absolute independence of the sovereign 
 of every superior authority ; (2) That this principle applies 
 to an Admiralty action in rem ; (3) That a ship owned and 
 used by a State or sovereign for public purposes is exempt 
 from arrest, whether process in rem is considered as a pro- 
 ceeding against the ship or against the shipowner ; (4) That 
 in an action in rem the shipowner is indirectly impleaded. 
 The question whether the ship was exempt from arrest by 
 virtue of the convention mentioned above was not considered. 
 Mail Ships By the Mail Ships Act {q) provision has been made to 
 
 ^°*' exempt ships carrying mails to or from British colonies and 
 
 foreign countries from liability to arrest, upon security being 
 given for the payment of damages as mentioned in the Act. 
 Foreign Where one of the ships in collision is a public ship of a 
 
 suln^^m^ foreign government, and the foreign government sues the 
 British Court other ship in an Admiralty Court of this country, proceedings 
 bSltf answer in the action will be stayed, upon the application of the 
 owners of the defendant ship, until the foreign plaintiffs 
 give bail to answer a counter-claim made by the defendant 
 owners (r). 
 
 Foreign governments occasionally submit that the question 
 
 of liability for a collision in which their man-of-war, or other 
 
 public ship, is involved, shall be determined by the Courts of 
 
 this country. In such a case the regulations are material 
 
 upon the question of negligence (.s), though probably not 
 
 expressly binding upon such ships {t). 
 
 Apphcationof The representatives of foreigners killed in a collision on 
 
 beil'l Ac™to *^® ^^^S'^ ^^^^ ^^ board a foreign ship can recover damages 
 
 foreigners and under Lord Campbell's Act in the Courts of this country [u) ; 
 
 foreign ships. 
 
 {q) 54 & 55 Vict. c. 81. The Act (s) See The Lord Biiron, cited 
 
 has been applied to ships engaged Maude & Pollock on Ship. 4th ed. 
 
 in the mail service with France by 607, note [k). 
 
 Orders in Council of 6th Feb. 1892, {t) See Art. 13, infra, p. 365. 
 
 5th Aug. Ib92, and 18th May, 1892 ; («) The Explorer, L. R. 3 A. & E. 
 
 with India, Order in Council of 16th 281); followed in Lai'uhon v. Eill, 
 
 May, 1893; with South Aiistralia (1901) 2 K. B. 606. In Adam v. 
 
 and Western Australia, Order in British and Foreign Steamnkip Co., 
 
 Council of 5th Aug. 1892. (1898) 2 Q. B. 43u, Darling, J., had 
 
 (}■) The Newbattle, 10 P. D. 33. held the contrary. In The Vera 
 
 counter 
 claim
 
 SHIP OF A FOREIGN SOVEREIGN. "211 
 
 and under the same Act a foreign ship has been made liable, 
 in proceedings in rem, for loss of Kfe on the high seas caused 
 by her negligent nangation (.?•). But as regards actions 
 under Lord Campboll's Act, these can only be brought iit 
 personam, and the Admii-alty Division has jurisdiction as a 
 part of the High Court, and not from its original Admu-alty 
 jurisdiction (//). 
 
 If an action in rem is pending in a foreign Comt in respect Li* alibi 
 of the same collision, the Court has a discretion (s) to stay its f^'i|!,^' ','* (" "rt 
 proceedings or to put the plaintiff to his election whether ho 
 will abandon one or other of the actions {a) ; but there \\\\\ 
 be no stay, where, bail having been given abroad, there has 
 been no arrest of the ship and no legal proceedings abroad (A). 
 Where an action by the owners of ship A. against ship B, 
 was pending in a Vice- Admiralty Coui-t abroad, proceetlings 
 by the owners of ship B. against ship A. in the English 
 Admiralty were stayed [c) . 
 
 In a case of wilful damage by the master of a foreign ship 
 to another foreign ship in foreign waters, the Admiralty 
 Court refused to entertain the action {d). 
 
 The judgment of a competent foreign Court (and for this jif» judicata : 
 purpose Irish, Scotch and Colonial Com-ts are foreign Com-ts) effect^o' 
 
 judgment. 
 
 Cruz, 10 App. Gas. 59, the persons {y) The Vera Cruz (No. 2), 9 P. D. 
 
 killed appear to have been foreigners. 96; affirmed, 10 App. Gas. 59; The 
 
 In Kendrick v. Burnett, 25 Ct. of Circe, (1906) P. 1. 
 
 Sess. Gas. 4th ser. 82, the liability {z) As to the validity of the plea 
 
 for personal injury or death by col- of Ha alibi pendens in a toreign Court, 
 
 lisiou on the high sea was held to be as a defence, see per Pollock, G. 13., 
 
 limited to cases where it is created in Scott v. Seymour, 1 H. ic G. 219, 
 
 by the laws of the countries of the 229. 
 
 wrong- doer and of the sufferer. In («) ^eaMutrie v. Btnmy, 35 Ch. D. 
 
 America no action lies in Admiralty 614, followed in The CliriUuinxbury, 
 
 for the death of a person on the lugh 10 P. D. 141 ; The Mali Ii'o, L. R. 
 
 sea : Rundcll v. Compagnie Gencrale 2 A. & E. 356 ; The Cattenna Chtaz- 
 
 Tranmilantique, 100 Fed. Rep. 655 ; zare, 1 P. D. 3tJ8. See Tiu Delta, 
 
 94 Fed. Rep. 366; La Bouryoi/ne, 1 P. D. 393, 404; The Lamirkshxrr, 
 
 117 Fed. Rep. 261 ; The Harrisburg, 2 Sp. 180 ; Hyman v. llrlm, 24 Ch. 
 
 119 U. S. Rep. 199; The Alaska, D. 631; Mcllenry v. Leutx, 22 
 
 130 U. S. Rep. 201. Gh. D. 397; The lieinbeek, 6 A«p. 
 
 {x) The Guldfaxe, L. R. 2 A. & E. M. G. 366, as to the circumstuucoH 
 
 325. The collision in tliis case was under which an action m England 
 
 between a Norwegian vessel and a will bo restrained. 
 
 British fishing lugger. The plahi- (i) The Mauuhnm, (1S97) P. 13. 
 
 tiffs wore the representatives of four (c) Thr I'eshnvnr, 8 1 . !>• '''f 
 
 of the crew of the lugger, who were (</) The Ida, Lu«h. 6 Ihm cjiso 
 
 British subjects. Sec note, The was decide. 1 before 21 \ ict. c. 10, 
 
 Explorer, L. R. 3 A. & E. 289, 290. caino into force. 
 
 i'2
 
 FOREIGN SHIPS FOREIGN LA.W — FOREIGN JUDGMENTS. 
 
 delivered before action brought in tliis country !f) upon the 
 merits (/) of a collision, given in the presence of both parties, 
 is, if final and conclusive {g), a bar to an action in this 
 country between the same parties (//) for the same collision (/). 
 The Courts of this country will not entertain an action in 
 such a case, although fresh evidence may have been discovered, 
 and although all the facts were not before the foreign 
 tribunal (k) ; nor because the foreign Court was misinformed 
 as to English law (/) If the parties are not the same, as 
 where the shipowners sue in one country and the cargo- 
 owners in the other (m) ; or if the foreign tribunal had not 
 jurisdiction {») ; or if the plaintiffs in this country were not 
 subjects of, nor resident, nor present in the foreign country, 
 and did not as plaintiffs abroad select the foreign tribunal (o) ; 
 or if the foreign judgment went by default (;;) ; or was 
 against natural justice, as where the foreign judges were 
 interested parties {q) ; or where the defendant had never been 
 summoned (>•) ; or was in defian-ce of the comity of nations, as 
 where the foreign Court refuses to recognize title acquired by 
 the law of England (.s) ; or if the foreign judgment was 
 obtained by fraud (/), — it is not a bar to an action in this 
 country, and in an action here the foreign judgment in such 
 
 (e) The Delia, 1 P. D. 393. See 
 Houstoun V. Marquis of Sligo, 29 
 Ch. D. 448. 
 
 (/) The Delta, ubi supra ; Harris 
 V. QuDie, L. R. 4 Q. B. 653. 
 
 [g) Henderson v. Henderson, 3 Ha. 
 100 ; Plummer v. Woodburn, 4 B. & 
 C. 625, 637 ; Fmges v. TForms, 10 
 C. B. N. S. 149 ; Nouvion v. Freeman, 
 15 App. Gas. 1 ; decision on collateral 
 points not binding: Concha v. Concha, 
 1 1 App. Gas. 54 1 . 
 
 (A) As to what is a judgment 
 between the same parties, Arnison v. 
 Smith, 40 Ch. D. 567. 
 
 («) See Phillimore's Internat. Law, 
 2nd ed. IV. 733 seq. ; Westlake's 
 Priv. Internat. Law, 376 ; Foote's 
 Priv. Internat. Law, 476 ; Roscoe, 
 Nisi Prius, 15th ed, 196. 
 
 {k) Re Trufort, Tr afford v. Blanc, 
 36 Ch. D. 600. 
 
 [I) Godard v. Gray, L. R. 6 Q. B. 
 139. 
 
 [w) Cf. The Pennsylvania, 19 Wall. 
 
 125 ; The Pennsylvania, 3 Mar. Law 
 Cas. O. S. 477. As to the effect of 
 a foreign judgment in rem, see 
 Casfriqne v. Iinrie, L. R. 4 H. L. 
 414. 
 
 («) The Griefsivald, Swab. 430; 
 Ravelock v. Rockxcood, 8 T. R. 268. 
 
 (o) General Steam Navigation Co. 
 V. Gillou, 11 M. & W. 877, 894. 
 See also The Griefswald, ubi supra. 
 
 {p) The Delta, The Erminia Fuxolo, 
 1 P. D 393. 
 
 {q) Price v. Dewhurst, 8 Sim. 279. 
 
 (r) Ferguson v. Mahon, 11 Ad. & 
 El. 179 ; Buchanan v. Rucker, 9 East, 
 192; S. C, 1 Campb. 63; Cavanx. 
 Stewart, 1 Stark. 525. 
 
 {s\ Simpson v. Fogo, 1 J. & H. IS ; 
 1 H'. & M. 195. 
 
 (/) Foote'b Private International 
 Law, 47ti ; Godard v. Gray, L. R. 6 
 Q. B. 139; Abouloffy. Oppenheimer, 
 10 Q. B. D. 295; Vadala v. Lawes, 
 2o Q. B. D. 310.
 
 KORKIGN J^TDG^fFA"^. 'J 13 
 
 cases is not admissible in evidence (ii). A judgment /;/ 
 personam is, it seems, a bar to an action by the same plaintiff 
 in rem {x). 
 
 A foreign judgment may be pleaded in bar, so long as it 
 remains unreversed, and notwithstanding that an appeal is 
 pending (//). 
 
 T/te Cif// of Mecca, a British steamship, was in collision on Foroipn judjr- 
 the high seas with a Portuo:uese shin. The Citi/ of Mecca was '";'"*'" I"""' • 
 
 ^ , !-) i .' . whotlierit can 
 
 arrested in Portugal and found by the Portuguese Court to be l>o euforc«l 
 in fault for the collision. Owing to some irregularity in the 4,;' i^ere." 
 proceedings she was released from an'est by the Portuguese 
 authorities, and came to England, the foreign judgment 
 remaining unsatisfied. She was arrested in England by the 
 plaintiffs in the Portuguese action ; and it was held by Sir 
 R. Phillimore that international comity required that the 
 English Admiralty Court should enforce the decree of the 
 Portuguese Court {z). In the Coui't of Appeal it appeared, 
 for the first time, that the Portuguese action was i)i personam 
 and not i)i rem ; and it was held, in consequence, that the 
 foreign judgment, not having created a maritime lien, the 
 vessel had been wrongly arrested in the Admiralty action in 
 this country {a). 
 
 The criminal liability in the Courts of this country of a Criminul 
 foreigner, in respect of a collision whereby a British subject ll'roigncr"^ 
 or a foreigner is killed or injured, is considered in another 
 chapter. 
 
 («) Castrique v. Imric, L. R. -1 ((/) Castrique v. Behrens, 30 L. J. 
 
 H. L. 414, 427. Q. B. 163; Munro v. rHkingUm, 
 
 \x) The' Grtrfswald, Swab. 430. 31 L. J. Q. B. 103. 
 But see infra, pp. 289, 296. {z) -'5 P. D. 28. 
 
 [a) P. D. 100.
 
 214 
 
 CHAPTEE X. 
 
 COMPULSORY PILOTAGE. 
 
 Pilot 
 
 voluntarily 
 employed is 
 the owner's 
 servant. 
 
 Aliter where 
 the pilot is 
 placed in 
 charge by 
 the law. 
 
 What consti- 
 tutes compul- 
 sory pilotage. 
 
 A PILOT whom the owner or master of a ship voluntarily 
 employs to navigate the ship is the servant of the owner for 
 that purpose, and the owner is answerable for a collision 
 caused by his fault or negligence (a) , and his ship is liable in 
 Admiralty. 
 
 In some waters and under certain circumstances the law 
 requires a ship to be placed in charge of, and navigated by, 
 a qualified or licensed pilot ; and in such cases it is a statutory 
 offence {h) on the part of the owner or person in charge of 
 the ship not to take a pilot on board. A pilot taken under 
 these circumstances, called a '• compulsory " pilot, is held to be 
 placed in charge of the ship by the law, and to supersede the 
 master in the conduct of the ship so long as she is in pilotage 
 waters. He is not the servant or agent of the owner ; and 
 for a collision caused entirely by his negligence neither is the 
 owner answerable at law nor the ship in Admiralty. In such 
 a case the remedy of the injured person is against the pilot 
 alone (c). 
 
 Pilotage is held to be compulsory, so as to exempt owners 
 from liability for the acts of the pilot, in all British waters, 
 and for all ships, in and for which the employment of the 
 pilot is enforced by penalty {d), or where the pilotage charge 
 
 (a) See The Maria, 1 W. Rob. 95, 
 108 ; The Eden, 2 W. Rob. 442. In 
 early times the pilot appears to have 
 been employed by or with the con- 
 sent of the merchant, and it is not 
 clear that the shipowner was liable 
 for a collision caused by his fault. 
 In 1643 a collision suit was defended 
 on this ground. See Ad. Ct. Miscell. 
 Books, 280, 13th June, 1643. 
 
 {b) See note {d), infra. 
 
 (c) See Stort v. Clements, Peake, 
 107, as to the liability of the pilot. 
 See also The Octavia Stella, 6 Asp. 
 M. C. 182, where the damage was 
 occasioned to an oyster bed. 
 
 [d) Usually double the amount of 
 the pilotage charge, or in some cases 
 a sum not exceeding 100?. : 17 & 18 
 Vict. c. 104, ss. 353, 354. Under 
 6 Geo. 4, c. 125, s. 59, there was in 
 some cases an additional penalty.
 
 WHAT CONSTITUTES COMPULSORY PILOTAGE. '-^IS 
 
 can be recovered agaiust the ship or her owners, whether the 
 pilot is employed or not {c) . 
 
 In some foreign waters pilotage is compnlsory in the sense 
 that payment of pilotage charges is compnlsory, but the ship- 
 owner is nevertheless liable for the pilot's negligence. This 
 difference in the owner's liabiUty, due to the different position 
 and authority of the foreign pilot, is explained below 
 
 (p. 218). 
 
 Attempts liave in some cases been made to recover from the ^[^'^'^•j^j;j!;'**^ 
 pilotage authority damages for a collision caused by the fault „^,t ii,^bi,... 
 of a licensed pilot, but with little success (./'). In one (Scotcli) 
 case, however, where the circumstances were peculiar, a 
 harbour authority was held liable for the negligence of a 
 person acting as pilot, on the ground that he was their 
 servant. The harbour authority, having power to license 
 pilots under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854 (ss. 330—388), 
 was held liable for injury to a steamer entering the harbour, 
 caused by the fault of a boatman, not licensed as a pilot, who 
 was acting in charge of the steamer as pilot, and was em- 
 ployed by the defendants, the harbour authority (r/). 
 
 His Majesty's ships are not subject to compulsory pilot- H.M.^;';;^:;P;;^ 
 
 age (A). co.npulsorj' 
 
 Masters and mates of certain ships may obtain certificates ^^^^UM. 
 enabling them to pilot a specified ship or any other ship or f„, ,„iii.siou 
 ships belonging to the same r)wner within the waters over ;;>:.^^;;;;^Vold- 
 which the pilotage authority has jurisdiction i^. ^7 ^^^ i>;^£;'^»'''' 
 London Trinity House these certificates are granted to 
 masters and mates, enabling them to pilot any ship belonging 
 to the same owner (/c). For a collision caused by the 
 negligence of a master or mate holding such a certificate the 
 
 owner is liable. 
 
 The non-liability of the shipowner for the negligence of a o™^^^^^^^ 
 
 ^^•;^k^ ^2 Ma. La. C.. S^/Kh ^252 r"5:"^"-/^ 
 0. S. 136; Tkc- ini.nnan, L. R. 4 A.Ua..e^ Lu^^^ ^^.^ ^^^ 
 
 ^\nie^ supra, p. 93. ^^ ^ T^T^;^ "''""" 
 
 li)IIo,... -^/-f^,,^Sf' "■ ^t^^Or^.r in Council of IGth 
 
 741 ; 6 Geo. 4, c. 125, h. 86.
 
 216 
 
 COMPULSORY PILOTAGE. 
 
 liability for 
 fault of com- 
 pulsory pilot 
 at common 
 law and by 
 statute. 
 
 Semhle, pilot 
 on board tug 
 is not ' ' acting 
 in charge of " 
 the tug. 
 
 Effect of the 
 statute. 
 
 6 Geo. 4, 
 c. 125. 
 
 compulsory pilot depends not only upon the common law (/) ; 
 it is further declared hy statute. The statute (57 & 58 Vict, 
 c. 60, s. 633) is as follows : — 
 
 ' * An owner of or master of a ship shall not be answerable to 
 any person whatever for any loss or damage occasioned by the 
 fault or incapacity of any qualified pilot acting in charge of that 
 ship within any district where the employment of such pilot is 
 compulsory by law " (m). 
 
 It appears to have been held by Sir R. Phillimore, in The 
 Mary (w), that a pilot by compulsion of law in charge of a 
 ship in tow is not acting in charge of the tug within the 
 meaning of this section. 
 
 The precise effect of the statute is not clear. Probably it 
 is merely declaratory of the common law io). In The 
 Marin {p), Dr. Lushington said : " The leading principle of 
 the Legislature in exonerating owners from any liability for 
 damage occasioned by their vessels having pilots on board is 
 this: that the masters are compellable to take pilots on 
 board, and the owners are not responsible for the acts of the 
 persons to whom they are thus forced to commit the manage- 
 ment of their property, and over whom they ha,ve no control. 
 This, I apprehend, is a rule founded upon a great principle 
 of justice and equity " {q). 
 
 These remarks were made in a case decided under a 
 previous pilot Act (6 Geo. 4, c. 125, s. 55) now repealed, 
 which was different in terms and in effect from the Act now 
 in force. One difference is pointed out by Lord Romilly, 
 M. R., in The Lion {r) : namely, that the exemption of 
 owners from liability created by the earlier Act extends to 
 
 II) The Maria, 1 W. Rob. 95 ; 
 The Halley, L. R. 2 P. C. 193 ; The 
 Annapolis and T?ie Johanna SfoU, 
 Lush. 295. 
 
 [w) Reproducing 17 & 18 Vict, 
 c. 104, s. 388. This applies to the 
 United Ivingdora only : see s. 572. 
 For previous legislation, see 52 
 Geo. 3, c. 39, s. 30 ; liitchic v. £oivs- 
 JieU, 7 Taunt. 309 ; 6 Geo. 4, c. 125, 
 s. 55. As to "qualified" pilot, see 
 s. 586, and infra, p. 225. 
 
 (w) 5 P. D. 14. But see The 
 Adam W. Spies, 70 L. J. Ad. 25. 
 And see The Clan Gordon, 7 P. D. 
 
 190, infra, p. 219, as to the meaning 
 of " any person having the care of 
 any ship " in a local Act. 
 
 (o) See per Brett, M. R., The 
 Hector, 8 P. D. 218, 224; General 
 Steam Navigation Co. v. British and 
 Colonial Steam Navigation Co., L. R. 
 4 Ex. 238 ; The Charlton, 8 Asp. 
 M. C. 29. 
 
 {p) 1 W. Rob. 95, 99. 
 
 [q] See also the judgment in The 
 Bilbao, Lush. 149, 154, to the same 
 
 (»•) L, R. 2 P. C. 525, 533.
 
 STATUTORY EXEMPTION OF SHIPOWNER. '217 
 
 cases where a licensed pilot is acting in charge of the ship 
 under the provisions of the Act, whether by compulsion of 
 law or by the shipo\vner's appointment (.s) ; whereiis the later 
 statutes apply only where the pilot is in charge by com- 
 pulsion of law. A further difference between the earlier Act 
 and the existing Act is that under the earlier Acts the 
 exemption was only where the pilot acted " under or in 
 pursuance of " the Act. These words gave rise to questions 
 as to what pilotage districts were referred to {f}. 
 
 For some time after the statutory exemption of shijtownors Liability of 
 from liability for the fault of a compulsory pilot was intro- Adminiit'y. 
 duced, it was doubtful whether the remedy against the ship 
 in Admiralty was taken away (ii), and conflicting decisions 
 were arrived at. But it has now, for many years, been 
 settled that the ship is not liable in such case. 
 
 The enactments as to compulsory pilotage are binding Foreign ships, 
 upon foreign as well as British ships [x). 
 
 The principle of non-liability of owners for a collision Compulsory 
 caused by the negligence of a compulsor}' pilot has been foreijru 
 applied even in the case of a collision in the territorial waters ^^^'tors- 
 of a country (//) by the law of which owners are expressly 
 made liable for the negligence of a compulsory pilot [z). 
 Whether the compulsion is by the law of this country, 
 or by the law of the place where the collision occurs, the 
 owner is, in the courts of this country, equall}^ free from 
 liability {a) . 
 
 In the Suez Canal local regulations having the force of law Pilotjij,'o in 
 oblige the shipowner to take on board and pay a charge for a |;!|^"j,^"^"^ 
 " pilot." The legal position of the Suez Canal pilot is diffe- 
 
 (s) See Lticei/ v. Inyram, 6 M. c& (y) As to the pilota^'c laws iif 
 
 W. 302 ; The Fama, 2 W. Rob. 184. some foreign countries and British 
 
 {t) See Att.-Gen. v. Case, 3 Price, colonies, see note at foot of this 
 
 302 ; Carruthcrs v. Sidebotham, 4 M. chapter. 
 
 & S. 77 ; Dodds v. Embleton, 9 Dow. {z) The Hallcy, L. R. 2 P. C. 193. 
 
 & Ry. 27; Tyne Improvement Com- Hoe alao Smilh v. Coiidry, 1 IIow. 28, 
 
 missioners v. General Steam Naviyu- in which it was held by tht- Supremo 
 
 tion Co., L. R. 2 Q. B. 65 ; livilby Court of the United States that an 
 
 V. Scott, 7 M. & W. 93 ; The EtUn, American sliip was nut liable for a 
 
 10 Jur. 296 ; The Ayricola, 2 W. collision in British waters eaust>d by 
 
 Rob. at pp. 19, 20. the fault of a compulsory pilot. 
 
 (u) Lonnridqe v. Dorville, 5 B. & («) The Jfibcrniaii, L. Iv. 4 P. C. 
 
 iUd. 117. '^11; The Tecrless, Lush. 30; Th,- 
 
 (x) The Annapolis, Lush. 295. And Ilalley, ubi xupni. 
 see supra, p. 206.
 
 218 
 
 COMPULSORY PILOTAGE. 
 
 The Gay 
 Manneriny. 
 
 Ill France ; on 
 the Danube. 
 
 Damage to 
 property of 
 Thames Con- 
 
 rent from that of a pilot in this country. His duty is not to 
 take charge of the ship, but to advise the master as to the 
 navigation of the canal. The responsibility of the owner is 
 expressly reserved by the local regulations, and for a collision 
 which occurs when the pilot is on board, and caused by his 
 negligence, the owners are liable (b). 
 
 A collision between The Winston Hall and TJie Guy Man- 
 nering was caused by the bad navigation of The Guy Mannering 
 while she had on board one of the company's pilots in pursu- 
 ance of Art. 4. The fault on the part of The Guy llannenng 
 was that her engines were not moved astern soon enough to 
 prevent her coming into contact with the stern of The Windon 
 Hall, which was passing through the canal ahead of her, and 
 had stopped to enable a third vessel to pass. The master of 
 The Guy Mannering, before the collision, informed the pilot, 
 who appears to have been conducting the navigation of the 
 ship, that his vessel was approaching too close to The Winston 
 Hall, and suggested, more than once, that her engines, which 
 had already been stopped, should be moved astern. The 
 pilot refused to give the order, whereupon the master himself 
 gave the order to move the engines astern, but too late to 
 avoid the collision. Upon these facts it was held by the 
 Court of Appeal that the owners of The Guy Mannering were 
 liable for the injury done to The Winston Hall ic). The 
 decision was based upon the ground that by the law of the 
 country in which the collision occurred the pilot was on board 
 merely to advise the master in matters requiring local know- 
 ledge ; that the master and not the pilot had the command 
 and charge of the vessel, and was responsible for her navi- 
 gation. 
 
 There are similar decisions with reference to the shipowner's 
 liability for collision caused by pilots in France (Havre) ((/), 
 Holland {e), Belgium (/), and on the Danube [g). 
 
 By the Thames Conservancy Act, 1857 (/?), it is enacted 
 that owners of vessels navigating the Thames shall be liable 
 
 [b) The Guy Mannering, 7 P. D. 
 ■52, 132. 
 
 (c) The Guy Mannering, 7 P. D. 
 52 ; on app. ibid. 152. 
 
 {d) The Augusta, 6 Asp. M. C. 58, 
 161. 
 
 {e) The Prins Hendrik, (1899) P. 
 177. 
 
 (/■) The Dallington, (1903) P. 77. 
 
 (g) The Agnes (Jtto, 12 P. D. 56. 
 
 (A) 20 & '21 Vict. c. 147 (local), 
 s. 96.
 
 ^p: 
 
 pilot's attthortty abroad. ?19 
 
 for damage to property of the Conservators caused by persons servancy by 
 belonging to or employed in their vessels. It has been held 'XT"^"^^^ 
 that this Act does not affect sect. 388 of the Merchant Ship- 
 ping Act, 1854, and that the owners of a vessel in the Thames 
 in charge of a compulsory pilot are not liable for damage done 
 by the fault of the pilot to a vessel or other property belonginf 
 to the Conservators (?'). 
 
 Although the shipowner is, under the Harboiu's, Docks, and Damage to 
 Piers Clauses Act, 1><47, liable for damage to a pier or harbour Karbour 
 works, even when such damage is caused by his ship when in ^^'^rk-s, caused 
 the possession and control of persons for whose acts he would s'ory^pi'u. " 
 not be responsible at law, it is expressly provided that he sliall 
 not be liable under the Act when his ship is in charge of a 
 compulsory pilot (k) . 
 
 A local Act (the New Brighton Pier Act, 1864, s. ^^9) Moauinj^of 
 enacts, that if " any person having the care of " any craft i.av'inK'tho 
 should wilfully or carelessly damage the pier with such craft, *'^r*^ "^" " 
 her owner should be liable. The local Act incorporates the 
 Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act, 1 847, which (sect. 74) 
 provides, in effect, that the owners of a sliip that strikes and 
 damages the pier shall be liable for the damage, but that 
 nothing therein shall make them liable for damage by a vessel 
 in charge of a compulsory pilot. It was held that the owners 
 of a vessel which by the fault of her compulsory pilot damaged 
 the New Brighton Pier were not liable for the injury to the 
 pier ; and that the words in the local Act were not the proper 
 nor necessary description of, and did not apply to, a compulsory 
 
 pilot (/). 
 
 The fact that the compulsory pilot is selected by the ship- Compulsory 
 
 owner, and is in his regular employment, does not make him hv''„r,!iVT/ 
 
 liable for a collision caused entirely bythe pilot's negligence (;//). '"••frular tm- 
 
 ^ • mi <-> o ' ployiiU'Ut of. 
 
 Barges in certain parts of the river ihames are required tlio sbip- 
 
 bv law to be navigated by licensed watermen ; but the owners °^°^- 
 
 of a barge, which does damage whilst in charge of a licensed watonnon in 
 
 waterman, are not relieved from liability {n) . ''"^ '^'"'""^'•- 
 
 (i) Conservators of the River Thame (-n) T he Batavicr, 2 W. Rob. 40" ; 
 
 V. Hall, L. R. 3 C. P. 415. The llibernuin, L. J{. J P. (J. .'ill ; 
 
 (A) 10 & 11 Vict. c. 27, 8. 74. See the same was held in a ouso in the 
 
 River Wear Commissioners v. Adam- Ad. Div. 14th Doc. 1887. 
 
 son, 1 Q. B. D. 546 ; 2 App. Gas. 743. («) Martin v. Temperlnj, 4 Q. B. 
 
 ij) The Clan Gordm, 7 P. D. 100. 298. Sco 7 & 8 Goo. 4, c. 74 (loc^il).
 
 220 
 
 COMPULSORY PILOTAGE. 
 
 Pilot whose 
 employment 
 was com- 
 pulsory, but 
 whose duty 
 as pilot is at 
 an end. 
 
 Employment 
 of pilot com- 
 pulsory in 
 first instance, 
 though no 
 compulsion to 
 take a pilot at 
 the place of 
 collision. 
 
 The presence on board of a pilot whose employment in 
 the first instance was compulsory, but whose duty as pilot is 
 at an end, and who is no longer in charge of the ship by 
 compulsion of law, or otherwise than by the owners' or master's 
 choice, does not discharge the owners. A vessel in charge of 
 a compulsory pilot was brought up in the Mersey in an 
 improper berth, and lay there from the 27th to the 29th of 
 October, the pilot remaining on board. On the night of the 
 29tli she was in collision with another ship to which she had 
 given a foul berth. It was held that it was the master's duty 
 to have shifted his berth between the 27th and the 29th, and 
 that the owners were liable (o) . But compulsory pilotage is not 
 determined by a temporarily bringing up ; it continues until 
 the vessel is finally moored in the dock or berth to which she 
 is bound ( p) . 
 
 Owners are exempt from liability in some cases where the 
 collision is caused by a qualified pilot in charge of the ship, 
 although at the spot where the collision occurs there is no 
 compulsion to take a pilot on board. A vessel bound to London 
 took a London pilot off Dungeness, where his employment 
 was compulsory. A collision occurred by the pilot's faidt on 
 the voyage up the river at a spot within the port of London, 
 but short of the ship's destination. It was held that, assum- 
 ing the ship could not have been compelled to take on board 
 a pilot at the place where the collision occurred (q), the ship- 
 owners were not liable for the collision. The engagement of 
 the pilot having been, in the first instance, compulsory, and 
 the right and duty of the pilot under that engagement being 
 to navigate the ship to her destination, it was held that the 
 relation of master and servant never arose between the owners 
 and the pilot so as to make the owners liable for the pilot's 
 acts {)•) . 
 
 (o) T/ie Woburn Abbci/, 38 L. J. 
 Ad. 28. This case was decided upon 
 the words of the local Act. In The 
 Christiana, 7 Moo. P. C. 160 (under 
 6 Geo. 4, c. l'^5, s. 55), it was said 
 by the Privy Council (though the 
 dictum was not necessary for the 
 decision of the case) that a pilot on 
 board under somewhat similar cir- 
 cumstances remained in charge of 
 the ship. See also the case next 
 
 stated in the text. In America {The 
 Lottij, Oleott, Adm. 329) it was held 
 that the o'miers were liable for im- 
 proper moorings twelve hours after 
 the pilot had brought the ship up. 
 
 [p) The Bigborgs Minde, 8 P. D. 
 132, 135. 
 
 {q) She belonged to the port of 
 London, and therefore may have 
 been exempt. See infra, p. 244. 
 
 (r) General Steam Navigation Co. v.
 
 SPFXIAL CASES. 221 
 
 A ship, being obliged by law to be navigated by a pilot Collisi..u 
 when " proceeding to sea," left the Liverpool docks in charge JI.^'LiJefiK.'ol 
 of a pilot. Owing to unfavourable weather she was brought rivir with 
 up in the river. It was held that tliH owners were not liable b!.ar.i.'" 
 for a collision caused by the pilot's negligence whilst the ship 
 was lying iu the river (s). 
 
 A vessel, inward bound, was brought up in the river Mersey 
 by a compulsory pilot preparatory to docking. The pilot 
 remained on board, and in charge, receiving daily wages 
 under the local Pilotage Act. It was held that the owners 
 were not liable for damage done by her whilst so lying at 
 anchor. 
 
 This case must be distinguished from The Cur/iajwol {f), a 
 decision under the same (Liverpool) Act. A vessel came out 
 of dock in charge of a compulsorj^ pilot, intending to go to 
 sea the next day. She was brought up in the river, and 
 during the night an accident happened to her mainyard, 
 which it became necessary to repair before she went to sea. 
 The next day a collision occurred. It was held that the ship 
 was not proceeding to sea within the meaning of the Act, 
 and that the owners were liable notwithstanding the presence 
 of the pilot on board, but when a vessel anchored to wait for 
 the tide to enable her to go into the Manchester Ship Canal 
 Locks it was held that pilotage was still compulsory {it). 
 
 It has also been held that every vessel, except exempted small 
 vessels, passing through the port of Liverpool to or from the 
 Manchester Ship Canal is compulsorily in charge of a pilot 
 under the Mersey Docks Consolidation Acts, l^oS and 
 
 1899 (no- 
 where pilotage is compulsory for an inward bound ship, Clmniro of 
 it does not cease to be compulsory by reason of a change of '" " ""■ 
 pilots during the pilotage and before the vessel arrives at her 
 destination. Thus, where a vessel inward bound to the Princif's 
 
 British and Colonial Steam Xaviijation These deciMious were under the local 
 
 Co., L. R. 3 Ex. 330; 4 Ex! 238. Act. For other deciMious under thin 
 
 See also The tJharlton, 8 Asp. M. C. Act, we below, p. 2.^).'. 
 
 29. W 7 P. D. 217. 
 
 Is) The Citii of Cambridge, Wuod\. [n) The Mercedes de J.arreiiaiKi, 
 
 Smith, L. R." 4" A. & E. IGl ; ibid. (1904) P. 215 ; 9 Asp. .')71. Sw- nlso 
 
 5 P. C. 451 ; The I'rinceton, 3 P. D. The Olc Jiidl, (1905) P. 52; K) Anp. 
 
 90; The Montreal, 1 Sp. 154, note. 84.
 
 222 
 
 COMPULSORY PILOTAGE. 
 
 Failure to 
 stand by 
 when the ship 
 is in charge of 
 a compulsory 
 pilot. 
 
 Fault of 
 compulsory 
 pilot affects 
 the ship for 
 certain 
 purposes. 
 
 Collision 
 whilst pilot 
 below. 
 
 Proof re- 
 quired that 
 the negligence 
 causing the 
 loss was the 
 negligence of 
 the pilot. 
 
 Dock, Hull, took a pilot on board at sea, by whom she was 
 brought up the river to the Island Pier, and then was placed 
 in charge of another licensed pilot, by whose fault a collision 
 occurred in the Humber Dock, it was held that the owners 
 were not liable (v) . 
 
 In every case of collision it is the duty of the master of 
 each ship to " stand by " and assist the other ; and not the 
 less so because at the time of the collision his ship is in charge 
 of a compulsory pilot. The law is express that, if he fails to 
 do so, his ship " shall be deemed to be in fault." But, not- 
 withstauding the terms of the statute, it seems that the owners 
 would not be liable for the collision, if it were, in fact, caused 
 entirely by the compulsory pilot (.r). 
 
 The owner of a ship which by the fault of her compulsory 
 pilot damages another, and, at the same time, receives injury 
 herself, may recover half his loss from the other ship, if she 
 is also in fault. But the fault of the pilot so far affects him 
 that he cannot recover more than half his loss in such a case {//) . 
 And, where the other ship is also in fault, it is the rule of the 
 Admiralty Division, and of the Court of Appeal, not to give 
 costs to either side (s). 
 
 Where a collision occurred when the pilot was unavoidably 
 below for a few minutes, after he had given the course, and 
 left the deck in charge of one of the ship's officers, it was 
 held that the owners were liable for a collision for which the 
 ship was in fault (a). 
 
 Where a prima facie case of negligence is established against 
 a ship, to make the defence of " compulsory pilot " good, it 
 must either be proved affirmatively that the negligence causing 
 the collision was the negligence of the pilot {h) ; or there 
 
 ((') The Righorgs Minde, 8 P. D. 
 132. In liie Challenge, Ad. Div. 
 16th Dec. 1887, Butt, J., was of 
 opinion that a sea pilot taking his 
 ship to a buoy in the river (Thames), 
 above the point at which he would 
 usually have handed her over to the 
 river pilot, was ' ' compulsory " up to 
 the buoy. 
 
 (.)•) See The Queen, L. R. 2 A. & 
 E. y54. This case was decided 
 under 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, s. 33. 
 The decision would, it is submitted, 
 be the same in a similar case under 
 the present Act, 57 & 68 Vict. c. 60, 
 
 s. 422. See supra, p. 56. 
 
 (y) See Th,'. Hector, 8 P. D. 218 ; 
 Duclman y. Dublin Port, iSfC. Board, 
 Ir. Rep. 7 C. L. 518. See also 
 Sunlight v. Tedcastle, 6 App. Cas. 
 217; The Energy, L. R. 3 A. & E. 
 48. 
 
 (z) The Righorgs Minde, 8 P. D. 
 132, 136. 
 
 («) The Mobile, Swab. 69 ; on app. 
 ibid. 127- As to the duty of the 
 master to be on deck, see The Obey, 
 L. R. 1 A. & E. 102. 
 
 {b) Clyde Navigation Co. v. Barclay, 
 1 App. Cas. 790.
 
 VAKlOLb CASKS. 
 
 223 
 
 must be proof of circumstances from wliich the Court will 
 infer negligence on the part of the pilot. Where a collision 
 was caused by the helm being improperly put to starboard, it 
 was in one case held that, to relieve the owners from liability, 
 it must be proved that the order to put the helm to starboard 
 was given by the pilot (c). But it would seem that where 
 the pilot is in chargo, express proof of the order which caused 
 the collision having been given by the pilot would not in all 
 cases be necessary (d). 
 
 In T/ie Carrier Dove {o), a ship in the Merse}' was getting 
 her anchor in heavy weather with the assistance of a tug 
 ahead. She was struck by a squall, and driven on a sliip at 
 anchor. It was lield by the Privy Council that the state of 
 the weather and other circumstances made it imprudent and 
 dangerous for her to get under way. The ship was in charge 
 of a compulsory pilot ; but, in the absence of proof that she 
 was got under way by his orders, the owners were held 
 liable. 
 
 Wbere a ship in tow ran into and damaged a pier in tlio 
 Thames in consequence of the tug, without orders from the 
 compulsory pilot in charge of the tow, improperly altering 
 her course, it was held that the tow was liable (/"). 
 
 A vessel was being towed from one dock to another at 
 night when it was imprudent for her to be under way. The 
 owners were held liable, notwithstanding the presence on 
 boaid of a liceused pilot. It was said by the Court that the 
 case differed from that of a ship in tow in broad daylight, 
 when the tug is bound to obey the orders of the pilot (//). 
 
 It is only where the collision is caused entirely by the fault OtttuTsli.il.l.- 
 of the i.ilot that owners are exempt from liability. If any ^^j^;,;;;^';;;^*;,!; 
 fault or negligence on the part of the owners, or on the part tla-piirtof tlu' 
 of their agents, or the officers or crew of the ship, has con- ."./kLw^""* ""^ 
 tributed to the loss, they, as well as the pih^t, an? re- 
 sponsible {//). And the owners are responsible for the wlioh* 
 
 (c) TTie Schvalbe, Lush. 239. From The Maria, I.. R. 1 A. & K. 
 
 {d) The Winston, 8 P. D. 17(i. :i.')8, it seems tliat iiimI.t tlio 1«h-iiI 
 
 [e) Brown & Lush. 113. Act tlie cinplnymcnt ..f llic pilot wns 
 
 (/) The Kinqnmi, 5 P. D. 241. not eompiilM.ry. 
 
 lu) The BoruKHifi.^^-n\).M. It is (A) The Mubd,, Swi.l.. 127; Tin 
 
 not clear whether the ' Court eon- Diana, 1 W. Rob. lai ; 1 Moo. 1'. C 
 
 sidered the pilotage compulsory. 11'.
 
 224 
 
 COMPULSORY PILOTAGE. 
 
 Burden of 
 proof as to 
 nesrlisrence. 
 
 of the loss, though it was caused in part by the fault of the 
 pilot (/). 
 
 There has been some confusion as to the burden of proof in 
 such cases ; and until recently the law has been unsettled. It 
 was at one time held that where a compulsory pilot was in 
 charge or even on board, the owners were lirinia facie 
 exempted from liability (/.). Then it was held that, in order 
 to make good their claim to exemption, the owners must 
 prove not only that the collision was caused by the pilot's 
 fault, but that there was no contributory negligence on the 
 part of the crew (/). It is now settled that the owners are not 
 required to prove absence of contributory negligence, but 
 that, under certain circumstances, it will be presumed. If 
 the defendant owners prove fault on the part of the pilot 
 sufficient to cause, and in fact causing, the collision, in the 
 absence of proof by the plaintiffs of contributory negligence 
 on the part of the crew, it is held that the defendants have 
 satisfied the condition upon which their exemption depends, 
 and they will not be called on to adduce further proof of a 
 negative character to exclude the mere possibility of con- 
 tributory fault. But if it appears that their owners, or their 
 servants, have committed acts, or been guilty of omissions, 
 which might have contributed to the collision, then it lies on 
 them to prove that those acts or omissions did not in any 
 degree contribute to the collision. 
 
 These points were decided in Clyde Navigation Co. v. 
 Barclay (tn), the effect of which case is thus stated by Lord 
 Esher, M. R. : — " It amounts, in my opinion, to this — that 
 where the plaintiffs make ix prima facie case, and the answer is 
 that the defendants are exempt from liability on the ground 
 of compulsory pilotage, and they give evidence which prima 
 facie proves that the accident was the fault of a pilot who was 
 on board by compulsion of law, the burden of proof is then 
 shifted back on to the plaintiffs if they allege that the defen- 
 
 (i) See The Diana, Stuart v. Ise- 
 niorujcr, 4 Moo. P. C. IL 
 
 {k) The Vernon, 1 W. Rob. 316 ; 
 Bennet v. Moita, 7 Taunt. 258 ; The 
 Christiana, 2 Ha^. Ad. 183. 
 
 (/) The lona, L. P. 1 P. C. 426. 
 And see The Velasquez, L. P. 1 P. C. 
 494 (a case of doubtful authority). 
 
 [m] 1 App. Gas. 790. In this case 
 the rule laid down in The lona, L. R. 
 1 P. C. 426, was dissented from ; 
 the former case was followed in The 
 Daioz, 3 Asp. M. C. 477 ; The Mara- 
 thon, 48 L. J. Ad. 17; The Indus, 
 12 P. D. 46.
 
 WHO IS A QUATJKIED PILOT. 225 
 
 dants are guilty of some otlier act of negligence. Tliis seeins 
 to be the meaning of that case. It does not alter the general 
 and long accepted rules as to the burden of proof . . ." (»). 
 
 The principle as to the bui-den of proof in these cases is 
 clear. The plaintiff, in order to recover damages, must 
 prove fault on the part of those on board the defendant ship 
 for which her owners are liable. Pri)m facie the owners are 
 liable for the fault of those in charge of their ship ; but tliey 
 are not liable for the fault of a compulsory pilot. Upon 
 proof, therefore, by the defendants that their sliip was in 
 charge of a compulsory pilot, their prima facie liability is re- 
 butted. To enable the plaintiffs to recover in such a case, 
 further proof is necessary on their part that the collision was 
 caused partly by negligence of persons on board the defen- 
 dant ship, for whose negligence her o^\^lers are liable. In the 
 absence of evidence upon the point, such contributory or ad- 
 ditional negligence will not be infen-ed (o). 
 
 Where the party relying upon the defence of compulsory Riot called 
 pilotage is unwilling to call the pilot as a witness, the proper bt-lbToU^ 
 course appears to be for him to subpoena the pilot to produce ship, 
 his licence, and to be provided with evidence from the 
 licensing authority identifying him as the person to wliom 
 the licence produced was granted, and with evidence from the 
 ship identifying him as the person who was in charge of her. 
 The licence usually has to be renewed periodically, and it 
 must be proved that the licence produced has been renewed 
 or was a valid licence at the date of the collision. The date 
 of the renewal appears upon the face of a Trinity House 
 licence. 
 
 It was held {p) that a pilot having a licence purporting to Wlio is a 
 enable him to conduct vessels not drawing more than 14 feet pi/ot, 
 is a qualified pilot within the meaning of 17 & 18 Vict, 
 c. 104, s. '388, when conducting a sliip drawing more tlian 
 14 feet, provided no pilot with the superior qualification was 
 to be obtained. This decision turned on the words of the 
 
 (w) Per Lord Esher, M. R., TIu 419; 77/^ CVfWr,«, 5 Afip. M. C. .')S5 ; 
 
 Indus, 12 P. D. 46, 49. liurrcll v. Murhrayne, 1« Ct. of S.'sw. 
 
 (o) See The Winston, 8 P. D. 176; Cae. 4th ser. 1048. 
 The Schwan, The Albano, (1892) P. {p) The Carl XV., (1892) 1*. 324. 
 
 M. Q
 
 226 
 
 COMPULSORY PILOTAGE. 
 
 Qualified 
 I^ilot super- 
 seding un- 
 qualified pilot. 
 
 Owners liable 
 for fault of a 
 waterman 
 engaged at 
 request of 
 pilot. 
 
 Exemption of 
 owners in case 
 of compulsory- 
 pilotage will 
 not be ex- 
 tended. 
 
 Whether fault 
 of compulsory 
 
 Order in Council (q). On the other hand, it was held that 
 when a ship drawing 14| feet was in charge of a pUot 
 licensed for vessels drawing 14 feet and under, and it was 
 not proved that a properly qualified pilot was not available, 
 the plea of compulsory pilotage failed {>•) . 
 
 A qualified pilot is empowered by law, in pilotage waters, 
 to supersede an unqualified pilot who is acting in charge of a 
 ship, whether the ship is subject to compulsory pilotage or 
 not («) , and whether at the place where he meets her pilotage 
 is compulsory or not. It has not been decided whether the 
 owners are liable for a coUisiou caused by the fault of a 
 qualified pilot, who has superseded an unqualified pilot, under 
 such circumstances. The statutory exemption probably does 
 not apply to such a case ; but, apart from the statute, it 
 seems doubtful whether owners could be held liable for the 
 acts of a pilot who takes charge of their ship under the 
 authority of the law, not by their choice or as their servant. 
 
 Where the master of a French ship in the Thames, at the 
 pilot's request, engaged a waterman to take the helm, and a 
 collision occurred by the fault of the waterman in not carry- 
 ing out the pilot's orders, it was held that the waterman was 
 in the employment of the owners, and that they were 
 
 liable (0- 
 
 The rule that owners are not liable for damage done by 
 their ship when in charge of a compulsory pilot, and by his 
 fault, has been said to take away a remedy from the sufi'erer, 
 and the Courts have shown some unwillingness in appilying 
 it (u) . A defendant who succeeds only upon the defence of 
 compulsory pilotage usually is given the costs of the 
 action (;r). 
 
 In a case (//) before the House of Lords the question was 
 
 (q) Of 1st May, 1855. 
 
 (r) The Uranns, Ad. Ct. March 
 30 and 31, 1909 (Shipping Gazette). 
 
 (s) 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, ss. 597, 
 598. It seems that the master of a 
 tug employed to tow only, and not 
 to pilot the ship, could not be super- 
 seded by a qualified pilot under the 
 former Act. See Beilhii \. Scott, 7 
 M. & "VV. 93, decided under 6 Geo. 4, 
 c. 125. 
 
 [t) The General de Caen, Swab. 9. 
 
 [u) In The KaUexj, L. R. 2 A. & 
 
 E. 3, 15, Sir R. Philliinore said that 
 the law, by which owners of a 
 wrong-doing ship are not liable for 
 the fault of a compulsory pilot, is 
 " fruitful in injustice." But .see 
 the observations of the L. JJ., S. C. 
 on app , L. K. 2 P. C. 193. The 
 question rath(>r is as to the justice 
 of the law which makes one man 
 liable for the fault of another man. 
 
 {X) See below, p. 308. 
 
 (y) Spaiqht ¥. Tedcastlc, 6 App. 
 Gas. 217. '
 
 PILOT IN CHARGE OF TOW. 22] 
 
 on- 
 
 raised, but not decided, whetlier the owner of a ship in tow pi?f ^ is o 
 
 and in charge of a compulsor}' pilot is prevented by the ne^'ligeaco 
 
 doctrine of contributory neglio-enco from recovering from the "^"^^ "1 *^ 
 
 •^ c" o o prevent 
 
 owners of the tug for damage to the tow, caused partly by ovmors from 
 the fault of the pilot in charge of the tow, and partly by the '"'^'-^^'■'""o- 
 fault of those in charge of the tug. It would seem that in 
 such a case the negligence of the pilot being that of a person 
 for whose acts the owners are not responsible, is immatt-'rial, 
 and cannot prejudice the right of the shipowners to recover 
 against the wrong-doer (s). In a recent case Sir F. Jeune, P., 
 was prepared to hold that this resulted from Merchant Ship- 
 ping Act, 1894, s. 633 (a). 
 
 The effect of the rule as to the non-liability of the ship- Liability 
 owners for a collision caused by the fault of a compulsory „i,(ier orders 
 pilot, in the case of a collision between a tug or her tow of compulsory 
 and a third ship, is considered in another chapter {b). It ^^^ll of tow. 
 be sufficient here to state that for a collision between the tow 
 and a thii-d ship, caused entirely by the fault of a compulsory 
 pilot on board and in charge of the tow, the tow and her 
 owners are free from liability (r) . As regards a collision 
 between the tug and a third ship, where the tow is in charge 
 of a compulsory pilot, the law is not so clear. The general 
 rule being, that those on board the tug are by the terms of 
 the towage contract bound to obey the orders of the person 
 in charge of the tow, it would seem that neither the tug nor 
 the tow, nor the owners of either of them, slioiild be liable for 
 a collision between the tug or the tow and a third ship caused 
 by those on board either the tug or the tow carrying out an 
 improper order given by a compulsory pilot in charge of tlie 
 tow. But it has been held in Admiralty that the tug is 
 liable in such a case (rf). And a ship in tow has been hold 
 liable for damag«^ caused by her striking a pier in consequence 
 of an improper alteration in the course of the tug made 
 without orders from the compulsory pilot in cliargo of the tow, 
 
 (z) See per Lord Blackburn, 6 {c) The (keau Ware, L. R. 3 1'. (J. 
 
 App Cas 217, 222 ; questioning the 20o. The law is the Hiirao as regards 
 
 decision in The Energy, L. R. 3 damage by a ship in tow to a j.ior 
 
 A & E. 48. See also The Hector, or harbour works, bee 10 iV ii 
 
 8 iP D 218 Vict. 0. 17, s. 74, mprn, p. 68. 
 
 (a) The Adam W. Spies, 70 L. J. {d) The Mary, f) P. D. U. ^"/"". 
 
 Ad. 25. P- 170. 
 
 {b) Supra, p. 177. 
 
 q2
 
 228 COMPULSORY PILOTAGE. 
 
 but under circumstances which required her to act without 
 
 waiting for orders from the tow (^) . 
 
 Whether as In the case ( /') in the House of Lords cited above, it seems 
 
 ^'^d^t "^"^ ^^^ ^^ have been the opinion of Lords Selborne and Blackburn 
 
 pulsory pilot's that the owners of a ship in tow and in charge of a com- 
 
 may be con- pulsorj pilot would uot be prevented from recovering from 
 
 tributory. -j^i^e tug and her owners damages for injuries sustained by the 
 
 tow in consequence of negligence on the part of those on 
 
 board the tug, and also on the part of the pilot ; in other 
 
 words, that the negligence of the pilot was not contributory 
 
 negligence such as to prevent their recovering damages 
 
 against the tug and her owners. 
 
 Owners liable But though a compulsory pilot is primarily liable for a 
 
 for deficiency collision and the owners are not, yet the latter must, in order 
 01 ship or _ _ ' •'^ ' 
 
 equipment. to escape liability, provide the former " with a competent crew, 
 a competent look-out, and a well-found ship " {g), and if, 
 through the owners' negligence, a ship is deficient in hull or 
 equipment, and a collision occurs in consequence, her owners 
 are liable although their ship is in charge of a compulsory 
 pilot. Thus, owners have been held liable for the insufficiency 
 of ground tackle {//). So if the vessel does not carry the 
 proper lights (?'), or will not steer (A-), or if the crew is in- 
 sufficient or incapable (/), or if the tug employed by the 
 master is not of sufficient power {m), " compulsory pilotage " 
 would be no defence. 
 
 But it is not necessary that the ship should be perfect in 
 every respect, provided that, with ordinary care, she can be 
 navigated with safety to other vessels. Where a vessel in 
 collision with another was not in the best of trim, it was 
 argued that the owners were liable, although she was in charge 
 of a compulsory pilot. It was held by Dr. Lushington that 
 
 {e) The Sinqtcmi, 5 P. D. 241, 7y«<; /Vm, 1 Pritch. Ad. Dig. 3rd ed. 
 
 AMj»ra, p. 170. p. 1412; The W'arkworth, 9 P. D. 
 
 (/) Spaight V. Tcdcastle, 6 App. 20, 146. 
 
 Gas, 217, supra, p. 226. Of. 2he [I) The General de Caen, ^wah. 9; 
 
 Brrnina, 13 App. Cas. 1. The Hope, 1 W. Rob. 154. And see 
 
 [g) The Tactician, (1907) P. 244, below, pp. 231, 232. 
 
 -p. 250 ; 10 Asp. 534. {in) The Ocean Wave, Mamhall v. 
 
 (A) The MassachusMs, 1 \N . Rob. Moran, L. R 3 P. C. 205; The 
 
 371. Belgic, 2 P. D. 57, note. And see 
 
 (i) The Ripon, 10 P. D. 66. The Julia, Lush. 224. 
 
 (/■ The Livia, 1 Asp. M. C. 204 ;
 
 pilot's duties. 
 
 the owners were relieved from liability (>/). He suid : " If 
 she was in ordinary safe trim, then, although she might be 
 in handier trim, and although th^ trim of the ship in fact 
 contributed to the collision, they (the owners) are not respon- 
 sible." In a case in Ireland where the vessel was unhandy 
 owing to her being too much down by the stern, the owners 
 were held liable, for that reason, and also, it seems, on the 
 ground that the pilot was not informed of the state of the 
 sliip's trim (o). 
 
 Having regard to the rule of law which throws the liability Rdiitivo 
 for a collision caused wholly or in part by the fault of tlie Jli'hS ^..^ 
 master or crew upon the shipowner, and that for a collision '^"ties ..f 
 caused wholly by the fault of the pilot upon the pilot alone, piS^ "'"^ 
 it is of importance that their respective duties should be 
 clearly defined. The primary rule is that the pilot supersedes 
 the master in all matters connected with the command and 
 navigation of the ship. His authority is supreme ; his orders 
 must be implicitly obeyed, and any negligence iu carrying 
 them out, or interference with him in his duties, will make 
 the owners liable in case of collision. " The duties of the 
 master and the pilot are in many respects clearly defined. 
 Although the pilot has charge of the ship, the owners are 
 most clearly responsible to third persons for the sufficiency of 
 the ship and her equipments, the competency of the master 
 and crew, and their obedience to the orders of the pilot in 
 everything that concerns his duty ; and under ordinai-y cir- 
 cumstances we think that his commands are to be implicitly 
 obeyed. To him behjngs the whole conduct of the navigation 
 of the ship, to the safety of which it is important that the 
 chief direction should be vested in one only " (/;). 
 
 There have been numerous decisions as to what are matters Pilot's ilution. 
 ccmnected with the navigation of the ship to which it is the 
 duty of the pilot to attend. It has been held to be the duty 
 of the pilot in bad weather to decide whether to get under 
 way or to lay fast (q) ; to decide upon the time, ])lace and 
 
 (w) The Argo, Swab. 4G2. Citif of C<iiiibrid<ii\ If'ui'd v. timitfi, 
 
 (o) TJie Meteor, Ir. R. 9 Eq. 5(57. L.R. 5 P. C. JM, 4o7. 
 
 Ip) I'er Parke, B., in The Chris- [q) The Carrier Don; Hr. & Lu«li. 
 
 tiana, Hammond v. Rogers, 7 Moo. llli; The Lochliho, 7 Moo. P. (". 
 
 P. C. 160, 171 ; approved in I'he 427. Tlicro appears to bo houio
 
 230 COMPULSORY PILOTAGE. 
 
 manner of turning a ship before going into dock {>■) ; to give 
 orders as to setting or taking in liead sail when turning a 
 ship in the river (s) ; to regulate the ship's course and speed 
 by cheek ropes and warps when docking (t) . It is the exclu- 
 sive duty of the pilot to give the orders to the helm [>() ; to 
 decide whether to comply with the statutory rule of the road 
 or not (x) ; to decide upon the proper time and place of bring- 
 ing up {ij) ; and as to the proper mode of carrying the anchor, 
 before letting go (s) ; to see that the ship rides with a proper 
 scope of cable out ; to tend her whilst swinging ; to let go a 
 second anchor if necessary ; to manoeuvre her if she parts 
 from her anchor {a) ; and to shift his berth when circumstances 
 occur which make it necessary in order to avoid collision {b). 
 He decides as to the rate of speed, and the canvas to carry (c) ; 
 whether to run through a crowded roadstead at night or to 
 bring up (d) . When brought up he must keep an eye on the 
 weather, and be ready for a change without relying entirely 
 upon the look-out for a report (e) . It is his duty to keep the 
 master informed of local rules and customs of navigation (,/'). 
 It is for the pilot to decide upon the time, place, and manner 
 of turning a ship when docking (g) . The omission to set some 
 head sail, to help the ship round, was held by the Privy Council 
 to be the fault of the pilot, and not of the master or crew (h). 
 
 doubt whether it is the exclusive 132, 136; The Monte Bosa, (1893) P. 
 
 duty of the pilot to decide whether 23. But see b/fra, p. 232, as to the 
 
 to get under way in bad weather or duty of the crew to see that the 
 
 not. See The Girolamo, 3 Hag. 169 ; anchor is clear. 
 
 The Borussia, Swab. 94 ; The Ocean («) The City of Cambridge, Wood v. 
 
 Wave, L. R. 3 P. C. 205, 209 ; The Smtth, L. R. 5 P. C. 451 ; The North- 
 
 Oakfield, 11 P. D. 34. And see ampton, I '^■p. 152; The Princeton, 3 
 
 infra, pp. 231, 233. P. D. 90. 
 
 (r) The Ocean Wave, L. R. 3 P. C. (*.) ^^ to where he ha^ notice that 
 
 9Qg he IS m the way oi a launch: Ihe 
 
 " (s) The Ocean Wave, ubi supra. Cachapool, 7 P. D. 217. 
 
 (t) The Rkjhorgs Minde, 8 P. D. (0 TAe Ca7«i«r, L R. 2 P. C. 238 ; 
 
 132. But Bee Thi Cynthia, 2 P. D. 52. The Maria, I W. Rob 95 110; The 
 
 , \ Ti. <s 1 n T I. oQQ . TA„ Julia, Lush. 224 ; The Batavier, 1 
 
 Ju) TheScJiivalhe,J.ush. 239, The g .^^^^ ggg . ^ j^^^_ p_ ^ 286; 
 
 Wmston 9 P. D. 85. ^7.^ Zochhbo, ubi supra. 
 
 (x) The Argo, Swab. 4:62. , , ^, ,,,■,,- 
 
 (m) The Agricola, 2 W. Rob. 10 ; W The Lochhbo, ubi supra. 
 
 The George, 4 Not. of Gas. 161 ; The {«) The Princeton, 3 P. D. 90. 
 
 Christiana, 7 Moo. P.O. 160, 172; (/") Bur r ell \. Machrayne. 18 Ct. 
 
 The Loehlibo, ibid. 427 ; 3 W. Rob. of Sess. Gas. 4th ser. 1048. 
 
 310; Tlhc Rhosina,!^^.!). 131. (^) xhe Ocean Wave, Mmshall v. 
 
 (s) The Gipsy King, 2 W. Rob. Moran, L. R. 3 P. C. z05. 
 
 537 ; The Rigborgs Minde, 8 P. D. [h] The Ocean Wave, ubi supra.
 
 DUTIES OF MASTER AND CREW. 
 
 !-n 
 
 If a tug is iu attendance and the safety of the ship requires it, 
 it is the duty of the pilot to employ the tug («') ; and he has 
 no right to get under way without the assistance of a tug, if 
 it is dangerous to do so [k) . And it seems that the pilot is 
 responsible if the ship is got under way in weather when it is 
 imprudent to move (/). This, however, is not cleai*, for, in 
 some cases, it has been said that the master is responsible for 
 being imder way in improper weather (w/). '' There might 
 be such a fog as to make it a fault on (the master's) part to 
 allow his vessel to be moved. If there was a clear and plain 
 prospect of danger the master could not throw the wlidle blame 
 on the pilot if he order the vessel to get under way " (//). 
 
 Though the pilot, it seems, has no power to engage a tug, 
 it is his duty, when the situation is critical and the safety of 
 the ship requires it, to advise the master to do so (o) . When 
 a tug is engaged it is his exclusive duty to give orders as to 
 taking on board (p) and casting off {q) the tow-rope, and, 
 under ordinary circumstances, to direct the course and regu- 
 late the speed of the tug as well as that of the ship in tow (r). 
 
 Although the pilot's authority is paramount, it has already Duties of 
 been stated that neither the owners nor the master are entirely 
 free from responsibility ; " there are many cases in wliich 
 there are certain duties he (the master) has to discharge, 
 notwithstanding there is a pilot on board, for the benefit of 
 the owners" (-s). 
 
 In accordance with this principle, the following are duties of 
 the master and crew for which the owners are held responsible, 
 notwithstanding the presence on board of a compulsory pilot. 
 Tlie master and crew must keep a good look-out, and keep 
 the pilot informed of the position, movements of, and possible 
 
 crew. 
 
 (i) The Peerless, 13 Moo. P. C. 484. 
 And Bee The Julia, Lush. 224. 
 
 {k) See Krnnedi/ v. The Sannatiati, 
 2 Fed. Rep. 911. As to special 
 lights, see The Eipon, 10 P. D. 05. 
 
 (l) The Carrier Dove, Br. & Lush. 
 113; The Lochlibo, 7 Moo. P. C. 
 427 ; Burrell v. Macbrayue, ubi supra. 
 
 [m) See The Ocean Ware, ubi sitpra ; 
 The Girolnmo, 3 Hag. Ad. 169, infra, 
 p. -^36 ; The Borussia, Swab. 94. 
 And see supra, p. 229. 
 
 (w) Per Sir J. Hannen, The Oalc- 
 figld, 11 P. D. 34, 35. 
 
 (o) The Julia, Lush. 224. 
 
 {p) The Julia, ubi supra. 
 
 {q) The Energy, L. R 3 A. \' E. 
 48 ; Spatijht v. Tedcaslle, 6 App. Cas. 
 217 ; Clyde Navigation Co. v. Barclay, 
 1 App. Cas. 790. 
 
 (/•) The Ocean Wave, L. R. 3 P. 0. 
 205 ; The Julia, ubi supra ; The 
 Energy, ubi supra. See, howover, 
 The Sinquasi, 5 P. D. 241. And see 
 supra, p. 170. 
 
 [s) The Balavicr, 1 Sp. 37«, 3S3 
 S. C. on app. uoni. Netherlands Uttam- 
 boat Co. V. Styles, 9 Moo. P. C. 280.
 
 COMPULSORY PILOTAGE. 
 
 danger to other ships {f) ; they must have the anchor clear, 
 and ready to let go, when the pilot gives the order {>() ; the 
 master is responsible for the sufficiency and power of a tug 
 employed for ordinary towage service (x), and for the employ- 
 ment of a tug where the assistance of a tug is necessary (//) ; 
 and although not hound to be always on deck (s), he is 
 generally responsible for the ordinary work of the ship being 
 properly carried on, and for usual precautions being taken 
 witliout express order from the pilot {n) . For the trim of the 
 ship, and generally for her sufficiency as regards tackle and 
 equipment for ordinary jnirposes of navigation, the owner or 
 the master is responsible (b). 
 
 If the pilot is below, or for some other reason is not in 
 charge of the deck at the time of collision, the owners woidd, 
 it is conceived, be liable (c). 
 
 Where a ship is in tow of a tug, we have seen that, as a 
 general rule, the tug is bound to obey the orders of the pilot 
 in charge of the tow ; but in the absence of orders from the 
 pilot, it is the duty of those in charge of the tug to keep clear 
 of other ships ; and for a collision between the tow and a 
 third ship caused by an improper alteration in the course of 
 the tug made without orders from the pilot, the owners of 
 the tow are liable {d). 
 
 A tug in the Mersey got orders from the compulsory pilot 
 in charge of the ship in tow to " slew the ship round " [)re- 
 paratory to docking. The tug executed the manoeuvre in an 
 improper manner by towing the ship across the bows and foul 
 of another at anchor. The owners of the ship in tow were 
 held liable {e). 
 
 {t) The Batavier, uln mpru ; The 
 Biana, 1 W. Rob. 131 ; 4 Moo. P. C. 
 11; The Velaxqitez, L. R. 1 P. C. 
 494 ; The Julia, Lush. 224 ; The 
 Atlas, 2 W. Rob. 502 ; The Minna, 
 L. R. 2 A. & E. 97 ; The Qwci, 
 ibid. 354 ; TJie lorn, L. R. 1 P. C. 
 426 ; The Schuan, The Albano, (1892) 
 P. 419, 
 
 {n) The General Parkhill and The 
 Centurion, 1 Pritch. Ad. Dig. 1410. 
 And see The Teerhns, 13 Moo. P. C. 
 484 ; The Rigborys Alinde, 8 P. D. 
 132, 136 ; but see The Rhosina, 10 
 P. D. 24, 131. 
 
 [x] The Ocean Ware, ubi supra. 
 
 (y) The Julia, ubi supra. 
 
 (z) See The Obey, L. R. 1 A. & E. 
 102. And see Spaiyht v. Tedeastle, 
 6 App. Cas. 217, 226. 
 
 ((?) The Christiana, infra ; The Sin- 
 quasi, 5 P. D. 241. And see cases 
 cited supra, p. 230. 
 
 (6) Supra, p. 228. 
 
 (f) See The Gordon, 18 Lower 
 Canada Juiist, 109. 
 
 (d) The Sinquasi, 5 P. D. 241. 
 
 (e) The Locksley Hall, Ad. Div. 
 28th March, 1887.
 
 DUTIES OF MASTER AND CREW. 23 
 
 A ship was in collision with another coming out of dock. 
 The latter had not been reported by the look-out. It was 
 held that the duty of the look-out being to watch for and 
 report vessels in the river, it was not negligence in them not 
 to have reported the vessel in dock, and the vessel being in 
 charge of a compulsory pilot, the owners were held free from 
 liability (/). 
 
 A ship in charge of a compulsory pilot, having been in 
 collision with another, drove foul of a third. It was held 
 that the owners were liable in consequence of the negligence 
 of the master and crew in the following particulars : in not 
 veering out more chain to bring the ship up ; in not bending . 
 a line on to a tow-rope, so as to enable a tug, which came 
 alongside the ship sued, to keep her clear of the other ship ; 
 and in not getting sail on the ship [g) . 
 
 A ship in charge of a compulsory pilot was riding in the Not sendiug 
 Downs in heavy weather, and drove from her anchors and in heavv'^ ^ 
 fouled another ship. If some of her gear aloft had been sent weather, 
 down, she might have ridden in safety and escaped collision. 
 It was held by the Privy Council that there was contributory 
 negligence on the part of the master in not sending down 
 the yards, and that the owners were liable. Parke, B., in 
 delivering the judgment of the Court, said : — " The step 
 being one which every master, according to ordinary rules of 
 navigation, ought to have taken in every open roadstead, 
 where many vessels were lying, and in blowing weather, that 
 duty was not exclusively the pilot's, but that of the master 
 also. And if the pilot had given express orders to the master 
 not to send down top-masts, &c., we do not say that the 
 owners might not have been excused from responsibility for 
 the consequences of that omission " (//). 
 
 The owners are responsible for the pilot's orders being Owner liable 
 promptly and efficiently carried out. If the helm is not execuUon^of 
 shifted (/), the anchor let go [k), the engines stopped (/), or Pilot's orden 
 
 ( /■) The Calabar, L. R. 2 P. C. The Julia, Lush. 224 ; The Indus, 12 
 
 238. P- D. 46, 48. 
 
 (a) The Annapolis and. The Golden (k) The Atlas, 2 W. Rob. 502; 
 
 Li/ht, Lush. 355. The Peerless, 13 Moo. P. C. 484 ; The 
 
 (h) The Christiana, Hammond v. Iii<iborgs Mmde, 8 P. D. 132. 
 
 Rogers, 7 Moo. P. C. IGO, 173. (0 The Ripon, 6 Not. of Gas. 245. 
 
 (i) The Loehlibo, 7 Moo. P. C. 427;
 
 234 
 
 COMPULSORY PILOTAGE. 
 
 the tow-rope cast off (m), promptly at the pilot's order, and 
 a collision ensues, the owners are liable. It is the master's 
 duty to repeat the pilot's orders (n), and to see that they are 
 carried out. If, in carrying them out, ordinary prudence 
 and seamanship require a particular precaution to he taken, 
 it will be held to be negligence in the master if the precau- 
 tion is omitted. Thus, the omission to run out a warp or 
 check line when docking (o), or to cut a lanyard which holds 
 two ships together when in collision ( p) , is held negligence 
 in the master or crew, 
 b'^^master^ In addition to the responsibility which attaches to the 
 with the pilot, owners, though a compulsory pilot be on board, in respect 
 of the proper equipment of the ship, and of certain acts 
 of seamanship, as, for instance, in keeping a good look-ou*^, 
 a responsibility also rests on the master in case of an 
 emergency, or where a reasonably prudent seaman would 
 have taken some action, or have called the attention of the 
 pilot to some fact. Neglect of such action by the master 
 may place liability on the owners. Whether such a responsi- 
 bility exists seems to be a question partly of nautical opinion, 
 and partly of fact, and the decided cases may not therefore 
 be always easy to reconcile, because the line of demarcation 
 between proper and improper interference by the master with 
 the pilot may vary according to individual opinion. " I 
 have said on many occasions, and my ruling has been con- 
 firmed by the Judicial Committee in the case of Hammoxd v. 
 Rogers {q), that a master has no right to interfere with the 
 pilot, except in eases of the pilot's intoxication or manifest 
 incapacity, or in cases of danger which the pilot does not 
 foresee, or in cases of great necessity " (r). On the other 
 hand, care must be taken not to interfere with the pilot 
 unnecessarily ; for if a collision occurs in consequence of 
 improper interference with the pilot, the owners will be liable. 
 
 (ill) The Energy, L. R. 3 A . & E. liue astern whilst warping through 
 
 48. a dock was held to lie on the pilot. 
 
 [n) The Admiral Boxer, 'Stvi ah. 193; {p) The Massachmetts, 1 W. Rob. 
 
 The LochUbo, 3 "W. Rob. 310, 328. 371. 
 
 (o) The Cynthia, 2 P. D. 52. See, (7) The Christiana, 7 Moo. P. C. 
 
 however, The Riyborgs Minde, 8P. D. 160, 171. 
 
 132, where the duty to have a check (>■) Per Dr. Lushingtou in IVie 
 
 Argo, Swab. 462, 464.
 
 INTERFERENCE WITH THE PILOT. 035 
 
 "It would be a most dangerous doctrine to hold, except 
 under the most extraordinary circumstances, that the master 
 could be justified in interfering with the pilot in his proper 
 vocation. If the two authorities could so clash, the danger 
 would be materially augmented, and the interests of the 
 owner, which are now protected by the general principles of 
 law, and specific enactments, from liability for the acts of the 
 pilot, would be most severely prejudiced " (.s). 
 
 A ship (f) was approaching a dock ^vith a view to enter 
 under sail, under the orders of the harboiu- master. The tide 
 was falling, and at a critical point the harboui- master gave 
 the order "come on." The ship came on and took the 
 ground, and was damaged. If, at the moment when the 
 order to come on was given, the anchor had been let go, the 
 damage would have been avoided. Two local hands had 
 been taken on board to assist, and they knew of the danger. 
 It was contended that theii- knowledge of the danger must 
 be imputed to the master and owners, and that, therefore, the 
 harbour authority was not liable for the wrong order given 
 by the harbour master ; but the House of Lords held that 
 the fault was that of the harbour master alone, and tliat it 
 would have been wrong for the master or for the local men 
 to interfere. 
 
 A recent Scotch case shows that a pilot in a compulsory 
 distinct who allows himself to be superseded by the master in 
 the command of the ship, remains liable for any damage the 
 ship may do through the master's negligence ; and con- 
 versely, that the shipowners, in such a case, do not escape 
 liability " simply because they have a [compulsory] pilot on 
 board." The ship, one of the Anchor line, was being towed 
 out of dock at Greenock, and one of the Anchor superinten- 
 dents had taken charge of the ship on the bridge. The pilot 
 was ordered aft, where it was impossible for liim to see 
 around, or to direct the ship's movements. He Avas never- 
 theless held liable for damage which she did to another shij), 
 and his defence, that he was not in charge of the shi[), was 
 
 {s) Per Dr. Lusliingtou in The Sussex, 1 W. Rob. 270, as to tlio 
 
 Maria, 1 W. Rob. 'Jo, 110. See danger of clashinj; nutlioritioH. 
 also 'The Uibernia, 4 Jur. N. 8. 1244; {t) linuy v. Mugxalrates of Ktrk- 
 
 The Peerless, L\inh. 30; The Duke of cWinyA^ (18'J,i) App. Cas. 2G1.
 
 236 
 
 COMPULSORY I'lLOTAGE. 
 
 Whether 
 master or 
 pilot respon- 
 sible for being 
 under way in 
 too dense fog. 
 
 Navigating 
 on wrong side 
 of river. 
 
 Suggestions 
 to pilot. 
 
 rejected. " Where a pilot is placed in charge of a vessel it 
 is his duty to take full charge of her, and to give such orders 
 as are necessary to carry out what he thinks requires to be 
 done. . . . His business was to insist on having sole 
 charge of the vessel, and if that was not given to him, to 
 refuse to have anything to do with the operations, the vessel 
 being taken out of his hands " (u). 
 
 In T//e Girolamo (.r), a ship, with a pilot on board, was under 
 way in the Thames in a fog so dense that she could not pro- 
 ceed without danger to other craft. Sir J. Nicholl expressed an 
 opinion that, under such circumstances, it was the duty of the 
 master to take the charge of the ship out of the pilot's hands, 
 and to bring her up. In other cases, however, it has been 
 doubted whether the master would be justified in exercising 
 his own discretion in such a case; and the better opinion 
 seems to be that the pilot is alone responsible for bringing 
 the ship up when necessary (y) . Thus it has been held that 
 when the pilot was taking a ship on the wrong side of the 
 river, in direct violation of the law, the master was not in 
 fault for not interfering, and that he would not have been 
 justified in doing so {%). In The Julia, Lord Kingsdown 
 said that for a master to give to the man at the wheel a 
 different order from that given by the pilot, while a tug was 
 coming alongside to take the tow-line on board, was " mis- 
 conduct in the master and disobedience to the orders of the 
 pilot " («). So, if the master, against the pilot's orders, takes 
 on board and makes fast the tow-line, he and his employers, 
 the shipowners, will be liable for a collision thereby 
 occasioned {b). 
 
 In case of a manifest danger, it is the duty of the master 
 to interfere to the extent of warning the pilot. For example, 
 where a pilot thought two lights were on a moving vessel, 
 when a competent navigator would have known that they 
 were stationary, it was held that the master was to blame for 
 
 [u) Per Lord Justice Clerk, Greenock 
 Toivirig Co. v. Hardie, 4 Ct. of Sess. 
 Cas. (Fraser) 215. 
 
 [x) 3 Hag. Ad. 169. 
 
 [y] The North American and The 
 Wild Rose, 14 L. T. 68 ; The Lochlibo, 
 3 W. Rob. 310, 320 ; 7 Moo. P. C. 
 
 427. And see supra, p. 230. 
 
 [z) The Argo, Swab. 462. But 
 aliter as to lights: The Ripon, 10 
 P. D. 65. 
 
 [a) Lush. 224. And see The Loch- 
 libo, ubi supra. 
 
 (b) The Julia, ubi supra.
 
 INTERFEKEXCE WITH THE PILOT. .237 
 
 not calling the attention of the pilot to this fact, and that 
 the owners were responsible {c). In a salvage case, where a 
 ship in charge > .f a pilot was in tow, and the course given to 
 the tug by the pilot was clearly dangerous and wrong. Lord 
 Campbell, in delivering the opinion of the Privy Council, 
 said : " The master of the tug, watching the com*se the 
 licensed pilot pursues, if he fimls that this course will lead 
 the vessel into danger, is bound to interfere and make a com- 
 munication to the master of the ship, instead of makiug 
 himself instrumental to the destruction of life and pro- 
 perty "(^/). And we have seen that, under some circum- 
 stances, it is the duty of the master of a tug towing a ship 
 which is in charge of a pilot to alter his course for the 
 purpose of keeping clear of other craft, without waiting for 
 orders from the pilot (c). 
 
 In TheLochUho (,/'), the question, what amount of interference 
 with the pilot in the performance of his duties will make the 
 owners liable, was discussed. An order given by the master 
 or crew to the helm, and repeated mechanically by the pilot, 
 amounts to " illegal interference " ; but mere suggestion to, 
 or consultation with, the pilot is not interference. Even a 
 wrong order to the helm suggested by the master, and 
 adopted advisedly by the pilot, is not interference on the part 
 of the master such as to make the shipowner liable (//) . 
 
 Where there is any peculiarity of the shii» whit-h makes Duty of 
 her difficult for a stranger to handle, it is clearly the duty of "aviliMlilot 
 
 the master to offer his experience and advice to a pilot who ^'^ "''ip'f 
 
 . ^ , , , , peculiuritii'8. 
 
 IS a stranger to ner [li). 
 
 In many ports the harbour or dock-master has power, by I^"<"'« •"■ '>»"■- 
 
 Act of Parliament, to regulate the movements, mooiiug, .-lud i,, dmriro. 
 
 berthing of ships. When a vessel is acting under the orders 
 
 of such a person her owners are, as regards liability for 
 
 damage done by her, in the same position as when she is in 
 
 charge of a coinpulsory pilot ; the dock-master is not their 
 
 {c) The Tfictician, (1907) P. •Jt4 ; ( f) 3 W. Rob. ;no ; .illd. mi app. 
 
 10 Asp. 534. And B(!C 77tc Lochlilm, 7 Moo. P. 0. 427. 
 
 uhi supra ; The Oakfirld, II P. J). 34. (y) The Onkjhld, 1 1 I'. I). 34. 
 
 {d) TheDukeof Mnnihcstn\Hhrrshii {h) Cf. The.Milto,, Ir. li.-p. 1» Ei|. 
 
 V. Hibbert, 6 Not. of Cuh. 470, •170. 507. 
 
 [e) The Hinqmni, 5 P. D. 241.
 
 238 
 
 COMPULSORY PILOTAGE. 
 
 servant, and they are not liable for damage caused by his 
 negligence (?"). Thus it was held that a ship which was 
 damaged by another falling over against her at low water 
 was not entitled to recover damages against the other, the 
 latter having been berthed under the directions of the dock- 
 master (/•). 
 
 But in a place where vessels are required to take up their 
 berths under the orders of a harbour master, if, without any 
 directions from him, a ship takes up a berth at which she is 
 afterwards injured by another properly berthed, she cannot 
 recover against the latter (/). 
 
 If ordered to do so by the dock authorities, a ship must 
 send down her yards; and she mi.st shift her berth, even 
 after she has been properly moored by their order, and 
 though she is safer where she is [m) . 
 
 If, in carrpng out the orders of the dock-master, ordinary 
 prudence would suggest that a particular precaution should 
 be taken, a vessel neglecting to take that precaution will be 
 held to be in fault. Thus when a ship was being moved 
 under the orders of a dock-master, and negligently omitted 
 to use a check rope, her owners were held liable for damage 
 she did to other craft in consequence [n). 
 
 So, if a vessel ordered to shift from a berth to make room 
 for another, moors so close that the swell of passing traffic 
 causes her to range up against the other, she will be held 
 liable (o). But where the dock-master gives a specific order, 
 it seems that it must be obeyed, though those on board the 
 ship may doubt its prudence (ju). 
 
 A ship going out of dock under the orders of a dock- 
 master was offered, and accepted, the services of tlie dock 
 company's tug. Through want of power in the tug, a 
 collision occurred. The owners were held Kable, there being 
 
 (i) Cf. The New York Packet, 4 268. 
 Low. Canada Eep. 343. («) The Cynthia, 2 P. D. 52. See 
 
 {k) The Economy, 1 Pritch. Ad. also The Excelsior, L. B,. 2 A & E 
 
 Dig. 3rd ed. 286. And see The 268. 
 Bilbao, Lush 149. (o) The Greenpoird, 18 Fed. Eer> 
 
 il) The Jacob, 1 Pritch. Ad. Dig. 186. 
 3rd ed. 286. [p) See Reney v. Magistrates of 
 
 {m) The Excelsior,!,. R. 2 A. & E. Kirkcudbright, (1892) App. 264.
 
 DOCK OR HARllOUR MASTER IN CHARGE. 239 
 
 no obligation upon tliem to accept the services of the tug, or 
 on the company to supply one (q). 
 
 The dock or hiirbonr authority is Kable for injury done to Liiiliiiity of 
 a ship whilst under way and under the orders of the dock or hirrUmr 
 harbour master (r) ; and the liability would be tlie same where "<"l'<jrity- 
 damage is done by the ship (.s). 
 
 In considering the shipowner's liability for collision wliere Position, 
 pilotage is compulsory, we liave seen that the law assigns 'rtliiiin'iil.ilitv 
 certain duties to the master and others to the pilot; and «>f">'»«tf 
 
 • (> 1 • c -11 •! • 1 • wlu-n pilot 
 
 that, It the master interferes with tlie pilot in his own is on Umrd. 
 province, he does so at the risk of making liis owner liable 
 iu case of collision. It is frequently the duty of a master to 
 take a pilot (/) in waters where there is no compulsion o law 
 to do so, and questions have arisen as to the scope of the 
 master's authority and duty wlien a pilot is on board under 
 such circumstances, and as to his liability, not only in respect 
 of damages for collision, but for other matters (ionnt'ctf'd %\'ith 
 the navigation of the ship. There is reason to think thai 
 outside the law courts nautical opinion is b}' no means 
 unanimous in assigning to the master tlie subordinate posi- 
 tion in which hn is placed by the Admiralty decisions. 
 
 It is possible that the doctrine of the Admiralty Court witli In H.M.'s 
 reference to the supreme authority of the pilot may have "^^" 
 originated in antiquated regulations for the Eoyal Navy, 
 which provide that the pilot is to " have the sole charge and 
 command of the ship " ; that he is to give the orders for 
 navigating the ship, and that the captain is to see them 
 carried out («). This view of the pilot's position and duties 
 probably dates from the days when the navigating and 
 fighting branches of the service were entirely distinct. Later 
 regulations (of 1808 to 1899) are very different. Art. 1007 
 of the regulations of 1899 provides that the captain and 
 na\igatiug officer are to "attend particularly to his (the 
 
 (q) The B(l(/ic, 2 P. D. -57, note. AlhiMi Co. v. Tiwnru Jlarlioitr Hoard, 
 
 (r) The Zel'a, (1893) App. Cas. 468 ; 15 App. Chh. 429 ; Thv Apollo, (ISUl) 
 
 The RhoHina, ID P. D. 24. App. Gis. 499, mipra, p. 92; Thr 
 
 («) See, on this question, Memeij Biirlhir/ton, 8 Asp. M. C. ;i^ : T'-- 
 
 Lock Trustees v. Gibhs, L. K. I 11. L. lialala, (1898) App. Gas. .'iKi. 
 
 93; Metcalfe v. Helhentiylon, II Ex. (/) Bee i»f,(i, p. 241. 
 
 257; 5 H. & N. 719; Holman v. (u) MvSS. RLj,'iiliiiion8 for 179(», in 
 
 Irvine Harbour Truslees, 4 Ct. of Sums. the Adniinilty Library at Whitehall. 
 
 Cas. 4th ser. 400 ; Hhaw, 8aviU and
 
 240 
 
 COMPULSORY PILOTAGE. 
 
 Opinion of 
 Elder 
 
 Brethren of 
 the Trinity 
 House. 
 
 Opinion of the 
 Board of 
 Trade. 
 
 pilot's) conduct," and that if he is "not qualified to conduct 
 the ship " or runs her into danger, he is to be " removed 
 from charge " ; " and if the ship should be at any time 
 damaged through the ignorance or negligence of the pilot, 
 when a common degree of attention on the part of the captain 
 and navigating officer would have prevented the disaster, 
 those officers will be deemed to have neglected their duty." 
 Under this article it is held by the Lords of the Admiralty 
 that, if a ship gets ashore on a well-known sand in conse- 
 quence of an obviously wrong course given by the pilot, the 
 captain is responsible. Thus, in the case of The Vigilant, 
 which got ashore on the Gunfleet Sand on the 22nd of 
 October, 1862, with a pilot on board, the captain and the 
 master were severely censured by the Lords of the Ad- 
 miralty (.r) . 
 
 The opinion of the Elder Brethren of the Trinity House 
 upon the respective duties of master and pilot is as follows : — 
 " That in well-conducted ships the master does not regard 
 the presence of a duly licensed pilot in compulsory pilot 
 waters as freeing him from every obligation to attend to the 
 safety of the vessel ; but that, while the master sees that his 
 officers and crew duly attend to the pilot's orders, he himself 
 is bound to keep a vigilant eye on the navigation of the 
 vessel, and, when exceptional circumstances exist, not only to 
 urge upon the pilot to use every precaution, but to insist 
 upon such being taken." And they add, that this is the 
 view generally taken by shipowners {y) . 
 
 The opinion of the Board of Trade as to the responsibility 
 of the master is that " he is bound to exercise a vigilant 
 supervision, and that, though the advice of the pilot is of the 
 greatest value, the master is not bound to follow it implicitly, 
 if it appears in his deliberate judgment to involve danger to 
 the ship." In accordance with this opinion, the Board of 
 Trade holds that it rests with the master to decide whether 
 bad weather he will get under way for sea, and to say 
 
 in 
 
 whether, under threatening circumstances, he will proceed or 
 turn back (s). 
 
 {x) See Report, &c. of the Unsea- 
 worthy Ships Commission, 187-i, 
 vol. 2, p. 528. 
 
 (y) See note {x), supra. 
 [z) See a letter from T. Gray, Esq., 
 to the Mercantile Marine Association,
 
 RELATIVE POSITIONS OF MASTER AND PILOT. '24\ 
 
 The Legislature has not defined tlie duties of the pilot : Tlio Monhant 
 but it assumes that it is the pilot's duty to conduct the a^"'^' 
 navigation of the ship. In the Merchant Shipping Act, 
 1894, he is spoken of as "having the conduct," "having 
 command or charge," "having charge," "taking diarge," 
 and " acting in charge " of tlie ship ; the master is required 
 to " give the charge of piloting the ship to him " (a). 
 
 In the Suez Canal and elsewhere abroad there is a fixed Foroipn law 
 and compulsory charge for pilotage, but the pilot does not Tu!uhxifT 
 supersede the master in the command and conduct of tlie 1'''"' 
 ship. He is on board only as the adviser of the master ; the 
 responsibility as regards the navigation of the ship remains 
 with the master (i). It is believed that the position of the 
 pilot and the liability of the shipowner is the same in 
 Canada (f), France, Holland, Belgimn, on the Danube (^/), 
 and in Spain {p) ; but in Portugal ( /") the law is similar to 
 that of England. In America it seems that the ship is liable 
 in rem, but that the shipowner is not liable in perHonam 
 where he is compelled to employ the first pilot who ofPers (.17). 
 The German Commercial Code, Art. 738, appears to exempt 
 owners from liability for the negligence of a compulsory 
 pilot {h). 
 
 When the question at issue is solely whether the collision r>l<'t n--^ 
 was caused by the fault of the pilot who, it was admitted, ^^''^"''•'*•''• 
 was compulsorily in charge, the Court has in its discretion 
 
 4th Oct. 1873, Unseaworthy Ships (d) See ««/;?•«, p. 218. 
 
 Commission, 1874, vol. 2, p. 527. («) The Spanish Commercial Code, 
 
 As to the view taken by the Ad- Art. 834, expressly provides that 
 
 miralty Court on this point, see the presence on board of a pilot 
 
 above, p. 234. shall not exempt the sliipowTier from 
 
 {a) See sects. .595, 596, 624, 633, liability. 
 742; and /;<>?• Brett, L. J., The Git ij (/) See Com. Code 'Portugal), 
 
 Mnnnerimj, 7 P. D. 132, 134. See iVrt. 492 (3). 
 
 also The Clan Gordon, 7 P. D. 190, (r/) Smith v. Cundnj, I ilow. 28; 
 
 where it was held that the words The Chinn, 7 Wall. 53 ; Smith v. 
 
 "any person having the care of" a The Creole, 2 Wall. jun. 485; Homer 
 
 ship did not refer to or properly Jiumxdell Co. v. Comjiaijnic Geiiinile 
 
 describe a compulsory pilot. The 7Vrtwsrt//(/w<iV/«<', 182 U. S. Rop. 4()t) ; 
 
 duty to staud by after collision is Ex parte MvXeal,\'.^Vfii\\. 'I'M; Huxsy 
 
 cast upon the "person in charge," v. Donaldson, 4 Dallas, 191; Flam- 
 
 who appears to be the master and gan v. IFashinijton Innurance Cu., 7 
 
 not the pilot. See supra, p. 58. Barr. 306. 
 
 (b) The Gwj Mannerint/, 7 P. D. (/i) It has been stated that tin- 
 52, 132. exemption extends only to the airts 
 
 (c) 36 Vict. c. 54 (Canada). Of. of harbourmasters and their as.sisf - 
 The Quebec and 2'he Charles Chaloner, ants. 
 
 19 Lower Canada Jurist, 201. 
 
 M. R
 
 242 
 
 COMPULSORY PILOTAGE. 
 
 given the pilot an opportunity of gi"v^ng evidence, if neither 
 side has called him (?'). But it cannot be said that there is 
 a definite or long-standing practice on this point. 
 
 In what 
 waters and for 
 what ships 
 pilotage is 
 compulsory. 
 
 Greneral 
 pilotage Acts. 
 
 In what Waters and for what Ships Pif.otage is 
 
 Compulsory. 
 
 Compulsory pilotage exists only in waters within the juris- 
 diction of a duly constituted pilotage authority, and for 
 certain classes of ships upon particular voyages. Some of the 
 principal pilotage authorities, such as the Trinity Houses of 
 London, Hull, Newcastle, and Leith, were originally con- 
 stituted by charter ; but these, as well as various other autho- 
 rities existing round the shores of the United Kingdom, are 
 now regulated by Act of Parliament. The Acts relating to 
 pilotage are general and local. The general law as to 
 pilotage is contained in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (/»•). 
 The local Acts are stated below (p. 247) in connection with 
 the places to which they relate. The Merchant Shipping Act 
 authorizes bye-laws to be made for the regulation of pilotage, 
 which in some cases are required to be approved by his 
 Majesty in Council. 
 
 To ascertain whether, in a particular case, pilotage is com- 
 pulsory or not, it is necessary to consider the combined effect 
 of the general and local Acts, and of the bye- laws for the 
 time being in force under them. The question is frequently 
 one of great difficulty. 
 
 By 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, s. 6U3, compulsory pilotage was 
 continued in all districts and for all ships (/) in and for which 
 pilotage was compulsory on the 1st of January, 1895, the 
 date of that Act coming into operation. The extent to which 
 pilotage is compulsory can, therefore, be ascertained only by 
 reference to the general and local Acts relating to pilotage in 
 operation at that date. The general Act of that date was 
 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104 ; and that Act refers the enquirer back, 
 in similar terms, to the Act which was in force immediately 
 
 {i\ The Cardiff, (1909) P. 183. 
 (/.•) 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60. Part X. 
 See also 39 & 40 Vict. c. 36, s. 141. 
 
 [l) In Part X. of the Act, " ship " 
 includes foreign ships. See sect. 57"2.
 
 GENERAL PILOTAGE ACTS. 
 
 •243 
 
 before it came into operation (1st May, 1855), namely, 
 6 Greo. 4, c. 125 (m). 
 
 By tlie same section (sect. ()03) of the Act of 1804, it is 
 provided that all'/*) exemptions fi'om compulsory pilotage in 
 force on the 1st of .January, 1895, shall be continued. It 
 was held that the corresponding- provision of the Act of 1854 
 was general, and that its operation was not restricted by sub- 
 sequent parts of the same Act which related exclusively to 
 the London Trinity House (o). 
 
 The following section, sect. 604 (I), however, restricts the Ships .arrv- 
 operation of sect. 603. It imposes compulsory pilotage on all ^irs Jx't\vt««>n 
 vessels carrying passengers between places situated in the V)"^^"' *'"^ 
 British Islands. So far as sect. 604 is inconsistent with Kinsrdoin. 
 sect. 603, the former section prevails. Pilotage, therefore, is 
 compulsory for vessels carrying passengers between the places 
 mentioned above (;;), although they were exempt under 
 6 Greo. 4, e. 125 (q) ; and it seems that, in the absence of 
 express provision upon the point, sect. 604 overrides all 
 exemptions from compulsory pilotage, whether by Order in 
 Council or statute. 
 
 The following decisions illustrate the effect of the above IllustrationH. 
 sections. Notwithstanding the words of 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, 
 s. 379, purporting to exempt certain classes of ships in the 
 London Trinity House district, " when not carrying passen- 
 gers," those ships, if exempt under the Act of Geo. 4, are 
 
 [ill) There is some doubt as to how 
 far the Act of Geo. 4 is general, and 
 how far it relates only to the London 
 Trinity House pilotage. The pre- 
 amljle and some of its provisions 
 appear to confine its operation to 
 London Trinity House pilotage ; see 
 The Eden, 2 W. Rob. 442 ; Attorney- 
 General V. Case, 3 Price, 302 ; The 
 Maria, 1 W. Rob. 95 ; but in Tynt 
 Improvement Commissioners v. General 
 Steam Navigation Co., L. R. 2 Q. B. 
 65, it was held to apply to pilotage 
 on the Tyne ; and in The Kiitartiey, 
 Lush. 427, to Hull pilotage; and 
 some of its sections are clearly of 
 general application. See Jieil/ji/ v. 
 Scott, 7 M. & W. 93 ; CarriUhers v. 
 Sydebotham, 4 M. & S. 77 ; The Han- 
 kow, 4 P. D. 197. 
 
 least 
 como 
 35.1 ; 
 283; 
 Dis- 
 
 («) As to ships from Sweden and 
 Norway to London, see GO & (11 \ ict. 
 c. Gl ; and The Columbus, infra, 
 p. 256, n. {n). 
 
 (o) See infra, p. 257. 
 
 (p) A vessel mu.st have at 
 one passenger on board to 
 within the operation of sect. 
 The Il.mna, L. R. 1 A. & E. 
 The Lion, L. R. 2 P. C. 525. 
 tressed seamen sent home by » con- 
 sular officer under M. S. Act, 1894, 
 8s. 191, 192, arc not pasbcngon* 
 within sect. 604 ; The Clynwne, (1897) 
 P. 295. The marginal not« to 
 sect. G04 of tiie M. S. Act, 1891, 
 which describes that sc<'ti<m as relat- 
 ing to " home tradi' pas.scngir sliiits," 
 seems incon-ect. See sect. 742 of 
 the same Act. 
 
 [q) The Temovii, Lush. 17. 
 
 k2
 
 244 
 
 COMPULSORY PILOTAGE. 
 
 not required to take pilots though carrying passengers, unless 
 they are plying between places in the British Islands. Thus 
 a vessel on a voyage from London to the Baltic, with pas- 
 sengers on board, is not required to take a pilot in the 
 Thames (r). But a vessel whilst she is within the port to 
 which she belongs (.s), an Irish trader in the Thames {t), and 
 a coaster (?r) (though exempt by the Act of Greo. 4), must 
 take a pilot if carrying passengers between the places men- 
 tioned above ; and a ship with passengers from Leith to 
 Newcastle must take a pilot notwithstanding sect. 16 of the 
 Tyne Pilotage Confirmation Act, 1865 (,r). 
 
 T/ic Mannion, a steamship with passengers on board, on a 
 voyage from Leith to London, was in collision, by her own 
 fault, in the Thames above Grravesend, within the port of 
 London. Her master had a pilotage certificate from Orford- 
 ness to Grravesend. At the time of the collision the ship was 
 in charge of a Trinity pilot. The defence of compulsory 
 pilotage being set up, it was contended that the ship was 
 exempt as being a coaster within 6 Greo. 4, c. 125, s. 59. It 
 was held that she was not exempt ; and that, being in charge 
 of a compulsory pilot, her owners were not liable (//). 
 
 The Hankow (s), a steamship with passengers on board, and 
 
 (r) Reg. v. Stanton, 8 Ell. & B. 
 445. And see The Earl of Auckland, 
 Lush. 164 ; on app. ibid. 387 ; The 
 Moselle, 32 L. T. 570. 
 
 (s) Exempt {semble) by 6 Geo. 4, 
 c. 125, a. 59, and 17 & IS Vict, 
 c. 104, s. 35:-! : Dublin Port and iJocks 
 Board v. Shannon, Ir. Rep. 7 C. L. 
 116. There is some doubt whether 
 the Act of 6 Geo. 4, c. 125, applied 
 to Ireland. See The Eden, 2 W. 
 Rob. 442. The port to which a ship 
 belongs is her port of registry for 
 the time being: 57 & 58 Vict. c. '0, 
 8. 13. It has been stated (Pilotage 
 Committee Report, 1888) that it is 
 the practice of some owners to re- 
 gister their ships trading to London 
 at some other port in order that 
 pilotage may be compulsory, so that 
 they may not be liable in case of 
 collision. 
 
 it) The Temora, Lush. 17. 
 
 [u) The Marniion, General Steam 
 Navigation Co. v. London and Edin- 
 burgh S/iipj}ing Co., Mitch. Mer. 
 
 Reg., 1st June, 1877 ; reported on 
 another point, 2 Ex. D. 467. 
 
 (x) The Warsaw, (1898) P. 127. 
 
 («/) The Marmion, ubi siqjra. 
 
 (z) 4 P. D. 197. Sir R. Philli- 
 more considered that the case was 
 governed by The Killarney, Lush. 
 427, and that The Stettin, Br. & 
 Lush. 199, was not to be followed. 
 The question as to the construction 
 of the Act of Geo. 4 was decided in 
 accordance with TJie Stettin in The 
 General Steam Nactgation Co. v. The 
 British and Colonial Steam Navigation 
 Co., L. R. 3 Ex. 330 ; on app. ibid. 
 4 Ex. 238 (see supra, p. 220). It 
 seems doubtful whether the decision 
 in The Hankoiv, that the charter of 
 James 2 was a particular provision 
 within the meaning of the Act of 
 Geo. 4, is correct. See 52 Geo. 3, 
 c. 39, s. 32 ; 48 Geo. 3, c. 104, s. 29 ; 
 4 Geo. 4, c. 77 ; Orders in Council 
 of 13th Dec. 1843 ; 3rd Sept. 1844 ; 
 8th Auo-. 1845.
 
 GENERAL EXEMPTIONS. 
 
 245 
 
 Jenoral ex- 
 
 belonging to the port of London, on her voyage from Australia 
 to London, was in collision in the port of London, whilst in 
 charge of a Trinity river pilot taken on board at Gravesend. 
 It was held that pilotage was compulsory, and that her owuere 
 were not liable. The charter of James 2 to the London 
 Trinity House being produced, it was held that the port of 
 London was a place for which "■ particular provision " as to 
 pilotage had been made, within the meaning of G Geo. 4, 
 c. 125, s. 59 ; and, consequently, that there was no exemption 
 from liability. 
 
 Pilotage is not compulsory for ships in distress, ships Gt 
 unable to obtain a qualified pilot, ships docking or changing ^!"lJ^p,',Sry '"' 
 moorings in port(rt), or certain foreign ships under GO tons, pUotajro. 
 exempted by Order in Council under 4 Geo. 4, c. 77, s. 5, or 
 6 Geo. 4, c. 125, s. 60(6). 
 
 Another general exemption from compulsory pilotage is Ship>; p:i.Ksing 
 created by 57 & 58 Vict. c. GO, s. 605, which is as follows :— jXtilitl " 
 
 " (1.) The master and owner of any ship passing through any 
 pilotage district in the United Kingdom on a voyage between 
 two places both situate out of that district (c), shall bo exempted 
 from any obhgation to employ a pilot in that distrit't, or to pay 
 pilotage rates when not employing a pilot within that district. 
 
 " (2.) The exemption under this section shall not apply to 
 ships loading or discharghig at any place situate within the 
 district, or at any place situate above the district, on the same 
 river or its tributaries" {d). 
 
 The district intended in this enactment is a district otlier 
 than that in which the final port of discharge or the port of 
 loading is situate (e). It is not clear whether a vessel arriving 
 from abroad and calling at a place in the United Kingdom 
 
 district. 
 
 (a) 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, s. 596 ; 
 as to this exemption, see The Vic- 
 toria, Ir. Kep. 1 Eq. 336; Tne 
 Maria, L. R. 1 A. & E. 358; 
 Greffori/ v. Jones, 90 L. T. 42, infra, 
 p. 246, Qote {//) ; and as to a similar 
 exemption under the Act of Geo. 4, 
 see Thornton v. Boland, 2 Bing. 219; 
 Mcintosh V. Slade, 6 B. & C. 657; 
 and as to the law under 5 Geo^ 2, 
 c. 20, see Hex v. Lambe, 5 T. R. 76 ; 
 Rex\. Ncale, 8 T. R. 241. 
 
 (b) Orders in Council of 13th Dot;. 
 1843; 3rd Sept. 1844; uud Stli Aug. 
 1845, all made under the latter Act, 
 appear to be obsolete. 
 
 (c) Sic. 
 
 (ti) An exemption himiliir to this 
 is in force witiiin the London Trinity 
 House distri<ts inulcr ii by<-law up- 
 proved by Order in Council of l^^th 
 Feb. 1854, infra, p. 256. 
 
 {e) Per Brett, M. R., Thf U'vixtou, 
 9 P. D. 85, where the history of this 
 enactment ia traced.
 
 246 
 
 COMPULSORY PILOTAGE. 
 
 Masters' 
 and mates' 
 pilotage 
 certificates. 
 
 Difl'ereiitial 
 pilotage rates. 
 
 Policy of 
 the law of 
 compulsory 
 pilotage. 
 
 for orders would be exempt under this section. It would, 
 probably, be held that she is not exempt. The Winston (_/') 
 put into Dartmouth on a voyage from New York to Newcastle, 
 and took on board twenty tons of bunker coals to complete 
 her voyage. It was held that she was subject to compulsory 
 pilotage, and therefore was not liable for a collision which 
 occurred by the fault of the pilot in charge of her as she was 
 leaving the harbour. The word " loading " did not, it was 
 held, refer to cargo alone. 
 
 A vessel with foreign cargo on board and no passengers, 
 on her passage from London to Liverpool, entered the Holy- 
 head pilotage district to take on board her Liverpool pilot, 
 diverging from her Liverpool course for the purpose. She 
 did not anchor, and stopped her engines only to take the 
 pilot on board. It was held that she was not required to 
 take a Holyhead pilot {g) . 
 
 British or foreign [It) ships, of which the master or mate 
 has a pilotage certificate in accordance with the Merchant 
 Shipping Acts, are exempt [i). 
 
 By the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876 (A-), it is provided 
 that no foreign ship on a voyage from any place in tlie 
 United Kingdom or the Channel Islands to any other such 
 place shall be subject to any higher or other pilotage charge, 
 or to any other rules as to the employment of pilots, than a 
 British ship in the like case. 
 
 The policy of the law, which seems formerly to have in- 
 clined towards compulsory pilotage for the supposed benefit 
 of commerce and safety of seamen's lives (/), is now in favour 
 of restricting compulsory pilotage within as narrow limits as 
 possible (w). The Act of 1894 (s. 578) enables pilotage 
 authorities to make bye-laws to regulate pilotage and to 
 exempt ships. It was held that, under similar powers given 
 by the Merchant Shipping Acts of 1854 and 1862, pilotage 
 could in no case be made compulsory for ships which were 
 
 (/) 8 P. D. 176; 9 P. D. 86. In 
 this case MuUer v. Bahlic'm, L. R. 
 9 Q. B. 457, was referred to with 
 reference to bunker coals. 
 
 {g) Gregory v. Jones, 90 L. T. 42. 
 
 \h) 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, s. 572. 
 
 (i) 57 & 68 Vict. c. 60, ss. 599— 
 602. As to these certificates, see 
 
 The Eillarney, Lush. 202 ; The Beta, 
 Br. & L. 328 ; The Earl of Auckland, 
 Lush. 164 ; on app. ibid. 387- 
 
 {k) 39 & 40 Vict. c. 36, s. 141. 
 
 ij) Lucey v. Ingrain, 6 M. & W. 
 302 ; The'Fama, 2 W. Rob. 184. 
 
 (»?) See per Sir E. Phillimore, The 
 Halley, L. R. 2 A. & E. 3, 16.
 
 LOCAL PILOTAGE ACTS. 
 
 •247 
 
 exempt at the time of the passing of the Act of 1854 («). 
 But bye-laws, requiring a pilot to be taken under a penalty, 
 and made under a local Act, which gave a general power to 
 regulate the navigation of the port, but did not itself make 
 pilotage compulsory, or give express power to make it so, 
 were held valid (o). 
 
 Summary of Local Pilotage Acts. 
 
 The places at which, and the Acts, bye-laws, and Orders in riac«>s at 
 Council, under which compulsory pilotage exists at various nuVsorv pilot - 
 
 igdom. are as follows f;>) :— ageexist^j. 
 
 ports in the United Kingdom, are as follows [j)) : — 
 
 Aberavon : See Port Talbot. 
 
 Aherbrothivick or Arbroath : Pilotage appears to be compulsory 
 under the bye-laws (y) ; but no express power to make it com- 
 pulsory is given by the local Acts ; 2 »& 3 Vict. c. 1 6 (local) ; 
 27 & 28 Vict. c. 33 (local) ; for bye-laws, see Pari. Paper, 
 No. 154, Sess. 1889. 
 
 Aberdeen : Pilotage is compulsory for iaward-bouud vessels ; 
 31 & 32 Vict. c. 138 (local), ss. 135 seq. ; for bye-laws, see Pari. 
 Paper, No. 154, Sess. 1889; Ords. iu Couucil of 25th June, 1872; 
 15th Oct. 1894. 
 
 Aberdovey : See London Triiiity House. 
 
 Arundel: Pilotage is compulsory for all vessels of 30 tons 
 and upwards; 33 Geo. 3, c. 100 (local) ; for bye-laws, see Pari. 
 Paper, No. 210, Sess. 1896. 
 
 Ayr : Pilotage is compulsory for vessels inward and outward 
 bound; 18 & 19 Vict. c. 119 (local), s. 51, except vessels under 
 40 tons, see Pari. Paper, No. 408 of 1867; for bye-laws, see 
 Pari. Paper, No. 154, Sess. 1889; No. 181, Sess. 1890; No. 100, 
 Sess. 1894. 
 
 Ballina : Pilotage is compulsory for inward-bound vessels ; 
 
 {«) The Earl of Auckland, Lush. 
 164, 387 ; Reg. v. Stanton, 8 E. & B. 
 44.5 ; 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, s. 578. 
 
 [a) The Ruby, 15 P. D. 139, 164. 
 
 ( p) A return of the rules and bye- 
 laws for the time beiny in force is 
 made yearly to the Board of Trade 
 by every pilotage authority, and the 
 returns are laid before Parliament: 
 see 57 & 58 Vict. c. 00, b. 585. The 
 last return is Pari. Paper, No. 312, 
 Sess. 1902. The limits of the several 
 
 pilotage districts, and the bye-laws, 
 will be found sot out in these returns. 
 The effect of Orders in Council m:ido 
 imder the powers of the repeiil»>d 
 Merchant Shipping Acts ispresi-rvod 
 by 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, s. 745. 
 
 [q) L^pon the principle of Thr 
 Ruby, 15 P. I>. i:V.l, 164. The byo- 
 laws appear to be made under s. lOH 
 of 2 & 3 Vict. c. 16 (local) ; they 
 are dated 3l8t Jan. 1873.
 
 248 COMPULSORY PIL0TAG15. 
 
 23 & 24 Vict. c. 165 (local), ss. 42, 43; for bye-laws, see Pari. 
 Paper, No. 154, Sess. 1889. 
 
 Ballyshannon : Pilotage is free ; see infra, p. 262. 
 
 Barry : Pilotage is free ; see infra, p. 262. 
 
 Beaumaris : See Londoti Trinity House. 
 
 Belfast : Pilotage is compulsory for vessels inwards and out- 
 wards, except ships in ballast, and ships coming in from stress 
 of weather and whilst within the limits of the out-pilot ground ; 
 10 & 11 Vict. c. 52 (local), ss. 98—106; for bye-laws, see Pari. 
 Paper, No. 154, Sess. 1889 (r); No. 160, Sess. 1894; No. 290, 
 Sess. 1897; No. 265, 8ess. 1900; Ords. in Council of 15th Aug. 
 1890; 26th June, 1893; 13th May, 1896; 27th Dec. 1«99. 
 
 Berwick: Pilotage free ; itfra, p. 261. 
 
 Blakcney or Clay : Pilotage is compulsory for all vessels, 
 except coasters of 50 tons and upwards, entering or leaving the 
 harbour ; 57 Geo. 3, c. 70 (local) ; for bye-laws, see Pari. Paper, 
 No. 154 of 1889. 
 
 Blyth : See Newcastle. 
 
 Borrotvstommess : Pilotage free ; infra, p. 262. 
 
 Boston : Pilotage is compulsory inwards and outwards for 
 vessels over 30 tons o. m. ; 16 Greo. 3, c. 23 ; for bye-laws, see 
 Pari. Paper, No. 181, Sess. 1890, and Ord. in Council of 28th 
 Nov. 1889; see also 32 Geo. 3, c. 79. 
 
 Bridgwater : See Lotidon Trinity House. 
 
 Bristol (s) : Pilotage is compulsory for all vessels navigating 
 the Bristol Channel eastwards of Lundy Island (4" 40' W. 
 long.) (s), except coasters, Irish traders, and vessels bound to 
 or from Cardiff, Newport, or Gloucester ; 47 Geo. 3 (Sess. 2), 
 c. 33 (local), ss. 9—27 ; 24 & 25 Vict. c. 236 (local), s. 4 ; but 
 see 11 & 12 Vict. c. 43 (local) ; for Pilotage Order Confirmation 
 Acts, see 53 & 54 Vict. c. 208 (local) ; 54 & 55 Vict. c. 160 (local) ; 
 for bye-laws, see Pari. Paper No. 265, Sess. 1900; Ords. in 
 Council of 21st Oct. 1890; 30th July, 1891; 19th May, 1899; 
 14th July, 1899; 20th May, 1903. As to Breandown Harbour, 
 see 25 & 26 Vict. c. 29 (local). See also Neath, Bridgivater, 
 Sivansea, Penarth, Cardiff, Newport, Gloucester. 
 
 Buckie (Cluny) : In Pari. Paper, No. 312, Sess. 1902, pilotage 
 is stated to be compulsory. Sed. qy. See 37 & 38 Vict. c. 185 
 (local); bye-laws, Pari. Paper, No. 154, Sess. 1889. 
 
 • 
 
 (r) The Be Brtis, Ir. Rep. (Ad.) 1 C. P. D. 18th Nov. 1879 ; The 
 Eq. 72; The Arbutus, 11 L. T. 208. Charlton, 8 Asp. M. C. 29; Pari. 
 (s) Hall V. Cardiff Pilotage Board, Paper, No. 154, Sess. 1889.
 
 LOCAL PILOTAGE ACTS. J4fl 
 
 Buryhead: Pilotage is compulsory for ships over 40 tons; 
 21 Vict. c. 39 (local), s. 23; bye-laws, Pari. Paper, No. 154. 
 Sess. 1889. 
 
 Burntisland: Pilotage free ; m/ra, p. 262. 
 
 Caernarvon, Carlisle : See London Trinity House. 
 
 Cardiff: Pilotage free ; infra, p. 262. 
 
 Carlinyford Bar: In Pari. Paper, No. 210, Sess. 1«U6, 
 pilotage is stated to be compulsory. Sed qy. See 27 & 28 Vict, 
 c. 93; Pari. Paper, No. 154, Sess. 1889. 
 
 Charlestoivn : Pilotage free ; infra, p. 262. 
 
 Chester : Pilotage is compulsory for all vessels, except coasters 
 and Irish traders; 16 Geo. 3, c. 61 (local) {t); for bye-laws, see 
 Pari. Paper, No. 154, Sess. 1889; No. 181, Sess. 1890; Ord. in 
 Council, 28th Nov. 1887. 
 
 Clyde : See Glasyow. 
 
 Colchester : See London Trinity House. 
 
 Coleraine : Pilotage is compulsorj' except for certain vessels 
 exempted by 42 & 43 Vict. c. 175 (local), s. 91. See 26 & 27 
 Vict. c. 100 (local), ss. 54—56; 48 & 49 Vict. c. 185 (local), and 
 Acts therein recited ; Ords. in Council, 25th Jan. 1887 ; 20tli Oct. 
 1898; Pari. Paper, No. 154, Sess. 1889; No. 242, Sess. 1899. 
 
 Cork: Pilotage free; infra, p. 262. 
 
 Dartmouth : See London Trinity House. 
 
 Dingle : Pilotage free ; infra, p. 262. 
 
 Drogheda : Pilotage is compulsory, inwards and outwards, for 
 all vessels except steamships ; 5 Vict. (Sess. 2) c. 56 (local), 
 ss. 200 — 205; and vessels under 30 tons; for Kules, &c., see 
 Pari. Paper, No. 154, Sess. 1889. 
 
 Dublin : Pilotage is compulsory for all vessels inwards and 
 outwards of the port of Dublin or the harbour of Kingstown, 
 except coasters under 50 tons, vessels in ballast and coast(^rs 
 laden with lish in bulk or potatoes; 32 & 33 Vict. c. 100 t^ local), 
 ss. 20 seq. ; for bye-laws, see Pari. Paper, No. 154, Sess. 1889; 
 Ords. in Council of 4th Dec. 1861, and 28th July, 1893. See 
 also The Meteor («), and Dublin Port and Dorks Hoard v. 
 Shannon {x), decisions under the above Act. 
 
 Dundalk : Pilotage is compulsory for all vessels, in and out, 
 except vessels under 30 tons, and vessels coming in from stress 
 of weather; 18 & 19 Vict. c. 189 (local), ss. 91 seq.; for regula- 
 tions, see Pari. Paper, No. 154, Sess. 1889. 
 
 (t) Jones V. Bennett, 6 Abp. M. C. («) Ir. Hop. 'J Eti. 667. 
 
 596. {x) Ir. liup. 7 U. L. IKi.
 
 250 COMPULSORY PILOTAGE. 
 
 Dundee : Pilotage free ; infra, p. 262. 
 
 Elgin : See Lossiemouth. 
 
 Exeter, Falmouth, Fleetwood, and Fowey : See London Trinity 
 House. 
 
 Eyemouth : Semble, pilotage free ; infra, p. 262. 
 
 Fraserburgh : Pilotage is compulsory for all vessels of 
 30 tons or upwards, in or out, except harbour tugs; 41 Vict, 
 c. 51 (local), ss. 116, 117; for bye-laws, see Pari. Paper, 
 No. 154, Sess. 1889; No. 212, Sess. 1892; Ords. in Council, 
 23rd June, 1891; 1 7th Feb. 1896. 
 
 Gainsborough : See King ston-upon- Hull. 
 
 Galioay : Pilotage is compulsor}' inwards and outwards from 
 the roadstead to the docks for all vessels of and over 50 tons, 
 and vessels coming in fi'om stress of weather or contrary winds ; 
 16 & 17 Vict. c. 207 (local), ss. 62 seq.; and see 23 & 24 Vict, 
 c. 202 (local). See Ord. in Council, 26th Nov. 1900; Pari. 
 Paper, No. 181 of 1890. 
 
 Glasgow : Pilotage is regulated in the Clyde by 21 & 22 Vict. 
 c. 149 (local), ss. 134 seq. ; and see 53 & 54 Vict. c. 207 (local). 
 Pilotage Order Confirmation Act. It is compulsory for vessels over 
 60 tons navigating the Clyde between Hutchinsontown Bridge 
 and a straight line drawn from the east end of Newark Castle to 
 Cardross Burn, except vessels under 100 tons in tow of a tug 
 whose master has a pilotage certificate. See Ords. in Council 
 of 12th Sept. 1863 ; 12th Nov. 1900. The bye-laws are in Pari. 
 Paper, No. 268, Sess. 1901 («/). 
 
 Gloucester : Pilotage free ; see infra, p. 263. 
 
 Goole : See liingston-upofi- Hull. 
 
 Grangemouth : Pilotage free ; see infra, p. 263. 
 
 Greenock: 29 & 30 Vict. c. 156 (local) ; and see Glasgow. 
 
 Grimsby: See King ston-upon- Hull, and 12 & 13 Vict. c. 81 
 (local). 
 
 Hartlepool: Pilotage appears to be no longer compulsor3\ 
 ^ee Neivcnstle-upon-Tyne. See also 27 & 28 Vict. c. 58 ; Ords. 
 in Council of 31st Jan. 1868, 27th June, 1876, 7th Feb. 1888, 
 and 13th May, 1896; for bye-laws, see Pari, paper. No. 290, 
 Sess. 1897. 
 
 Harwich (~) and Holyhead : See London Trinity House. The 
 Harwich district includes the river Stoui' to Mistley. 
 
 Hastings : Pilotage free ; infra, p. 263. 
 
 ((/) See also The Eden, 2 W. Rob. 1 Ajjp. Gas. 790. 
 442 ; Clyde Navigation Co. v. Barclay, [z) See The Ole Bull, (1905) P. 52.
 
 LOCAL PILOTAGK ACTS. 251 
 
 Hull and Humber : See Kingston-ttpon-HuU . 
 
 Inverness : Pilotage free ; see infra, p. 263. 
 
 Ipswich {a) : 15 Viet. c. 116 (local). See London Trinity 
 House. The Ipswich district includes the river Orwell down to 
 Harwich. 
 
 Irvine : It is not clear whether pilotage is compulsory or free. 
 There appears to be no power to make it compulsory ; but in the 
 Pilotage Eeturn (Pari. Paper, No. 154, Sess. 18SI)), it is stated 
 to be so: 36 & 37 Vict. c. 124 (local); for bye-laws, see Pari. 
 Paper, No. 154, Sess. 1889. 
 
 Isle of Wight : See London Trinitt/ House. 
 
 King^s Lynn : Pilotage is compulsory, in and out, for all 
 vessels, except vessels under 30 tons; 13 Geo. 3, c. 30 (local); 
 4 & 5 Vict. c. 47 (local) ; and except vessels arriving within the 
 Marsh Cut banks without falling in with a pilot ; for bye-laws, 
 see Pari. Paper, No. 154, Sess. 1889; No. 160 of 1894; and 
 Ords. in Council of 1st March, 1864; 14th April, 1869; 2lst 
 Feb. 1874; 26th March, 1878; 18th March, 1880; 25th July, 
 1882; 25th Jan. 1887. 
 
 Kingston-upon- Hull, Trinity House of: The Trinity House of 
 Hull was incorporated by charters of 23rd Elizabeth and 
 13th Charles 11.(6). Its jurisdiction (c) includes the river 
 Humber, Hull, Groole, Selby, Grimsby, Gainsborough, Spalding, 
 and Wisbech. It is now regulated by 2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 105 
 (local); and 12 & 13 Vict. c. 81 (local); see also 17 & 18 Vict, 
 c. 104, 8. 387; 6 Geo. 4, c. 125, s. 89. Under the Act of 
 Will. 4, pilotage in the Humber, outwards and inwards, is 
 compulsory for all vessels except coasting vessels, vessels draw- 
 ing less than 6 feet of water, vessels putting in for sheltt^r, stores, 
 or provisions. Pilotage between Goole and Hull Poads is 
 compulsory except in the case of vessels (1) employed in the 
 regular coasting trade ; (2) wholly laden with stone from the 
 Channel Islands, (jr the Isle of Man, and being the product 
 thereof ; (3) not exceeding 150 tons register ; (4) not exceeding 
 10 feet draught of water (Ord. in Council 21st Dec. 1908). 
 Numerous bye-laws have been made in regard to pilotage in the 
 Humber, but the above statement gives the law in regard to 
 compulsory pilotage. 
 
 (a) Hadgraft v. Hewith, L. R. 10 (c) For the liiiiitH of the juriMlio 
 
 Q B. 350; The Glanystwyth, (1899) tion. 8oo The Killnnin/, u/>i supr,i ; 
 
 y'.US. ■/>'% V. linper, ;{ I?. & A<1. 'I^i ; 
 
 ib] See The Killarney, Lush. 127, Duck ('vmjMiny of Hull v. liiowuf, 2 
 
 436. B. & Ad. 13.
 
 252 COMPULSORY PILOTAGE. 
 
 It has been held that under the local Act (sects. 22, 89) pilot- 
 age is not compulsory for a vessel being towed from one part of 
 the port of Hull to another {d). But it is compulsory for an 
 inward-bound vessel whilst passing through one dock to her 
 berth in another dock ; and not the less so because she has 
 brought up in the river before reaching her berth ; and though 
 one pilot brings her in from the sea and another berths her (e). 
 
 In The Killarney {/) it was held that pilotage is compulsory 
 for a Goole vessel inward bound to Goole. The compulsion is 
 by virtue of 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 353, which continues 
 6 Greo. 4, c. 125, by which (sect. 58) pilotage is compulsory in 
 licensed waters, except (sect. 59) (amongst other exceptions) 
 where a ship is in her home port, being a port for which no 
 "particular provision" as to pilotage had there been made by 
 Act or charter. The exception of sect. 59 does not include Hull, 
 for which provision was made by 52 Geo. 3, c. 39. 
 
 Pilotage certificates are granted to the masters and mates of 
 foreign ships by the Trinity House of Hull. 
 
 By the original charters the Hull Trinity Hou«e was enabled 
 to grant licences to pilot vessels outward bouud only. It was 
 doubted by Dr. Lushington, in The KiUarneij, whether the 
 charters empowered the Hull Trinity House to make pilotage 
 compulsory under penalty; but by 52 Geo. 3, c. 39, s. 21, pro- 
 vision was made for granting licences for piloting vessels bound 
 inwards. 
 
 Kirhcuidy : Pilotage is compulsory for vessels inward bound 
 under 12 & 13 Vict. c. 30 (local), s. 31 ; 39 & 40 Vict. 
 c. 179 (local) ; bye-laws. Pari. Paper, No. 154, Sess. 1889. 
 
 Lancaster : Pilotage is compulsory in and out ; 47 Geo. 3 
 (Sess. 2), c. 37 (local) ; for bye-laws, see Pari. Paper, No. 154, 
 Sess. 1889. 
 
 Leith : Pilotage free ; see infra, p. 263. 
 
 Leven and Methil : Pilotage free ; see infra, p. 263. 
 
 Limerick: See infra, p. 263. 
 
 Littlehampton : See Arundel. 
 
 Liverpool : Pilotage is compulsory inwards and outwards, 
 except for coasters in ballast and coasters under 100 tons; 
 
 [d) The Maria, L. R. 1 A. & E. however, doubtful whether 6 Geo. 4, 
 358. c. 125, ss. 58, 59, apply to Hull 
 
 (e) The Rigborgs Minde, 8 P. D. pilotage: see supra, p. 251, note (c). 
 132. As to 52 Geo. 3, c. 39, s. 34, apply- 
 
 (/) Lush. 427 ; followed in The ing to Hull pilotage, see Usher v. 
 Maria, uhi supra; The Rigborgs iyoM, 2 Price, 118. 
 Minde, 8 P. D. 132. It seems,
 
 LOCAL PILOTAGE ACTS. '^'i^ 
 
 21 & 22 Vict. c. 92 (local) ; 27 & 28 Vict. c. 213 (local). .^. 7 ; and 
 56 & 57 Vict. n. 36 (local) ; as to pilots' duties when in the river, 
 see 62 & 63 Vict. c. 172 (local) ; for bve-laws, see Pari. Paper. 
 No. 154, Sess. 1889 ; No. 251, Sess. 1891 ; No. 290, Sess. 1897; 
 Ords. in Council of 3()th Jan. IS54 ; 24th June, 1856 ; 26th Juno, 
 1861; 9th May, 1866; 26th Aug. 1881; 29th Juno, 1895; iMh 
 July, 1898; 13th May, 1901. By the Ord. in Council of .30th 
 Jan. 1854, coasting: steamships outward liound were exempted ; 
 whether this exemption was continued by sect. 353 of the 
 Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, aud sect. 603 of the Morchant 
 Shipping Act, 1894, or whether it was impliedly repealed \>\ 
 21 & 22 Viet. c. 92 (local), is not clear {(/). 
 
 Llanelli/ : Pilotage was formerly compulsory for all vc-scls 
 with cargo, and for all vessels above 40 tons register in ballast, 
 bound over the Bar of Burry inwards ; and for all vessels of 
 30 tons register with cargo, or of 50 tons register in ballast 
 outward bound. By 62 & 63 Vict. c. 32 (local), pilotage over 
 Lougher and Burry bars appears now to be free. See 53 Geo. 3, 
 c. 183 (local); 6 & 7 Vict. c. 88 (local); 21 & 22 Vict. c. 72 
 (local) ; 27 & 28 Vict. c. 203 (local) ; 59 & 60 Vict. c. 186 (local) ; 
 62 & 63 Vict. c. 32 (local) ; and for bye-laws, see Pari. Paper, 
 No. 154, Sess. 1844; and The Rubrj {h). 
 
 London : The principal pilotage authority in the United 
 Kingdom is the Trinity House of Deptford Stroud (/). Its 
 jurisdiction includes three districts, or classes of districts [k). 
 They are (1) The Jjondon District, extending from Orfordness, 
 on the north, to Dungeness, on the south, and comprising the 
 Thames and Medway up to London and Rochester Bridges ; 
 (2) The English Channel District, extending from 1 )ungene88 
 to the Isle of "Wight (/) ; The Trinity Outport Districts, com- 
 prising any pilotage district for the a^ipointment of pilots within 
 which no particular provision is made by any Act of Parliament 
 or charter (m). 
 
 ((/) Decisions under the Liverpool atiijjtott, 1 Sp. 1.V2; Thr Ai/ncu/n. 2 
 
 Act aveThr Princeton, SL\D. 90; The W. Rob. 10; Th, S,nui, Thr 
 
 Citi/ of C't(iiJ)nd(/e, L. R. 4 A. A E. Curiutlna, (18y«) 1'. .SG, .««;»■/», 
 
 161 ; on app. ihid. 5 P. C. 451 ; The p. -221. 
 
 Ocean Wave, L. R. 3 P. C. 20.^ ; The (//) IT) P. D. ia<», KJJ. 
 
 Annapolis and Tlie Johanna Stall, (t) llereiuafter eullcd the Lcmdnii 
 
 Lush. 295 ; The Cavhapool, 7 P. D. Trinity HouNe. 
 
 217; The Sussex, (1904) P. 2:jii ; 9 (/j See 17 A: IS Vicf. <•. Id I, 
 
 Asp. 578 ; The Mercedende Larrenaiju, 8.370. 
 
 (1904) P. 215; 9 Asp. 571; under (/) As to this (li.MricI, sit uIm. l.slr 
 
 the former Liverpool Act. Vurruthrm of VVi;,^ht, Newliii\eii, iSlitiD'hum. 
 
 V. Si/dcbothain, 4 M. & S. 77 ; All.- (in) iSec Jliid;/ni// v. II, with, L. U. 
 
 Gen'. V. Case, 3 Price, 30i ; liodriijiuz 10 Q. B. 350, 
 V. Melhuish, 10 Ex. 110; The North-
 
 254 
 
 COMPULSORY PILOTAGE. 
 
 At Bridgwater, Ipswich (n), and Neath, the London Trinity- 
 House is the pilotage authority, and compulsory pilotage is 
 established by special Acts (o). Between Orfordness and the 
 Nore the jurisdiction of the London Trinity House is exclusive. 
 The Leith Trinity House, notwithstanding the terms of its 
 charter, and of 1 Gfeo. 4, c. 37, has no authority to grant 
 pilotage licences for that district {p). 
 
 The bye-laws of the London Trinity House are set out in Pari. 
 Paper, No. 154, Sess. 1889, and elsewhere, as noted below. 
 
 The names of the Trinity Outport Districts are : Aberdovey, 
 Beaumaris, Bridgwater (q), Bridport, Caernarvon, Carlisle, 
 Colchester, Dartmouth (r), Exeter (s), Falmouth (t), Fleetwood 
 and Barrow, Fowey, Harwich (u), Holyhead, Ipswich (.r), Isle 
 of Wight (y), Lowestoft, Maldon, Milford, Neath (;:), New- 
 haven, Padstow, Penzance, Plymouth, Poole (a), Portmadoc (b), 
 Preston (c), Rochester, Rye, St. Ives (Hayle), Scilly, Shoreham, 
 Southampton, Teignmouth, Wells, Weymouth (d), Wood- 
 bridge (e), and Yarmouth (/). Their limits are defined in Pari. 
 Paper, No. 154, Sess. 1889 (^). It will be found that the 
 districts extend, in many cases, far beyond the limits of the ports 
 from which they are named. For example, the Falmouth and 
 Fowey districts together include the whole of the coast and seas 
 from Looe to the Lizard ; and the Yarmouth district includes all 
 harbours and roadsteads from Yarmouth to Orfordness, thence 
 across the Kentish Knock {i.e., on a line running outside or 
 to the eastward of the Knock) to the Downs. Some of the 
 districts are non-exclusive and overlap ; the English Channel 
 district appears to include the Newhaven and Shoreham districts. 
 
 (w) Hadgraft v. Heiiith, supra. 
 
 (o) These Acts are specified in 
 connection with the places to which 
 they relate. 
 
 [p) Hossack V. Grrnj, 12 L. T. 7C1. 
 
 {q) See Ord. in Council of I7tli 
 May, 1867 : 8 & 9 Vict. c. 89 
 (local). 
 
 (»•) See Ord. in Council of 12th 
 Aug. 1859. 
 
 (.s) See Ord. in Council of 4th 
 Nov. 1857. 
 
 {t) See The Juno, 1 P. D. 135 ; 
 Pari. Paper, No. 251, Sess. 1891. 
 
 (««) Ord. in Council of 19th Nov. 
 1852. See The Oh Bull, (1905) P. 
 52 ; 10 Asp. 84. 
 
 {x) 15 Vict. c. 116 (local), under 
 which coasters under 50 tons are 
 exempt. And see Hadgraft v. 
 Hewith, L. R. 10 Q. B. 360. 
 
 {i/) Ord. in Council, 23rd April, 
 1844; Pari. Paper, No. 251, Sess. 
 1891. 
 
 (2) 6 & 7 Vict. c. 71 Qocal) ; Farl. 
 Paper, No. 160, Sess. 1894. 
 
 {(i) Pail. Paper, No. 160, Sess. 
 1894. 
 
 [b) Ord. in Council, 14th April, 
 1840. 
 
 [c) Pari. Paper, No. 160, Sess. 
 1894. 
 
 [d) See Ord. in Council, 6th June, 
 1859. 
 
 {e) Ord. in Council, 24th April, 
 1846. 
 
 (/) See The Earl of Amldand, 
 Lush. 387. 
 
 [g) These divisions form one dis- 
 trict for the purpose of compulsory 
 pilotage. See The Asuoge, (1905) P. 
 289 ; 10 Asp. 183.
 
 LONDON TKINTTY HOUSE. ^.'i-j 
 
 The productiou of evidence tliat tho Trinity House wa'< 
 accustomed to license pilots for the district at and previous to 
 the passing of 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, is sutHciout j.roof that the 
 district is an outport district within sect. 370 of the same Act (A). 
 Orders in Council approving- bye-laws of the London Trinity 
 House, by which various classes of ships are exempted from 
 compulsory pilotage, and providing for the granting of pilutagi- 
 certificates to masters and mates, are of the following dates: — 
 19th Aug. 1836, reduction of rates for ships in tow ; 
 13th Dee. 1843, 3rd. Sept. 1844, 8th Aug. 184.5, all exempt 
 certain foreign ships of less tliau (iO tons in the llinult.'r 
 and Tyne, and in all other ports : (these are all obsolete ^ ; 
 18th Feb. 1854 (i), exemption of ships trading to Norway, 
 &c., between Boulogne, &c., passing through a ]iilotage 
 district ; 
 1st May, 1855, watermen pilots between London and Graves- 
 end ; 
 1st May, 1855, pilotage certificates for masters and mates ; 
 21st Nov. 1855, exemption of ships in ballast; 
 16th July, 1857, ships with masters having pilotage certificates 
 
 exempt ; 
 16th July, 1857, similar exemption for other ships of same 
 
 owners ; 
 25th July, 1861, ships in ballast exempt; 
 1st Nov. 1862, rates, London and English Chaiuul districts ; 
 21st. Dec. 1871 (k), extension (Brest substituted for Boulogne) of 
 exemption created by Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, s. 37'J ; 
 5th Feb. 1873, rates between London and Gravesend lowered ; 
 5th Feb. 1873, oversea pilotage licences ; 
 6th Sept. 1880, pilots for exempt ships betweeii tlie Nore and 
 
 Rochester ; 
 6th Sept. 1880, lower rates between the Noie and Rochester 
 
 may be taken ; 
 17th May, 1882, rates, London and English Channel districts; 
 
 (A) The Juno, I P. D. 13o. At nu)iiiii<,' from Loiulnii fo.Iapim, l.iick 
 
 Falmouth the limits of the distiiftt to Louduu. tliciuu- to Kiiniin'aii pmi.^ 
 
 have Ijoeii extended so as to include north of Bimlo>,'-ne, ami so hack to 
 
 the anchirafre outside. It hfis Ijeen London, it was held that ]iil<itane is 
 
 doubted whether compuLsorypilotaare free for the V(iya>i:e with a ci.-w ..f 
 
 can be so extended : see note, •>(«/>""> runners fnmi liondnn In Moliand : 
 
 p. 247. n. («)■ CoHittinj V. Cuh-. r.> (^ H. I). 117; 
 
 (i) Made under Ui & 17 Viet. followeil in 7'/i'' A*"'A""/, (l«!'7) App. 
 
 0. 129, s. 21. Cas. ■.VX^ ; di.st. The Wxnmttad, (ISK.'i) 
 
 [k) In the ease of a line of Ht^amers V. 170.
 
 256 
 
 COMPULSORY PILOTAGE. 
 
 28th Nov. 1899, and 27tli Dec. 1899, pilotage rates ; 
 nth June, 1902, pilots' qualifications. 
 
 In the London District and Outport Districts pilotage is ex- 
 pressly made compulsory by 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, s. 622 (1). In 
 the English Channel District (except such parts of it as are 
 within the Newhaven, Shoreham, and Isle of Wight districts) 
 pilotage is free. There are, however, large classes of ships for 
 which pilotage is free in the compulsory districts. Besides the 
 ships free under the general exemptions mentioned above, the 
 following are exempt in the London district (1) : — British ships 
 on their inward or outward voyage from or to the Cattegat or 
 White Sea, or any place in or between them, whether using the 
 north or south channels of the Thames ; British ships being 
 constant traders to or from ports between Boulogne (inclusive) 
 and the Baltic ; British ships passing on their voyage through 
 any pilotage district, and not anchoring therein ; ships sailing 
 from Dover, Deal, or the Isle of Thanet, up or down the 
 Thames or Medway or into or out of any place within the juris- 
 diction of the Cinque Ports, and owned wholly or in part by 
 master or mate residing in Dover, Deal, or the Isle of Thanet. 
 All these are exempt under 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, s. 603, which 
 continues the exemptions created and continued by 17 & 18 Vict, 
 c. 104, s. 353; 6 Geo. 4, c. 125, ss. 59, 62; and an Order in 
 Council of the 18th February, 1854 (m) ; but vessels on voyages 
 between Sweden or Norway and the port of London, so far as 
 they were exempted by any of these Acts or Order, are no longer 
 so exempt («). 
 
 (/) All these exemptions must be The Vesta, iibi supra, as to the clumsy 
 
 taken to be subject to 17 & 18 Vict. language of the Order in Council of 
 
 c. 104, s. 354, and 57 & 58 Vict. 18th February, 1854. As to the last 
 
 c. 60, s. 604 (1), which impose com- class of ships mentioned in the text, 
 
 pulsory pilotage on ships cai-rying see Williams v. Newton, 14 M. & W. 
 
 passengers between places in the 747 ; Peake v. Screech, 7 Q. B. 603. 
 
 United Kingdom or adjacent islands : As to constant traders, see The Gayo 
 
 see The Temora, Lush. 17 ; of. The Bonito, (1902) P. 216, where a new 
 
 Warsaw, (1898) P. 127. ship on her second trip was held to 
 
 (w) See Reg. v. Stanton, 8 E. & B. be such. The Act 16 & 17 Vict. 
 445 ; The Earl of Auckland, Lush. c. 129, does not appear to have 
 164, 387 ; The Moselle, 2 Asp. M. C. repealed 6 Geo. 4, c. 125, s. 62. 
 586; The Wesley, Lush. 268; The («) 60 & 61 Vict. c. 61. What may 
 Hanna, L. E.. 1 A. & E. 283. The be the effect of this Act is not clear, 
 last case, followed in The Testa, 7 In The Columbus, 8 Asp. M. C. 488, 
 P. D. 240, establishes the distinc- it was held that, by 57 «& 58 Vict, 
 tion, indicated in the text, between c. 60, s. 625, a foreign ship without 
 British and foreign ships. As to passengers, on a voyage from Chris- 
 the existence of this distinction, not- tiania to London, was exemj^t, not- 
 withstanding 24 & 25 Vict. c. 47, withstanding the Act of 1897. 
 see infra. See per Sir R. Phillimore,
 
 LOXDON TRINITY HOUSE. 
 
 25; 
 
 The following sMps, whether British or foreign, are exempt in 
 the London and Outport Districts : (A) coasters, ships of and 
 under 60 tons, stone ships from the Channel Islands, ships 
 navigating within their home ports (o) ; (B) ships in ballast, on 
 a voyage between places in the United Kingdom ( p) ; (C) ships 
 trading between Great Britain, the Channel Islands, or the Isle 
 of Man, and any place in Europe (y), north of Boulogne (r). or 
 between Brest (inclusive) and Boulogne (s) ; (D) ships passing 
 through the limits of any pilotage district, not being bound to 
 any place in such district or anchoring therein (/). Notwith- 
 standing the words of 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, s. 625, purporting to 
 exempt some of these ships "when not carrying passengers," 
 these words do not restrict the extent of the exemption (m). and 
 the ship is exempt although she has passengers on board. 
 
 The exemptions created by the general Acts {supra, p. 242) 
 apply in the London Trinity House districts as elsewhere; 
 similarly, vessels in the London Trinity House districts are 
 subject to the general obligation to take a pilot when carrying 
 passengers between places in the British Islands {supra, p. 21o). 
 
 The London Trinity House grants licences to masters and 
 
 (o) As to (A), see 57 & 58 Vict, 
 c. 60, s. 625 ; 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, 
 s. 379. As to coasters, see The 
 Lloi/fh or The Sea Queen, Br. & 
 Lush. 359 ; The Agricola, 2 W. Rob. 
 10; Courtmy v. Cole, 19 Q. B. D. 
 447 ; The Rutland, (1897) App. Cas. 
 333, supra, p. 255 ; The Winestead, 
 (1895) P. 170; followed in The 
 Glantjshnjth, (1899) P. 118. As to 
 sliips within their ho.ae port, where 
 the port is London, and as to the 
 limits of the port of London, The 
 Stettin, Br. k Lush. 199, and General 
 Steam Navigation Co. v. British and 
 Colonial Steam Xavigation Co., L. R. 
 3 Ex. 330; ibid. 4 Ex. 238; The 
 Hankow, 4 P. D. 197, supra, p. 244. 
 See also The Killarne:,, Lush. 427. 
 
 ip) As to the class (B), see Orders 
 in Council of 21st Nov. 1855, and 
 25th July, 1861. 
 
 {q) " Europe " is exclusive of 
 Great Britain (semble) ; see The 
 Winestead, (1895) P. 170, 175; The 
 Glanijstwyth, (1899) P. 118. 
 
 (?•) As to ships from Sweden or 
 Norway to London, see 60 c& 61 Vict, 
 c. 61, and observations on the last 
 page. 
 
 («) As to (C), see 17 & 18 Yh-.t. 
 c. 104, 8. 379 ; 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, 
 
 M. 
 
 8. 603; Order in Council of 2l8t 
 Dec. 1871 ; The Wesley, Lush. 268 ; 
 The Lion, L. R. 2 P. C. 525 ; The 
 Banna, L. R. 1 A. & E. 283; 
 Courtney v. Cole, 19 Q. B. D. 447 ; 
 The Ruthnd, (1896) P. 281 ; affirmed 
 (1897) App. Cas. 333 ; The Cb/mene, 
 (1897) P. 295 ; The Winestead, (1895) 
 P. 170, supra, p. 255. The words 
 "trading to" do not confine the 
 exemption to ships bound to or from 
 one of the London Trinity House 
 pilotage districts. Thus a stfara- 
 ship bound from Liverpool to Ham- 
 burg was in collision otf Dungencss. 
 She took a pilot when going up the 
 London river for repau-s, and got 
 into collision again in the Thames. 
 It was held that she came within tlio 
 exemption of sect. 379, that pilotage 
 was not compulsory for her, and 
 that her owners were liable : The 
 Sutherland, 12 P. D. 154. 
 
 {t) As to (D), sec Order in Council 
 of 18th Fob. 1854, and 17 & 18 Vict, 
 c. 104, H. 379. 
 
 (m) Keg. V. Stanton, uhi supra ; 
 The Earl of Auckland, uhi supra; 
 both decided under the corres|)t)nd- 
 ing words of 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104. 
 s. 379.
 
 258 COMPULSORY PILOTAGE. 
 
 mates of certain passenger ships, both British and foreign, to 
 pilot different ships belonging to the same owner (a;). A vessel 
 of which the master or mate has such a certificate is, therefore, 
 exempt from compulsory pilotage. 
 
 Licences for over-sea pilotage {i.e., beyond the limits of its 
 jurisdiction) are granted by the London (y), and also by the 
 Hull, Trinity Houses. Pilotage with such licences is volun- 
 tary (z). 
 
 The power given to the London Trinity House by 6 Geo. 4, 
 c. 125, 8. 51, to make regulations as to the pilotage of foreign 
 vessels bringing provisions, does not appear to have been 
 exercised. 
 
 Londonderry : Pilotage is compulsory on all vessels inwards 
 and outwards, except vessels of and under 75 tons and colliers 
 outward bound in ballast; 48 Geo. 3, c. 136 (local), s. 23; 
 17 & 18 Vict. c. 177 (local), ss. 68 seq. ; for bye-laws, see Pari. 
 Paper, No 154, Sess. 1889. 
 
 Lossiemouth : Pilotage is compulsorj^ inwards and outwards 
 for all vessels over 40 tons ; 19 & 20 Vict. c. 67 (local), s. 57; 
 31 & 32 Vict. 0. 47 (local) ; for regulations, see Pari. Paper, 
 No. 154, Sess. 1889. 
 
 Lowestoft, Maldon, Milford, Neath, Newhaven, Padstock, and 
 Penzance : See London Trinity House. 
 
 Macduff: Pilotage free ; see infra, p. 263. 
 Middlesbrough : See infra, Neivcastle. 
 Montrose : Pilotage free ; infra, p. 263. 
 Nairn: Pilotage free {semhle); infra, p. 263. 
 Neiv Ross : Whether pilotage is free or compulsory is 
 doubtful. At Waterford it is compulsory ; and the two autho- 
 rities are not entirely distinct. See 24 & 25 Vict. c. 140 (local); 
 37 & 38 Vict. c. 116 (local); bye-laws. Pari. Paper, No. 154, 
 Sess. 1889; No. 210, Sess. 1896; No. 265, Sess. 1900. 
 
 Neiocastle-upon-Tyne, Tyne, and Tees: The jurisdiction of the 
 Trinity House of Newcastle-upon-Tyne (a) includes Blyth, Sea- 
 ham, North Sunderland, Holy Island, Whitby, Warkworth, 
 Amble, and Alnmouth. It formerly included the river Tyne and 
 the river Tees, and the ports of Hartlepool and Sunderland ; but 
 now by 28 & 29 Vict. c. 44 (the Tyne Pilotage Order Con- 
 firmation Act), amended by 30 & 31 Vict. c. 78, pilotage juris- 
 
 [x] Order in Council of 16th July, [z) But qutere it' such a pilot were 
 
 1857. to supersede au uiilicen.sed pilot under 
 
 (V^l See Order in Council of 20th .51 & 52 Vict. c. 68, s. 5. 
 JJov. 1873. («) See 57 & 58 Vict, c. 60, s. 632. 
 
 C
 
 LOCAL PILOTAGE ACTS. 259 
 
 diction over the whole of the river Tyne, and seawards over a 
 radius of seven miles (including: the ports of Tyneraouth. New- 
 castle, and Shields), has been transferred to the Tvne Pilotage 
 Commissioners. Within that jurisdiction, except for ships 
 carrying passengers between places in the United Kingdom (b), 
 pilotage is not compidsory (c). By 2 Edw. 7. c. 76 (local), 
 foreign ships are exempt notwithstanding 41 Geo. 3, c. 86 (localV 
 By similar Acts (27 & 28 Vict. c. 58 ; 28 & 29 Vict. c. 59, and 
 45 Vict. c. 1 (local)), pilotage jurisdiction over the ports of 
 Hartlepool and Sunderland, and over the whole of the Tees, 
 including the ports of Stockton and Middlesbrough, was trans- 
 ferred from the Trinity House of Newcastle-upon-Tyne to the 
 Hartlepool Pilotage Commissioners, the Sunderland Pilotage 
 Commissioners, and the Tees Pilotage Commissioners, and 
 pilotage is not, it would seem, compulsory within those juris- 
 dictions (r/). Under 41 Geo. 3, c. 86 (local), pilotage was com- 
 pulsory on foreign ships (e) within the jurisdiction of the Trinity 
 House of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, except, it seems, foreign 
 coasters, as to which see 39 & 40 Vict. c. 36, s. 141 ; but foreign 
 ships are now exempt by 2 Edw. 7, c. 76 (local). The existing 
 bye-laws have been made by the following Orders in Council : 
 For Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 14th Feb. 1883; for the Tyne, 
 19th July, 1862; 17th June, 1887; 6th Feb. 1892; for Hartle- 
 pool, 27th June, 1876, and 7th Feb. 1888; for Sunderland, 
 29th June, 1882, and 8th March, 1886; and for the Tees, 16th Dec. 
 1882; 2nd Feb. 1899. See Pari. Paper, No. 154, Sess. 1889; 
 No. 263, Sess. 1893; No, 290, Sess. 1897; No. 265, Sess. 1900. 
 
 Newport {Mon.) : Pilotage free; infra, p. 263. 
 
 Neivry : Pilotage free ; see infra, p. 263. 
 
 Penarth : Pilotage free ; infra, p. 263. 
 
 Peterhead : Pilotage is compulsory under 36 & 37 Vict. c. 157 
 (local), 8S. 77 seq., for all vessels of 30 tons and upwards bound 
 in and out, except steam-tugs for the use of vessels freijueuting 
 the harbour. See Ords. in Council of 1st April, 1881 ; 17th Fob. 
 
 {h) Tilt Warsaiv, (1898) P. 127. to tlie Tj-nc Act, udjudicatwl upon 
 
 \c) See sect. 16 of the nchedule to in The Johann Srenlrup, ii/>i supra. 
 the Act, and T/ie Johann Sverdriip, {f) The Maria, 1 W. Rtib. l).5 ; 
 
 IIP. D. 49; 12 P. D. 43. Tyne Improvniuiit ComniiHsionnii v. 
 
 [d) Sect. 16 of the schedule to the General Sfeam Xarit/alinn Co., L. R. 
 
 Hartlepool Act, sect. 14 of the 2 Q. B. 6;j ; The lh>lnr,{\W\] P. 7 
 
 schedule to the Sunderland Act, (at Blytlij. 24 \.- 2;') Vict, c 17, did 
 
 and sect. 15 of the schedule to the not relieve forcifrn ships fmin tlie 
 
 Tees Act, are nearly identical in obligation to take a pilot. Seo Thr 
 
 terms with sect. 16 of the schedule Vesta, 7 P. D. 240.
 
 260 COMPULSORY PILOTAGE. 
 
 1896; 39 & 40 Vict. c. 174 (local); and for bye-laws, Pari. 
 Paper, No. 154, Sess. 1889. 
 
 Plymouth and Poole : See London Trinity House. 
 Port Talbot (formerly Aberavon) : Pilotage was formerly com- 
 pulsory, but appears now to be free ; 4 Will. 4, c. 43 (local), s. 73 ; 
 bye-laws. Pari. Paper, No. 268, Sess. 1901. 
 Porthcaivl: Pilotage free ; i^ifra^ p. 263. 
 
 Portmadoc, Rye, Scilly, and Shoreham : See London Trinity House. 
 Pulteney : Pilotage is compulsory for vessels over 40 tons in 
 and out; 20 & 21 Vict. c. 93 (local), ss. 52, 54. See also Wick. 
 
 Rosehearty : In the pilotage returns pilotage is stated to be 
 compulsory ; but there appears to be nothing in the Acts or 
 bye-laws to make it so ; see 26 & 27 Vict. c. 104 ; 38 & 39 Vict, 
 c. 117 (local); Pari. Paper, No. 154, Sess. 1889. 
 
 Rosslare : See Wexford. 
 
 St. Ives {Hayle) : See London Trinity House, 
 
 Sandhaven : In the pilotage return pilotage is stated to be 
 compulsory, and the bye-laws imply the same ; but there appears 
 to be no express provision in the Acts or bye-laws to that eiiect, 
 and the bye-laws are made under the Merchant Shipping Act, 
 1854, s. 333; see 36 & 37 Vict. c. 63 (local); Ord. in Council, 
 20th March, 1877 ; Pari. Paper, No. 154, Sess. 1889. 
 
 Sliyo : Pilotage is compulsory for inward-bound ships of 20 
 tons and upwards, except vessels reaching Oyster Island without 
 being boarded ; 40 Vict. c. 35 (local) ; for regulations, see Pari. 
 Paper, No. 263, Sess. 1893 ; Ords. in Council, 9th May, 1892, and 
 30th April, 1894. 
 
 Southcmipton : See Lo7idon Trinity House. 
 
 Southwold : Pilotage is compulsory, inwards and outwards, for 
 vessels of 40 tons and upwards ; 1 1 (reo. 4, c. 48 (local) ; for 
 bye-laws, see Pari. Paper No. 204 of 1874. 
 
 Spalding : See King ston-upon- Hull. 
 
 Stockton: See Newcastle-upon-Tyne. 
 
 Stonehaven: Pilotage is stated. Pari. Paper, No. 210, Sess. 
 1896, to be partly compulsory ; but there is nothing in the local 
 Acts or bye-laws to make it so ; see 6 Geo. 4, c. 54 (local) ; 45 & 
 46 Vict. c. 168 (local) ; Pari. Paper, No. 154, Sess. 1889. 
 
 Sunderland, North : See Neiocastle-upon- Tyne ; 28 & 29 Vict, 
 c. 59 ; Ords. in Council, 29th June, 1882, and 8th March, 1886 ; 
 bye-laws. Pari. Paper, No. 154, Sess. 1889. 
 
 Swansea : Pilotage is compulsory for vessels inward bound, 
 except vessels under 100 tons in ballast; 17 & 18 Vict. c. 126 
 (local); Ords. in Council of 22nd Feb. 1860; 4th Feb. 1861;
 
 LOCAL PILOTAGK ACTS. 
 
 261 
 
 7th Jan. 1864 ; 22nd May, 1883 ; and 28th Nov. 1899 ; for bye- 
 laws, see Pari. Paper, No. 265, Sess. 1900 ; 54 Vict. c. 47 (local); 
 55 & 56 Vict. 0. 31 (local). The effect of the general and local 
 Acts and of the hye-laws is by no means clear. 
 
 Tees (River): See Neiccastle-upon-Tijne : 55 & 56 Vict. v. 1 
 (local) ; 61 & 62 Vict. c. 41 (local). 
 
 Teignmouth, Thames : See London Trinity Ilousr. 
 Thurso: Pilotage is not expressly made compulsory I'V the 
 local Act or by bye-law ; 4 & 5 Vict. c. 1 (local) ; (')rd. in Council, 
 12th Dec. 1894. 
 
 Tralee : Pilotage appears to have been compulsory undor 
 9 Greo. 4, c. 118 (local), for vessels over 30 tons (see s. 74) ; but 
 the Act does not in terms make it compulsory See also 6 & 7 
 Will. 4, c. 114 (local); 27 & 28 Vict. c. 31 (local); bye-laws, 
 Pari. Paper, No. 154, Sess. 1889. 
 Ti/ne : See Neivcastle-upon-Tyne. 
 Tiveed (River) : Ord. in CouncU, 18th July, 1898. 
 Waterford : Pilotage is compulsory in and out; 9 & 10 Vict, 
 c. 292 (local) ; 37 & 38 Vict. c. 116, ss. 12 seq. ; except for vessels 
 drawing less than 6 feet ; for bye-laws, see Pari. Paper, No. 154, 
 Sess. 1889; No. 181, Sess. 1890; No. 160, Sess. 1894; Ords. in 
 Council, 12th Jan. 1891 (/) ; 3rd Feb. 1898 ; 11th Aug. 1902. 
 Wells : See London Trinity House. 
 
 Westport : Pilotage is compulsory for all vessels, in or out, 
 except within the limits of the out-pilot grounds, or when the 
 master is Hcensed ; 16 & 17 Vict. c. 185 (local), ss. 13 seq.: see 
 Pari. Paper, No. 154, Sess. 1889. 
 
 Wexford: Pilotage is compulsory for all vessels, in or out, 
 with cargo or passengers, except those to or from Eosslaro ; 37 & 
 38 Vict. c. 40 (local), ss. 73 seq. ; see also 25 & 26 Vict. c. 122 
 (local) ; Eosslare, 60 & 61 Vict. c. 157 (local) ; bye-laws approved 
 by Ord. in Council, 26th Oct. 1875; Pari. Paper, No. 154, Sess. 
 1889. 
 
 Weymouth : See London Trinity House. 
 
 Wick: Pilotage is compulsory for vessels over 20 tons entering 
 and leaving the harbour, except frequent traders whose masters 
 or mates have pilotage certificates (g) ; 25 & 26 Vict. c. 1 80 (local), 
 88. 10, 22, 23, 24 ; see also 20 & 21 Vict, c 93 ; for bye-laws, see 
 Pari. Paper, No. 263, Sess. 1893. 
 
 (/) See The Victor ia, Ir. Rep. A. Q/) Tliiw Heei.iH to W tl... otfft<t of 
 
 1 Eq. 336\ the local Acta ; but Uioir Iiu.K«i"K'- 
 
 ' ia not oloar.
 
 COMPULSORY PILOTAGE. 
 
 WicUoiv : Pilotage is compulsory, in and out, except for steam- 
 ships in certain cases ; 5 & 6 Vict. c. Ill (local), ss. 134 seq. ; and 
 see 14 & 15 Vict. c. 121 (local). 
 
 Wisbech : See King ston-upon- Hull ; and see 50 Geo. 3, c. 206 
 (local); Pari. Paper, No. 154, Sess. 1889; No. 160, Sess. 1889; 
 Ords. in Council, 29tli Jan. 1889 ; SOth Jan. 1893. 
 
 Woodbridge, Yarmouth (h) : See London Trinity House. 
 
 Pilotage authorities exist at the following places, but at all of 
 them pilotage is free. Information concerning those marked 
 with an asterisk, and bye-laws, where they exist, will be found 
 in Pari. Paper, No. 154, Sess. 1889 (Pilotage Eeturn) : — 
 
 Bally shannon : Ord. in Council, 15th Oct. 1889; Pari. Paper, 
 No. 181, Sess. 1890; No. 251, Sess. 1891. Barry : Pari. Paper, 
 No. 265 of 1900; Ord. in Council, 21st Oct. 1890. Berwick^: 
 48 Geo. 3, c. 104 (local) ; 25 Vict. c. 31 (local) ; Ord. in Council, 
 18th July, 1898; bye-laws. Pari. Paper, No. 247, Sess. 1899. 
 Borroivstounness^- : 38 & 39 Vict. c. 137 (local); 46 & 47 Vict. 
 c. 76 (local) ; Ord. in Council, 26th June, 1886. Buckie (Cluny) : 
 37 & 38 Vict. c. 185 (local). Burghead^' : 21 & 22 Vict. c. 39 
 (local) ; Ord. in Council, 17th May, 1888. Burntisland^- : 44 & 45 
 Vict. c. 85 (local). Cardiff* including Penarth : Ords. in Council, 
 20th Oct. 1874; 20th April, 1883; 21st Oct. 1890; 7th Aug. 
 1900; 12th Nov. 1900; 11th Aug. 1902; bye-laws, Pari. Paper, 
 No. 268, Sess. 1901 ; 24 & 25 Vict. c. 236 (local), repealing b* & 
 20 Vict. 0. 122 (local) : qimre, whether, under sect. 31 of this 
 Act, pilotage is compulsory for a ship "bound foreign" from 
 Penarth with passengers ; 43 & 44 Vict. c. 24 (local). Carling/ord 
 Bar*: 27 & 28 Vict. c. 93 ; Ord. in Council of 16th May, 1878. 
 Charlestown : 22 «& 23 Vict. c. 96 (local) ; Ord. in Council, 8th 
 Feb. 1890 ; Pari. Paper, No. 251, Sess. 189 1 . Coleraine* : 42 & 43 
 Vict. e. 175 (local) ; 48 & 49 Vict. c. 185 (local) ; Ord. in CouncH, 
 25th Jan. 1887. Corh*{i): 1 Geo. 4, c. 52 (local;; 55 & 56 
 Vict. c. 157 (local) ; Ord. in Council, 7th Oct. 1899 ; Pari. Paper, 
 No. 160, Sess. 1894; No. 265, Sess. 1900. Dingle*: 48 & 49 
 Vict. c. 104 (local); Ord. in Council, 26th June, 1886; Pari. 
 Paper, No. 261, Sess. 1891. Douglas {Isle of Man): 35 & 36 
 Vict. c. 23. Dundee* : 38 & 39 Vict. c. 150 (local). Eyemouth : 
 37 & 38 Vict. c. 185 (local); 45 & 46 Vict. c. 58 (local), ss. 50— 
 
 (h) As to the limits of the Yar- (i) See The Eden, 2 W. Rob. 442 ; 
 
 mouth district, see supra, p. 254. Cork Harbour Pilotage Act, 1892, 
 
 s. 3.
 
 LOCAL PILOTAGE ACTS. 263 
 
 56 {semble, free). Gardenstown : 39 \- 40 Vict. c. 40 (local). 
 Gloucester* : 24 & 25 Vict. c. 236 (local) ; bye-laws, Pari. Paper, 
 No. 268, Sess. 1901; Ords. in Council, 28th Nov. 1874; ITtli 
 Sept. 1900. Grangemouth : 49 & 60 Vict. c. 76 (local); Ord. in 
 Council, 19tli Fob. 1889 ; bye-laws. Pari. Paper, No. 212, Sess. 
 1892. Hastings : 25 & 26 Vict. c. 51. Inverness* : 46 & 47 Vict. 
 0. 43 (local); Ord. in Council, 5tli July, 1889; Pari. Paper, 
 No. 181, Sess. 1890. Leith Harbour and Docks*: 28 Geo. 3, 
 c. 58 (local) ; 38 & 39 Vict. c. 160 (local) ; Ords. in CouncQ of 
 28th July, 1856; 30th June, 1860. Leith Trinity House* {k): 
 1 Geo. 4, c. 37 ; 5 Geo. 4, e. 39 (local) ; Pari. Paper, No. 263, 
 Sess. 1893; No. 160, Sess. 1894; Ord. in Council, 28th July, 
 1856. Leven ayid Methil* : 39 & 40 Vict. c. 173 (local); Pari. 
 Paper, No. 251, Sess. 1891 ; 46 & 47 Vict. c. 43 (local); 52 & 53 
 Vict. c. 90 (local), ss. 34, 38; Ords. in Council, 25th Jan. 1887 ; 
 8th Feb. 1890; superseding, it seems, that of 25th Jan. 1887. 
 Limerick: 4 Geo. 4, c. 94 (local); 10 & 11 Vict. c. 198 (local); 
 Ord. in Council, 19th Nov. 1902 ; sect. 73 of the former Act 
 imposes a penalty on persons who, having taken charge of a ship 
 arriving off the port, refuse to deliver over the cliarge of her to 
 a pilot appointed by the commissioners who offers himself on the 
 ship passing certain headlands there mentioned : quaere, whether 
 this enables a pilot to take the charge of the ship out of her 
 officers' hands? Macduff: 10 & 11 Vict. c. 127 (local) ; 38 & 39 
 Vict. c. 1 1 7 (local) ; there are no bye-laws, and nothing in the 
 local Act to make pilotage compulsory. Manchester Ship Canal : 
 48 & 49 Vict. c. 188 (local); Ord. in Council, 26th Nov. 1895 
 (Art. 3) ; bye-laws, infra, p. 523. Montrose : Stated in Pari. 
 Paper, No. 312, Sess. 1902, pilotage free ; bye-laws, Pari. Paper, 
 No. 181, Sess. 1890. Nair?i* : 26 & 27 Vict. c. 104; bye-laws, 
 Pari. Paper, No. 265, Sess. 1900. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: See 
 above, p. 258. Newport {Mon.)* : 24 & 25 Vict. o. 236 (local); 
 56 & 57 Vict. c. 36 (local). Pilotage Orders Confirmation Act ; 
 Ords. in Council, 14th July, 1899 ; 21st Nov. 1902 ; Pari. Paper, 
 No. 210, Sess. 1896; No. 265, Sess. 1900. Newry* : 10 Goo. 4, 
 c. 126 (local) ; Ord. in Council, 16th May, 1878. Penarth : 19 & 20 
 Vict. c. 122 (local) ; see above, Cardiff. Porthcaul* or Pwll Cawl 
 Bay : 18 Vict. c. 50 (local) ; Pari. Paper, No. 154, Sess. 1889; 
 Ords. in Council, 6th May, 1857, and 27th Nov. 1878. Port Talbot: 
 
 {k) The Leith Trinity House wiih (lietiou, seo Uossuck v. Gray, C Br. & 
 incorporated by charter of 27th July, S. 598. 
 1797. Ah to the limit of ita juris-
 
 264 COMPULSORY PILOTAGE. 
 
 4 Will. 4, c. 43 (local) ; 57 & 58 Vict. c. 141 (local) ; bye-laws, 
 Pari. Paper, No. 268, Sess, 1901. Rosehearty^' : See above, 
 p. 260. Sandhaven^' : See above, p. 260. Stonehaven^ : 6 Geo. 4, 
 c. 54 (local) ; 45 & 46 Yict. c. 168 (local). Thurso : 4 & 5 Vict. 
 c. 7 (local) ; Ord. in Council, 12tli Dec. 1894 (see above, p. 261). 
 Hartlepool, Sunderland, and Tees river, see above, pp. 258, 259.
 
 265 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 COLLISION WITH REFERENCE TO (1) THE SHIPOWNER'S 1.1 \- 
 
 BILITY AS CARRIER — (2) THE CONTRACT OF INSURANCE. — 
 CRIMINAL AND OTHER CONSEQUENCES OF COLLISION. 
 
 The liability of the shipowner for loss by collision of goods 
 on board his ship may be considered under two lieads : (1) his 
 liability at common law by the custom of the realm ; (2) his 
 liability upon the contract of carriage. A common hoyman [a), 
 the owner of barges, flats or lighters, who lets them out for 
 hire (b), the owner of a general ship trading between places 
 within the realm or to foreign lands (c), are subject to the 
 liability of a common carrier. Whether the owner of a ship Y-'"^*'"''', 
 that is not a general ship, and trades to foreign lands, is a ilXnium 
 common carrier or liable as such, is doubtful (rf). Again, ^'rncr. 
 whether the owner of a general sliip is liable as a common 
 carrier, except so far as he is protected by the contract, where 
 he carries goods under a bill of lading, has been much 
 disputed (e). It appears to be now decided that he is not (/). 
 
 At common law, where the shipowner is subject to the shipownor'H 
 
 .,.,.,, . • i. liiil>ility at 
 
 liability of a common earner, he is liable as msui-er against ^.^„„„„,„ \.^„, 
 loss or damage from any cause except the act of God and the 
 King's enemies {g). For injury to passengers on board liis 
 
 (a) Forward v. Pittard, 1 T. R. 27. Netherlands India Steam Navigation 
 
 (b) Dale V. Hall, 1 Wils. 281; Co., 10 Q. B. D. 521. 
 
 Lmn V. Mells, 5 East, 428 ; Liver {e) See 1 Pfirsoiis on Shipping, 
 
 Alkali Co. V. Johnsmi, L. R. 9 Ex. pp. 245 *../., ed. 1869, where the 
 
 33g writer states that ho is not so liable. 
 
 (c) Mors V. Slue, 1 Ventr. 190, (/) Naffent v. Smith, I C. P. D. 
 238. See on this case per Black- 19, 423; but ^ec per PolhK,.k B., 
 burn J L R. 9 Ex. 341 ; per Chartered Mercantile Hank oj India 
 CockLum', C. J., 1 C. P. D. 430; London and ('hina y,. >^ '•'''•'•/""' ' 
 
 Barclay v. Cuculla y Gana, 3 Dougl. :f'"/«« *''«'" ^""^"'"'"f^y i C V 
 3gg ^ D. 118; llai/n v. CuUiford, 4 » •. 1 • 
 
 id) ^ee Liver Alkali Co.Y.Johnsori, ^■}^\ „ ,,. ^ r V U 
 
 uhi supra; Nugent v. Smith, 1 C. P. D. >).,^^''^f';' ^- *""'^'' ' ^- ^ • ''• 
 
 19; ibid. 423; Chartered Mercantile 19; tbul. M6. 
 Bank of India, London, and China v.
 
 266 
 
 shipowner's liability as carrier. 
 
 Shipowner's 
 liability on 
 the contract 
 of carriage. 
 
 Exception of 
 " collision" 
 in bill of 
 lading. 
 
 ship he is liable only where it is caused by the negligence of 
 himself or his agents, the officers or crew (A) . To passengers, 
 therefore, he is liable for injury in a collision caused by the 
 fault of his own ship, or by the fault of both ships. To 
 cargo-owners he is liable at common law for loss or damage 
 in a collision by the fault of his own or of both ships, or 
 where it is an inevitable accident. It is possible that a 
 collision might occur by act of God, in which case he would 
 not be liable. But the ordinary so-called case of collision by 
 inevitable accident, as where it is caused by stress of weather, 
 fog, or latent defect in gear, would not be held to be an act 
 of God (i). 
 
 It has been held in America that owners of a tug towing 
 craft with goods on board are not liable as common carriers 
 for the safety of the goods {k) . 
 
 In practice the shipowner carrying goods usually contracts 
 himself out of the onerous liability imposed on him by the 
 common law. By the charter-party or bill of lading it is 
 usually agreed that the goods shall be carried and delivered 
 in good order, unless loss or damage shall arise from certain 
 specified causes. These causes, technically called " exceptions," 
 are now very numerous, and commonly include "perils, 
 dangers, and accidents of the seas, rivers, land, carriage, and 
 steam navigation, of whatsoever nature and kind." Under a 
 bill of lading so framed the shipowner is not liable for a 
 collision which occurs without negligence in either ship (/), 
 or for a collision caused wholly by the fault of the other 
 ship {fii) ; but he is liable where there is negligence in his 
 own ship. Sometimes in the bill of lading there is contained 
 an exception of "collision." In that case the shipowner is 
 not liable for a collision caused by the fault of the other 
 ship {n) ; but he remains liable for a collision caused by the 
 
 {h) See Redhead v. Midland Hail. 
 Co., L. R. 2 Q. B. 412; on app. 
 ibid. 4 Q. B. 379, and the cases there 
 cited. 
 
 (i) See Nugent v. Smith, 1 C. P. D. 
 19, 34, as to what is an act of God. 
 
 {k) Caton v. Rumney, 13 Wend. 
 387. This seems to be the general 
 rule, but there are contrary de- 
 cisions. See 1 Parsons on Shipping 
 (ed. 1869), 247, note. 
 
 [1) Buller V. Fisher, 3 Esp. 67 ; 
 Chartered Mercantile Bank of India, 
 London, and China v. Netherlands 
 India Steam Navigation Co., Limtd., 
 10 Q. B. D. 521. 
 
 {m) Wilson, Sons ^ Co. v. Owners 
 of Cargo per Xantho, The Xantho, 12 
 App. Cas. 503, overruling Woodley 
 V. Michell, 11 Q. B. D. 47. 
 
 (w) Lloi/d V. General Iron Screw 
 Collier Co., 3 H. & C. 284 ; Grill \.
 
 BILL OF LADING EXCEPTIONS. '-^67 
 
 fault of his own sliip. The reason for his liability for a 
 
 collision, caused wholly or in part by the fault of liis own 
 
 ship, is that " underlying the contract implied or involved in 
 
 it (the bill of lading) is ... an engagement on his part to 
 
 use due care and skill in navigating the ship and carrjiug 
 
 the goods "(o). But he ceases to be hable if he limits the Other 
 
 general liability, as where the charter-party or bill of ladling '^'"''^^ """■ 
 
 excepts a collision, even if caused by " any act, neglect, or 
 
 default whatsoever, of the pilot, master, or mariners, or 
 
 other servants of the shipowner in na^^gating the ship." 
 
 These words cover loss in a collision caused by the fault of 
 
 the carrying ship ; but not loss by a collision with another 
 
 ship of the same owners caused entirely by the fault of such 
 
 ship {p). The exception holds good even though the ship is 
 
 unseaworthy at the beginning of the voyage if the damage 
 
 is caused by an excepted peril such as a collision {(j). 
 
 An exception of " dangers of accidents of navigation " in 
 a bill of lading covers loss of cargo by collision caused by the 
 fault of the other ship (r). 
 
 The Bernina was in collision partly by her own fault. 
 Goods on board were in consequence of the collision tran- 
 shipped to another ship, and whilst being carried on to their 
 destination were lost by the fault of those on board the 
 carrying ship. It was held that an exception in the original 
 bill of lading, " act of God, Uueen's enemies, fire, and all 
 and every other dangers and accidents of the seas, rivers, and 
 navigation," did not cover the loss (-s). 
 
 In the case of a collision between the carrying ship and ComMou_bt.- 
 another belonging to the same owners, the effect of the „f ',1,^' |^,'„„, 
 exception last mentioned, together with the statutory rule owner, 
 as to division of loss where both ships are in fault (36 .^ 37 
 
 General Iron Screw ColUer Co., L. R. hapn, where there is neglijfence «u 
 Ic P IZ ou app. ibid. 3 C. P. the part of the owuer u. .ippoinlmg 
 
 Xantho, 12 App. Ca8. 503, 515. Hjc/ae, Borman * Co., 1« <l IV 1>. 
 
 tp) Chartered Mercantile Bank, ifc. \i. /v . n i- i' I) 
 
 V Ulherland. Ind^a Stram Xav.yalion (-v The linntua (No. i), I- 1 I>. 
 
 Co., 10 Q. B. D. 521. Except, per- 30.
 
 268 shipowner's liability as carrier. 
 
 Vict. c. 66, s. 25, sub-s. 9), is to relieve the shipowner from 
 making good to the cargo-owner more than half his loss. 
 He is liable as carrier for half, and for half only, of the loss 
 on the goods {t) . 
 
 The case {u) which decided these points was as follows : — 
 A collision occurred between The Crown Prince and The 
 Atjeh, a ship belonging to the owners of The Crown Prince, 
 by the fault of both ships. The question arose whether the 
 shipowners were liable to the owners of cargo shipped on 
 board The Crown Prince under a bill of lading containing 
 exceptions of, amongst other things, " collision," and " acci- 
 dents, loss, or damage from any act, neglect, or default 
 whatsoever of the pilots, master, or mariners, or other 
 servants of the company in navigating the ship." It was 
 held that the shipowners were not liable upon the contract of 
 carriage. Baggallay and Lindley, L. JJ., were of opinion 
 that the exception of " collision," although it did not cover 
 the negligence of The Crotvn Prince (^), did cover that of 
 The Atjeh ; and further, that the negligence of The Crotvn 
 Prince was covered by the exception of " accidents, &c." 
 But the shipowners were held liable in tort [y) for the 
 negligence of their servants on board The Atjeh, though, by 
 reason of the rule as to division of loss, for only half 
 the loss. 
 Rule as to The rule as to division of loss where both ships are in fault 
 
 loss. ^06s not affect the right of a cargo-owner to recover full 
 
 damages for breach of the contract of carriage against the 
 owner of the carrying ship, though the other ship was also 
 in fault for the collision. But it abridges his common law 
 right, as against the owner of the other ship, by limiting the 
 liability of the wrong-doer to one-half the loss (s) ; and this 
 
 {t) Chartered Mercantile Bank of Rail. Co., 3 Q. B. D. 23. 
 India v. Netherlands India Steam (z) The Milan, Lush. 388 ; Chap- 
 Navigation Co., 10 Q. B. D. 521. man v. Royal Netherlands Steam 
 
 {tc) Ibid. Navigation Co., 4 P. D. 157, 165 ; 
 
 {x) Lloyd v. General Iron Screw Chartered Mercantile Bank of India 
 
 Collier Co., 3 H. & C. 284 ; Grill v. v. Netherlands India Steam Navi- 
 
 General Iron Screw Collier (7o.,L. R. gation Co., 10 Q. B. D. 621. The 
 
 1 C. P. 600 ; ibid. 3 C. P. 476. Milan, ubi sapra, so far as it decides 
 
 (y) As to the liability of the ship- that the innocent cargo-owner can 
 
 owner in tort as well as upon the recover no more than half his loss 
 
 contract, see Morgan v. Ravey, 6 against the other ship, has not been 
 
 H, & N. 265 ; Pontifex v. Midland followed in America. It has been
 
 DIVISION OF LOSS. 
 
 269 
 
 of t urrv iii^f 
 sl.ij). 
 
 is the case even where the two ships helong to the same 
 owner (a). If part of the loss on cargo is recovered against 
 the owner of the carrying ship, the residue, up to one-half 
 the loss, may, it would seem, be recovered against the other 
 ship. In America T/ir 3li7aii has not been followed, and the 
 right of the cargo-owner to recover full damages against one 
 or other or both the \\Tong- doing ships is fully recognized 7;). 
 
 Damage to goods in a collision caused by the negligence of Exct-ptiou of 
 those of board is not covered by an exception of barratry in a. ' ver 
 
 the bill of lading {c). 
 
 Shipowners contracted with a passenger that they should 
 not be responsible for any loss or damage aiising from perils 
 of the sea .... or from any act, neglect, or defaidt what- 
 soever of the pilot, master, or mariners. It was held that no 
 damages could be recovered for the death of the passenger, 
 who was killed in a collision for which the carrying ship was 
 
 in fault (d). 
 
 Where the collision is caused by an unnecessary, but not Whether 
 
 . . ,,. . exception of 
 
 negligent, breach of the regulations lor preventing collisions ..p,.ril« of the 
 at sea, so as to cause the ship to be deemed to be in fault rj^'i',,;,;;;;;';;^ 
 under the statute, it seems to have been considered by ofthuregu- 
 Brett, M. R., in Woodki/ v. Mic/iel/ {c), that the shipowner ^"^°°''- 
 would be liable for damage to cargo, notwithstanding an 
 exception in the bill of lading of " perils of the sea." Scd qu. 
 
 A railway company carrying passengers by land and sea Effect of 
 
 ,«TT M-, j.\ V notice that 
 
 attempted to free themselves from liability tor the negligence ^^rrier will 
 of their servants by repudiating such liability in public "j^^^^ 
 notices and advertisements. Where, after publication of of Bervimt... 
 
 held by the Supreme Court that the 
 innocent cargo-owner is entitled to a 
 decree for the whole of his loss 
 against either of the wrong-doing 
 ships if one only is sued ; if both are 
 sued he is entitled to a decree for 
 half his loss against each ; and if a 
 moiety of his loss exceeds in amount 
 the 8tatut(jry liability of either of 
 them, or if, for any other reason, he 
 fails to obtain half his total loss from 
 either of them, he is entitled to a 
 further decree against the other for 
 the difference : see The Alabama and 
 The Gamecock, 2 Otto, 695 ; The 
 Juniata, 3 Otto, 337 ; The Atlm, ibid. 
 
 502 ; The Virginia Ehrman, 7 Otto, 
 3011 ; The City of llurlford and The 
 Unit, ibid. 323 ; The Citij of Tant. 
 14 Blatchf. 531 ; The Vitilfa and 
 Thr Jirsthss, 13 Otto, G-.".t; The 
 Eleouora, 17 Blatia»f. SS. 
 
 [a) Chartered MercaiitU' ISmik oj 
 India v. Netherlands India .Sleitm 
 Xaiii/ation Co., ubi supra. 
 
 [b] See supra, p. 131, note (rf). 
 
 Ic) Grill V. General Iron Screw 
 Colhrr Co., L. R. 3 P. »7(;. 
 
 id IlatQ V. Itoifal .Matl .SUam 
 I'aekrl Co'.. 52 L. J.' Q. H. 3;»5, (U(t. 
 
 (<■) 11 (i. H. I). 17.
 
 270 
 
 shipowner's liability as carrier. 
 
 Shipowner's 
 liability to 
 charterer 
 for loss by 
 collision. 
 
 Liability of 
 master as 
 carrier. 
 
 Jurisdiction 
 in Admiralty 
 in case of 
 damag-e to 
 
 cargo. 
 
 suoli a notice, a collipion occurred between a ship employed 
 by the railway company, with cargo and passengers on board, 
 and another ship, by the fault of the former, it was held that, 
 under the Acts regulating their steamship traffic (/'), the 
 company were liable to the passengers and cargo-owners, 
 notwithstanding the notice (g). 
 
 Whether the shipowners are liable to the charterer for loss 
 sustained by the latter in consequence of a collision for which 
 the chartered ship is in fault will depend upon the terms of 
 the charter-party. Where such liability exists it will extend 
 to expenses of salving the cargo, which have been paid by 
 the cliarterers or their underwriters (A). 
 
 In a case (/) where the officers and crew were the servants 
 of the owner, though by the terms of the charter-party the 
 ship was "placed under the direction of" the charterer, it 
 was held that the owners were liable to the charterer for loss 
 sustained by the latter in consequence of the ship getting 
 ashore by the negligence of her crew. 
 
 The master, as well as the owner, is liable for the loss of 
 goods taken on board by him as a common carrier (k) . And 
 it is said that he is liable for the negligence and misfeasance 
 of his officers and crew (/). In America, it was held that the 
 master was liable to a passenger on board his ship who was 
 injured by a collision caused by the fault of the pilot, and 
 not by the fault of the master (m). 
 
 There is jurisdiction in Admiralty in respect of a claim by 
 the owner, consignee, or assignee of the bill of lading of goods 
 carried into any port in England or Wales {n), for damage to 
 
 (/) The Railway and Canal Traffic 
 Act, 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 31); 26 
 & 27 Vict. c. 92, s. 31 ; 34 & 35 
 Vict. c. 119, 8. 12. 
 
 (ff) Boolan v. Midland Rail. Co., 
 2 App. Cas. 792. 
 
 [h) Scaramanga v. Marquand, 5 
 Asp. M. C. 410, 506. 
 
 (i) Omoa and Gleland Coal and Iron 
 Co. V. Uuntley, 2 C. P. D. 464. 
 Amongst other cases, Fletcher v. 
 Braddick, 2 B. & P. (N. R.) 182, 
 teems to have been relied on by 
 the Court as establishing that the 
 owners would be liable to third 
 parties for the negligence of the 
 
 crew. Cf. The Tasmania, 13 P. D. 
 110. 
 
 {k) Mors V. Slew (or Slue), 3 Keb. 
 72, 112, 135 (best report); Raym. 
 220 ; 1 Mod. 85 ; 1 Ventr. 238 ; 
 Boucher v. Lawson, Cas. t. Hardw. 
 85, 194. 
 
 (/) Story on Agency, ^§ 314 — 317 ; 
 3 Kent's Comm. 218 ; MoUoy, 1. 2, 
 c. 2, s. 13. 
 
 {m) Denison v. Seymour, 9 Wend. 9. 
 
 (m) As to the meaning of this 
 term, see The Buhia, Br. & L. 61 ; 
 The Fieve Superiore, L. R. 5 P. C. 
 482 ; The Dantzic, Br. & L. 102.
 
 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. 
 
 271 
 
 the goods by the uegligence or breach of contract bv the 
 owner, master, or crew of the carrying ship, proviiled no 
 owner or part owner of the ship is at the time of the institu- 
 tion of the action resident in England or Wales (o). To 
 enable him to sue, it seems to be necessary that the property 
 in the goods should have passed to him(/>). Thougli the 
 statute gives a right to proceed against the ship in Admiralty, 
 there is no maritime lien for damage in such a case((y). 
 
 The right of the shipowner to recover against the cargo- 
 owner general average contribution for the expenses of raising 
 his ship sunk in collision is considered elsewhere (/•). 
 
 The application of the Act limiting the liability of ship- Limiuti..ii of 
 owners ujion the contract of carriage to an amount dei)ending '* " ' ^' 
 upon the tonnage of their ship is considered above in connec- 
 tion with the subject of limitation of liability (*•). Railway 
 companies carrying by sea in ships not owned by themselves 
 are entitled to the benefit of this Act in some cases in whic-h 
 other carriers by sea are not {t'j. 
 
 Sliiji MiiiK 
 
 Collision with referenck to the Contract of 
 
 Insurance. 
 
 Loss by a collision which occurs without fault in either ship Insurer's lia- 
 is a loss by peril of the sea within the meaning of that term t.',Vii;si,!J, i^"^ 
 in an ordinary policy of insurance on ship (u). And loss by wi»J>"ut ^'»»lt 
 collision caused by the negligence of the other ship is a peril ^vhen- it is bv 
 of the sea for which underwriters are liable (j). Where the tho fault of 
 collision is caused by the fault of both ships, or of the insured when.' it in 
 
 (o) 2i Vict. c. 10, s. G; 36 & 37 
 Vict. c. 66, s. 16. 
 
 (p) See The Freedom, L. R. 3 A. 
 & E. 495, following The St. Cloud, 
 Br. & L. 4 ; The Norway, Br. & L. 
 377. The contrary has been held 
 by Sir R. I'hillimor", though the 
 facts Hid not render a decision upon 
 the point necessary. See The Fujlia 
 Maggiore, L. R. 2 A. & E. 106 ; 
 The Nepoter, ibid. 375. It does not 
 appear that these cases were cited in 
 The Freedom. 
 
 (g) The Pieve Superiore, L. R. 5 
 P. C. 482. 
 
 (y) lii/ra, p. 283. 
 
 (•«) Supra, pp. 146 aeq. 
 
 [t) See supra, p. 164. 
 
 [u) In Huller v. hixher, 3 E.-«j>. 67, 
 it was held to be within the exci']!- 
 tion of "perils of the sea" in ii 
 charter-party : /'hilip/i v. liaiilie, 
 3 Dougl. 374. 
 
 [x] Smtth V. Seoil, -1 Tuuiit. 126; 
 and see y-if )• Lord ("iiiriis, C'., SmipaoH 
 V. Thompson, 3 App. dis 'J7i>, 2S(>. 
 See also Hh/lhn v. Marsh, 1 M'Cord, 
 360, cited in Angi-ll on L'lirricrH, 
 5th ed. 153, note, &n to tbo law in 
 America.
 
 272 
 
 COLLISION WITH REFERENCE TO INSURANCE. 
 
 by the fault 
 of both ships, 
 or of insured 
 ship alone. 
 
 Demurrage 
 expenses 
 arising from 
 collision. 
 
 The "run- 
 ning-down " 
 clause. 
 
 ship alone, it seems that the underwriters are liable for the 
 loss on the insured ship (//). The principle is that, where the 
 loss is caused by a peril insured against, the insurers are 
 liable, although the loss was also caused by the negligence of 
 the insured or his servants (s). In such cases the loss is said 
 to be caused proximately by the peril specified, and remotely 
 by the negligence, and the maxim caum ptvxima non remota 
 spectatur applies (r/). 
 
 Expenses arising from delay caused by collision are not 
 recoverable under the ordinary Lloyd's policy {b). 
 
 By the old form of marine policy the insurers did not 
 undertake to repay to the assured damages which may be 
 recovered against them for a collision in which their ship was 
 in fault {c). But it is now usual for the insurers upon a 
 Lloyd's policy, by a special clause, known as the " running- 
 down " clause, to agree to pay three-fourths of any such 
 damages ; and the remaining one-fourth is frequently covered 
 by separate insurance. 
 
 A common form {d) of the running down clause in a 
 Lloyd's policy is as follows : — 
 
 " And it is further agreed that if the [ship], hereby insured, 
 shall come into collision with any other ship or vessel, and the 
 assureds shall in consequence thereof become liable to pay, and 
 
 {ij) Be Faux V. Salvador, 4 Ad. & 
 E. 420 ; Simpson v. lliompson, 3 
 App. Cas. 279 ; The Putomac, 15 
 Otto, 630 ; General Mutual Insurance 
 Co. V. Shericood; 14 How. 351 (the 
 last two are American cases). 
 
 (s) Dixon V. Sadler, 5 M. & W. 
 414, 415 ; S. C. on app. 8 M. & W. 
 895 ; Walker v. Maitland, 5 B. & A. 
 171 ; Busk V. Royal Exchange Assur- 
 ance Co., 2 B. & Aid. 73 ; Dudgeon v. 
 Femhrokc, 2 App. Cas. 2H4 ; Davidson 
 V. Burnand, L. R. 4 C. P. 117, 121. 
 
 [a) See further as to this subject, 
 Arnould on Insurance, 7th ed. 
 ss. 791 seq. ; Simpson v. Thompson, 
 3 App Cas. 279. Cf. French Com- 
 mercial Code, Arts. 350 and 353 ; 
 Spanish C. C. Art. 861 ; Dutch C. C. 
 Art. 637 ; German C. C. Arts. 820, 
 821. By the two first codes, only 
 abordages fortuits, by the others, all 
 collisions, are at the insurer's risk. 
 It has been held that loss in a colli- 
 sion caused by the fault of those on 
 
 board the carryiug ship does not 
 arise from barratry, within the 
 meaning of that term in a bill of 
 lading : Grill v. General Iron Screw 
 Collier Co., L. R. 3 C. P. 476. 
 
 {b) De Faux v. Salvador, 4 A. & E. 
 420. For an instance of collision as 
 causa proxima, see EeischerY. Boruxck, 
 (1894) 2 Q. B. 548. 
 
 ic) De Faux v. Salvador, 4 A. & E. 
 420. This case, once dissented from 
 in America, is now recognized as 
 binding by the Supreme Court : 
 General Mutual Insurance Co. v. Sher- 
 rvood, 14 How. 352. Aliter by 
 French law : Caumont, Diet, de 
 Droit Mar. tit. Abordage : and by 
 German law : German C. C. Art. 
 824. 
 
 [d) This form is taken from 
 Maude & Pollock on Shipping, 
 4th ed. 446. More modern forms of 
 the clause are set out in " Marine 
 Insurance," by Mr. Douglas Owen, 
 3rd ed. 94 si?^.
 
 RUNNING DOWN CLAUSE. 373 
 
 shall pay, any sum or sums not exceeding the value of tlie said 
 vessel hereby assured, we, the assurers, will severally pay the 
 assureds such proportions of three-fourths of the sum so paid, as 
 our respective subscriptions hereto boar to the insured value of 
 the said vessel. And in cases whore the liability of tho sliip has 
 been contested, with our consent in writing, we will also pay a 
 like proportion of three-fourths of the costs thereby incurred or 
 paid. But tliis agreement is in no case to be construed as 
 extending to any sums the assureds may become liable to pay, 
 or shall pay, in respect to loss of life or personal injury to 
 individuals from any cause whatever." 
 
 A ruiiuiug-dowii clause expressed to cover duinagcs wliidi Tuytorv. 
 the assured ship should be compelled to pay for rxinning down *"'""■ 
 and damaging- another ship was held not to include damages 
 recovered against the insured shij) b}' the representatives of 
 persons on board the other ship \\ho lost their lives in the 
 collision {e). In another case (/) a similar clause was held 
 not to include costs which the insured incurred in defending a 
 collision action brought against his ship. In the form of policy 
 in use at Lloyd's, these points are now expressly provided for ; 
 the insurers undertake to repay three-fourths of the costs, if 
 the liability of the ship is contested with their consent ; and 
 damages for loss of life or personal injury are expressly left 
 at the risk of the assured. 
 
 T//P North Britain {(i) and Tin- Parafjiui//, hy \]u' fault ..f Thr x„rth 
 both, collided in the Scheldt. The Parafnun/ sank, and lier 
 owners were compelled to repay to the Belgian authorities 
 the cost of raising her. The North Jiritaiii (Avuers paid Iiall' 
 this sum to The Parafjuny owners, as damages caused by the 
 collision; and they sought to recover this sum from fli'- 
 underm-iters ou The North Britain. In the policy there \\;i> 
 a proviso that the underwriters should not be liable for "any 
 sum which the assured may become liable to pay or sliall pay 
 for removal of obstructions under statutory ]iowers." It was 
 
 But the contrary has been held in C/) Tlie -^'"•//' ,,{''••'"•": ('«'tLi; 
 
 Scotland: Coey v. Snnlh, I'l Ct. of 77; approved in //«■ /.m/.'.m-. (IMW) 
 
 Sess. Chs. 2nd Hor. 9.5o ; Exchior Co. App. CaM. :5S2 ; ^'"'•//'•'•;;;;,/''f '""'';' 
 
 V. Smith, 2 L. T. 90. MkIkhI liisunincr Co., (IttOO) 2 IJ. ». 
 
 {/) Xeno-s V. For, L. R. 4 C. P. 
 M. 
 
 ;{1H.
 
 274 
 
 COLLISION WITH REFERENCE TO INSURANCE. 
 
 The Munroe. 
 
 The Niobe. 
 
 Thompson v. 
 Iteynolds. 
 
 held upon appeal, reversing the decision of Gorell Barnes, J., 
 that the underwriters were not liable. 
 
 The risk {h) covered by a policy included " loss or damage 
 through collision with any other ship or vessels or ... . 
 sunken .... wreck." The ship grounded on a sunken 
 wreck, and was damaged, and afterwards forged slightly 
 ahead until her bows grounded upon a heap of iron ore, 
 which was part of the cargo of another sunken ship, where 
 she received farther damas-e from the ore forward and the 
 wreck aft. It was held that the insurers were liable for the 
 whole of the damage. In Chtoidler v. -/5%// (/), striking a 
 barge that was sunk and about to be raised was held to be 
 " collision witli any other ship or vessel " ; and in Union 
 Mffrinr Iiihii ranee Co. v. Bonriek [k), grounding on the toe or 
 underwater part of Holyhead breakwater was held to be 
 " collision with .... piers, or stages, or similar structures " 
 within the meaning of those words iu policies of insurance. 
 So in Margettn v. Oeean Aecidenf mid Guarantee Association, 
 striking upon another ship's anchor was held to be collision 
 with a " vessel " (/). 
 
 In The N'iohe{m), the doctrine that tug and tow are one 
 ship was applied so as to make insurers on the tow liable for 
 damage done by the tug. The policy contained the usual 
 collision clause, and the tug, by her own fault and by the 
 fault of the tow, was in collision with a third ship, for which 
 collision the tow was sued and paid damages. It was held 
 that the insurers were liable. 
 
 A ship was insured in a policy containing a running-down 
 clause, by which the insurers undertook to bear three-fourths 
 of any sum, not exceeding the value of the ship and freight, 
 which the assured should become liable to pay, and should 
 pa3% for collision with another ship. The sliip insured was 
 sold in an Admiralty damage suit for less than her value. It 
 was held tliat the underwriters were liable for no more than 
 three-fourths of the sum for which the ship was sold {n). 
 
 (h) The Munroe, (1893) P. 218. 
 (i) 8 Asp. M. C. 349. 
 [k] 8 Anp. M. C. 71. 
 (/) (1901) 2 K. B. 792. 
 
 [ni) McCowan v. Bain, The Niobe, 
 (1891) A. C. 401. 
 
 (h) Tlivnip.^oH V. Reynolds, 7 E. & 
 B. 172.
 
 RUNNING DOWN CLAUSE. 27 J 
 
 The Bahiacraig (o) was insured with tho London Stoamship I • ^ 
 Owners' Insurance Association ajraiust " loss of or daniaj>e to ', 
 any other vessel .... so far as such loss is not covered by \ ■ 
 the usual form of Lloyd's jjolieies with the clause commonly ''tZ"LIL^.''' 
 known as the running-down clause attached." She was also <•'•'">• 
 insured with the same Association and at Lloyd's against the 
 usual maritime risks, including colli^ion. Whilst so insured 
 she came into collision with The lutro, and in the collision 
 both ships received damage, but the loss to The Baiiiacnii); 
 exceeded that to The Karo. Both ships were in fault, and 
 the owners of The Karo (without any action being br<night 
 b}' or against them) paid to the owners of The li>iliuirnti<i the 
 difference between half the losses on the two ships respectively. 
 The question arose (in a claim for a set-off in an action for 
 money received by the defendants, The Baliutcmiej owners, for 
 the use of the plaintiffs, the Insurance Association), whether 
 The Bahiacmig owners were entitled to recover against the 
 Association a sum of 51/., which sum represented one-fourth 
 of the damage suffered by The Karo in the collision, and had 
 been taken into account in reduction of the amount paid hy 
 her owners to the owners of The Bahiacraig. It was held by 
 Mathew and Wills, JJ., that The Ba/tiacraig owners were 
 entitled to receive nothing from the Association ; that the 
 collision clause in the Lloyd's policy never came into oiiora- 
 tion, because nothing was ever paid or payable by The Ha/na- 
 craig owners to The Karo owners. The principle laid down 
 by The Khedive {p) (said Mathew, J.) was, that "neither in 
 fact nor in law is the owner of the assured ship liable to pay 
 or entitled to receive more than the balance which etpializes 
 tlie loss"; and the words of the collision clause, "beconif 
 liable to pay, and shall pay," showed that it was iutcndfil 
 to operate only where the balance of loss by collision being 
 against the assured ship, she had to make a payment to the 
 other ship. 
 
 It is a maxim of insurance law that the assured cannot TuMiiriiiic.' 
 recover for a loss caused by his own wrong-doing (y). ]\n\ ""Tr^"',^,,' 
 
 (o) London Steamship Owners' In- (p) 7 App. Cii8. 70.'). 
 
 siiraiiee Co. v. Grampian Sleamxhip (y) Seo /Jrt-Lord Ciimuboll, 7/io»«/y- 
 
 Co., 24 Q. B. D. C63. «ow v. llopprr, E. & H. Ml, I'JI. 
 
 t2
 
 276 
 
 COLLISION WITH REFERENCE TO INSURANCE. 
 
 Loss after 
 voyao'e 
 insured from 
 collision 
 
 during 
 voyage. 
 
 Insurers 
 subrogated 
 to rights of 
 insured. 
 
 this rule does not invalidate a contract to indemnify the 
 assured against damages payable by him in respect of loss 
 caused by the negligence of his servants (r). Any doubt 
 that formerly existed as to the validity of such insurances (.s-) 
 is removed by 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, s. 506. They may be 
 effected without a policy (;') , and have given rise to a new and 
 special class of insurance societies or clubs. 
 
 If a ship receives her death wound in a collision which 
 occurs during a voyage or time for which the ship is insured, 
 and she sinks after the completion of the voyage or time, a 
 question might arise as to the liability of the insurers. In a 
 case mentioned by Willes, J. (u), but not rej)orted, tlie in- 
 surer (./•) was held not liable in such case. In Kniglit v. 
 Faith (//), a somewhat similar case, the case above referred to 
 was doubted, and underwriters on a time policy were held 
 liable for a partial loss. 
 
 After paying the amount due upon the policy for a total 
 loss the insurers are entitled to the ship herself, salvage from 
 her (;;), and all the rights of the assured in respect of her [a). 
 But they are not necessarily subject to liabilities to which the 
 owner was subject in respect of her [ti). So they are entitled 
 to any damages that may be recovered against the wrong-doer 
 in a collision by which the insured ship is injured or lost {c). 
 
 {r) See Thoiupson v. Reynolds, 7 
 E. & B. 172; Walker v. Maitland, 
 o B. & A. 171. 
 
 (■•>■) See Anfiiii/nions Cnne (or Delanoy 
 V. Itohson), 5 Taunt. GO.) ; Tdijlir v. 
 J)t irar, n B. & S. 5S. 
 
 (/) 54 & ;').", Vict. c. 39, s. 93. 
 
 (?/) Mcretoiiy v. Limlupe, 1 T. R. 
 260. It ajipears that insiired in 
 report of 1817 is a misprint for 
 insurer .' see 15 Q. B. 604, note. 
 
 [x) See Lochyer v. OjfUn, 1 T. R. 
 252. If a ship which is iuNured is 
 injured in collision and is repnired, 
 and afterwards becomes a total loss, 
 the insurers are liable as well for 
 the expense of the repairs as for the 
 loss. But they are not liable for 
 damage caused by the collision be- 
 yond the expense actually incurred 
 m repniriug such damage: Steuart 
 \. liteclo, 5 S(ott, N. R. 927. 
 
 [y] lo Q. B. G49, G67. See also 
 
 Lidqett v. Secret an, L. R. 5 C. P. 
 190'. 
 
 (;) As to what is salvage, see 
 Binnand v. Rvducanachi, 6 Q. B. D. 
 633 ; 7 App. Cas. 333. 
 
 {n) See Barrell v. Tihhits, 5 Q. B. 
 D. 560 (a case of fire insurance). 
 
 [h) As, for example, the expense 
 of compulsorily raising her : luj- 
 hnrjton V. Kurinan, 46 L. J. Ex. •')57, 
 overruled ou anotlier point. 
 
 (e) Yales v. Tlln/tc, i Bing. N. 0. 
 '272, 283; 5 Scot't, 650; Jr/iife v. 
 I)ol)i>iso)i, 14 Sim. 373; Rmidal v. 
 Coclirane, 1 Ves. 98 ; Blnanpot v. 
 Da Costa, 1 Eden, 130 ; Brooks v. 
 MacBoinieU, 1 Y. & C. Ex. 5U0 ; 
 Midland Iniuranee Cu. v. Smith, 
 6 Q. B. D. 561 ; Scaraiiiaiiga v. 
 Marquand, 5 Asp. M. C. 410, 506. 
 As to what evidence is required of 
 the right of the in&uier to sue in the 
 name of the insured, see The John 
 Bellamy, L. R. 3 A. & E. 129.
 
 SUBROGATION OF ASSURKRS TO RIGHTS OK ASSURED. 077 
 
 And, in the case of a valued poliov. tlu> liglit ..f the insui-ers 
 is the same, although the vaUie named in the policy is loss 
 than the actual value of the ship {d). 
 
 A policy of insurance was effected for <).()00/. upon a ship x^rfh pf 
 which was valued at 6,000/. The ship was sunk in a n.llisioii. , J'- 
 and the underwi'iters paid the owners 0,0(K)/., as for a total -/*»««■«•'•«>•• v. 
 loss. Afterwards, the underwi-iters, in the name of the ship- ' "'"''■"''^• 
 owners, instituted a damage suit in the Admiralty Court 
 against the other ship. It was held that the last-mentioned 
 ship was solely in fault for the eolHsion, and judgment was 
 given against her owners for 5,GS3/. ll.v. 7'/.. the amount of 
 their statutory liability. The true value of the ship insured 
 was 9,000/. ; and her owners claimed so much of the damages 
 recovered in the Admiralty action as would make up the 
 difference between the sum paid to them by the und(>rwriters 
 and the value of their ship. It was held that, as between the 
 shipowner and the underwriters, the value named in the policy 
 was conclusive, and that the underwTiters were entitled to the 
 whole of the damages, just as they would have been entitled 
 to the ship if she had been sunk and afterwards recovered (r). 
 
 A vessel being insured by valued policies to the extent of T/ie r.inmne 
 
 two-thirds of her valuation, the assured agreed to assign to c.,^')*_ 
 
 the insurers all right to recover damages for any loss paid for 
 
 by them, and that the insurers should be entitled to such 
 
 proportion of the damages recovered as the amount insured 
 
 should bear to the valuation in the policies. The insurers 
 
 paid to the assured two-thirds of the loss suffered by them in 
 
 a collision for which both ships were in fault, and they released 
 
 and assigned to the owners of the other ship their right to 
 
 damages growing out of the collision. In an action by tlii> 
 
 owners of the insured ship against the owners of the other 
 
 ship for damages from the collision, it was held by the Supremo 
 
 Court of the United States that one-half of the two-thirds 
 
 must be deducted from the sum recoverable by the owners of 
 
 the insured ship against the other sliii» (./). 
 
 If the assured, after receiving the amount of his loss from AKKun-.! 
 
 ^ truxUv I 
 
 {d) North of England, ^c. As!iura)icc AimDciation v. Ariinlruwj, L. K. .j 
 
 AsHOcialion v. Anmtrong, L. R. 5 Q. B. 2H. 
 Q. B. 244. (/) ^''" J'otoiiKic, 1.') OtU), 030. 
 
 {e) North of Entjland, ^c. Amurance 
 
 In 
 for
 
 278 
 
 COLLISION WITH REFERENCE TO INSURANCE. 
 
 insurer of 
 damages 
 recovered ; 
 lie may sue 
 wrong-doer 
 uotwithstand- 
 iiig payment 
 by insurers. 
 
 Insurers can- 
 not recover 
 where insured 
 could not have 
 recovered. 
 
 Rights of 
 underwriters 
 in case of 
 collision 
 between ships 
 of the same 
 owner. 
 
 bis insurers, recovers damages from tho wrong-doer in the 
 collision, be is a trustee of such damages for the under- 
 writer {(j). But the fact that the plaintiff in a collision action 
 has been compensated for his loss by his insurers is no answer 
 to his claim for damages against the wrong-doer [h). 
 
 The defendants insured their ship, TJie Queen of the East, 
 for 1,000/. with the plaintiffs; and insured the freight else- 
 where. The ship, while proceeding to a port of loading 
 under a charter-party, was run into and damaged by T/ie 
 CaHmiuIrn. The defendants abandoned their ship to the 
 plaintiffs, who settled with the defendants as for a total loss. 
 The defendants afterwards recovered in the Admiralty 
 Division against the owner of The Catimndm damages in 
 respect of the loss of their ship and also in respect of loss of 
 freight. It was held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to 
 recover against the defendants the damages recovered by 
 them for loss of freight. The money had been paid by the 
 defendants to the insurers on freight, and, in the opinion of 
 the Conrt of Appeal, rightly so paid [i). 
 
 In an action in which the insured could not have recovered 
 damages, neither can the underwriters. They have no right 
 of action apart from him (/•) ; and in a case in Admiralty 
 before the Judicature Act it was held that they must sue in 
 his name {!). 
 
 Where a collision occurred between two ships belonging to 
 the same owner, and one of them, with cargo on board not 
 belonging to the shipowner, was sunk by the fault of the 
 other shi}), the shipowner paid into Court, under the Mer- 
 chant Shipping Acts, the amount to which his liability, as 
 owner of the wrong-doing ship, Avas limited. It was held, 
 that as against the cargo- owners, underwriters upon the 
 innocent ship, who had paid the insurance upon her, were 
 
 {(j) Yates V. Whytc, tihi supra. 
 
 {/i) ifason V. Sainsbury, 3 Dougl. 
 61; Yd Irs v. JTlnjtc, nbi supra; 
 Taylor v. Dcwar. i B. & E. 58. 
 And see Bradburn v. Grrnt Western 
 Rail. Co., L. R. 10 Ex. 1 ; TZ/c 
 Ycar/er, 20 Fed. Rep. 653 ; T/ie 
 rotomac. 13 Fed. Rep. 399. 
 
 (i) 8ea Insurance Co. v. Eadden, 
 
 o3 L. J. Q. B. 252; 13 Q. B. D. 
 706. 
 
 (/,-) Simpson V. Tliompson, 3 App. 
 Cas. 279. 
 
 (0 The Rcyina del Marc. Br. & L. 
 315; The John. Bellamy, L. R. 3 A. 
 & E. 129 : Midland Insurance Co. v. 
 SinUh, 6 Q. B. D. 661.
 
 NO GENERAL AVERAGE COXTKIBUTION. 279 
 
 entitled to no part of the money paid into Court (/»)• The 
 decision would, it seems, be tlie same in the case of a collision 
 between two ships owned in part by the same persons. 
 
 In Siinp.^oii V. T/ionipsun the members of the House i>f 
 Lords who addressed the House declined to express an 
 opinion whether the ordinary marine policy covers a loss by 
 collision with another ship belonging to the assured. 
 
 Damage to ship or goods by collision is not the subject ni N.. fieiuTal 
 general average contribution ; and the insurers will not SuUuirfor 
 ordinarily be liable to contribute in such case lUit for 'l'"""^'^' '" 
 loss voluntarily incurred in consequence of collision, as where 
 gear and wreckage is cut away for the safety of tlic ship, 
 the shipowner has recovered by wa}^ of general average 
 contribution (//). In such a case the underwriter would be 
 liable. 
 
 A collision between a barque and a steamship being inevit- 
 able, without fault on the part of the barque, the banpic 
 altered her course so as to strike the steamship stem on, and 
 thereby probably saved herself from being sunk with Ian- 
 cargo. In consequence of the collision she had to go into a 
 Danish port for repairs. She was arrested at the suit of tlie 
 steamer, and by a decree of the Danish Court her owners 
 were compelled to pay half the difference of the losses on tlie 
 two ships. They sought to recover this sum, together with 
 the cost of the repairs to their own ship, and of the proceed- 
 ings in the Danish Court, as general average contribution 
 from the owners of cargo. It was held by a Massacliusctts 
 Court that the}' could not recover (o). 
 
 iNcinKN'iAi, KiGins AM) LiAinii'iiKs aiusinc; oi i ok 
 
 Collision. 
 
 Beyond incurring the civil liability for damages, the (viiiiimtl 
 iierson ffuilty of reckless or nei^ligent navigation, wliereby a ''"'"'"V '""■ 
 
 (w) Simpson v. Thompnon, W App. shipowner to ffenoral iivtiM^ri- <<iii- 
 
 Cas. 270. The riji^hts and liabilities tribution from r.ir^ro-owiiiT wIium- 
 
 of unflerwriters wok; very fully dis- goods were sunk in collision nnd 
 
 cussed ill this case. raised with the sliip. 
 
 {n) riumnier v. Wildman, 3 M. & (a) Kiiirnj v. lltintnujtuii, \'l Anicr. 
 
 S. 482. Sec alst) The Ettnric, (i Kep. 72.'). 
 P. D. !27, as to the right of the
 
 280 
 
 INCIDENTAL RIGHTS AND LIADILITIES. 
 
 Infringeineut 
 of the regu- 
 lations. 
 
 collision occurs in wliieli life is lost, or bodily injury suffered, 
 may be prosecuted criminally. " Those who navigate impro- 
 perly, either by too much speed, or by negligpnt conduct, are 
 as much liable, if death ensues, as those who cause it on a 
 public highway, either by furious driving or negligent con- 
 duct " (/>). The criminal liability attaches only to those by 
 whose personal misconduct or negligence the collision 
 occurs (^). But where a foreign ship, in charge of an 
 English pilot in the Thames, ran down a boat and drowned 
 a man, and the collision was caused by the man at the helm, 
 a foreigner, not understanding and carrying out the pilot's 
 orders, it was held that the pilot was guilty of manslaughter, 
 if by his own negligence he failed to make his orders under- 
 stood (>•). 
 
 The master, pilot, or any seaman of a British ship, who 
 wilfully or negligently endangers the life of any person on 
 board such ship, or endangers the ship herself, is guilty of a 
 misdemeanour (-s'). 
 
 Malicious injury to a boat used for the guidance of seamen 
 or for purposes of navigation is felony {t). 
 
 AVhere an infringement of the collision regulations causes 
 damage, the person in charge of the deck is guilty of a mis- 
 demeanour {ii). 
 
 Wilful infringement of the regulations by a master or 
 owner is a misdemeanour punishable by fine or imprisonment. 
 In case of damage arising from such infringement, the person 
 in charge of the deck is liable to these penalties, unless it is 
 proved that departure from the regulations was necessary (.r) . 
 And although the master or person in charge of the ship is 
 liable criminally, the owner is answerable in a civil action for 
 damage caused by his officer's negligence (i/) . 
 
 [p) Per Parke, B., in Rcy. v. 
 Tai/lor, 9 C. & P. 072, 674. 
 
 [q) Rix V. Allen, 7 C. & P. loS ; 
 Rex V. Green, ihid. 156 ; Ret/, v. 
 Beirrett, 2 C. & K. 393; Ree/. v. 
 Haines, ibid. 368 ; and see Oakley v. 
 Speedy, 40 L. T. 881. 
 
 (r) Reg. v. Spencc, 1 Cox, C. C. 
 352. See London. School Board v. 
 Lardner, Times, 20 Feb. 1884. 
 
 (.s) 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, ss. 220, 
 607. 
 
 (0 24 & 25 Viet. c. 97, s. 48. 
 
 («) 57 & 58 Viet c. 60, ss. 419, 
 680. 
 
 (.r) As to whether an infringement 
 of local regulations is within the 
 penalty of these Acts, see The Ltuly 
 Downs'hire, 4 P. D. 26 ; The Swansea 
 and The Condor, 4 P. D. 115; supra, 
 p. 55. 
 
 {y) See Grill v. General Iron Screw 
 Cuilier Co., L. R. 3 C. P. 476, where 
 it was held that wilful infringement
 
 CRIMINAT. T.TMULTTY FOR COLUSIOX. 281 
 
 In tho ease of a collision eansed by tlip oriniinal fanlt of a Criminal Hh- 
 
 foreigner, or where the collision occurs abroad, if it is soijcrht |;'1">; *''^'^* 
 
 p* tin- sliip i>r 
 
 to punish the offender in this country, questions of dillitultv the •.fffiidor 
 arise as to his liability to the criminal law of England, anil Ihe iSk '"^ 
 
 UMUll 
 
 the jurisdiction of our Courts. The liability and jurisdiction i'^"^""'* at>nMid. 
 
 depend upon (1) the otfender's nationality; ('2) the flag of 
 
 the ship on board which the offence was committed ; and 
 
 (3) the place of collision. Tho subject does not belong to 
 
 the present treatise ; but it has been the occasion of nnich 
 
 discussion as to the limits of municipal and Admiralty jiu-is- 
 
 diction. The cases are collected below {z). 
 
 If a collision involving loss of life or serious damage to ()ttif«»r'sciT- 
 either ship is caused by the wrongful act or default of an tiJ'cam-cllS. 
 officer holding a Board of Trade certificate, his certificate 
 may be cancelled or suspended at a Board of Trade 
 inquiry (r/). 
 
 One of the consequences of negligence causing collision is Siilvjijro ufti-r 
 that the wrong-doer cannot recover salvage remuneration for 
 service rendered to the ship with which he has been in colli- 
 sion, although the latter is also in fault for tho collision (/») ; 
 nor, a fortiori, can he claim salvage against the innocent 
 owner of cargo on board her. Nor can a tug recover salvage 
 reward for assistance rendered to a ship with which her tow 
 has been in collision by the fault of herself, tho tug {<■). An 
 innocent ship may recover salvage for services rendered ti> 
 another which has negligently run into her. The law which 
 makes it the duty of a ship which has been in collision with 
 another to stand by her, and render assistance, does not pro- 
 of the regulations was not barratry {h) Caryu ex Capellu, L. R. 1 A. & 
 within the meaning of a bill of E. ;5')0, followed in Tli- Vnxtle /Umik/, 
 l^diii^r. Ad. Div. March. 1S8() : Tlir Kttiuk, 
 {z)^Rc(j. V. KeiiH, 2 Ex. D. (io, ^V.Vi. 127; and see The (lUinj.ilHf, 
 232, acq. ; Reg. v. Snttlcr, D. & T5. L. R. 3 A. & E. ^Vi\. The ml.' ih 
 C. C. ft25 ; 7lV//. v. Anderson, L. R. the same in Amirica : Tin- f'linfii, 
 1 C. C. R. 161 ; Re(/. v. Can; 10 23 Wall. 1 ; T/ie Sampaou, 1 IMatohf. 
 Q. B. D. 76 ; Reg. v. Sebcrg, L. R. 28 ; The C/iarles E. Super, lU Fed. 
 1 C. C. R.264; CinminghaniH Ca.se, Rep. 81 4. 
 
 Bell's C. C. 220, 234 ; Reg. v. Men- [c) The Ulemjaher, u/n tiipra ; The 
 
 ham, 1 F. & r. 369 ; Reg. v. Lewis, Altnir, (1897) P. 105. Where »hc 
 1 D. & B. C. C. 182. fault of the tug wmh a HUitulory 
 
 (a) 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, hs. 469, infringement of the rrgulationH att 
 470; 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, h. 23. As to liglits, h<-r claim to .salvage wiu* 
 to the master's liability in respect of not disallowed: The VcrUM, (1901) 
 his certificate when a pilot is ou 1'. 304. 
 board, see hiipni, pp. 238 seq.
 
 282 
 
 INCIDENTAL KIGIITS AND LIABILITIES. 
 
 Salvage for 
 towing ships 
 clear of each 
 other. 
 
 Tug or salvor 
 in collision 
 ■with the 
 vessel she is 
 assisting. 
 
 vent her from recovering salvage reward for assistance so 
 given (d). A tug is entitled to salvage remuneration from 
 one of two ships in collision to which she renders assistance 
 by towing the other clear (e). And it seems that upon the 
 same principle, a vessel would be entitled to salvage re- 
 muneration for holding one ship off another towards which 
 she is driving. 
 
 A salvor damaged, without negligence on her own part, by 
 collision with the vessel she is assisting, may recovtr against 
 the latter (_/') ; and a vessel engaged in rendering a salvage 
 service to another does not forfeit her right to salvage by 
 going into collision with the other, even though there was 
 negligence on her part such as to make her liable in damages 
 for the collision {(/) . 
 
 Where two vessels were in collision, and entangled together 
 in a position dangerous to both, tlie propeller of one being 
 foul of the chain cables of the other, a tug which, by towing 
 ahead the vessel at anchor, enabled her to slip from her 
 anchors, and so get clear from the vessel which was foul of 
 her, was held to be entitled to recover salvage award from 
 both vessels (//). 
 
 A salving tug was in America held liable to a third ship 
 which the salved ship struck and injured by reason of the 
 insufficient power of the tug, although the salvage service 
 (towing out of dock a ship on fire) was properly undertaken, 
 and there was no negligence on the part of the tug in per- 
 forming it (/). 
 
 The fact that some of the owners of a ship that rendered 
 salvage service to another were also owners of the ship whose 
 negligence had done the mischief, and rendered the service 
 necessary, was held not to deprive the salving ship of the 
 right to salvage remuneration (/). Sir II. Phillimore said: — 
 
 {(/) The Eftricvcr and The Queen, 
 17 L. T. 329. 
 
 (f) The Vamlyck, 7 P. D. 42. 
 
 (/) The Aliid Hopper, 4 Asp. M. C. 
 103. 
 
 iff) The C. S. Butler and The 
 Baltic, L. R. 4 A. & E. 178. In 
 The Diana, 2 Asp. M. C. 366, the 
 owners of a ship which had been 
 found to blame for collision were 
 allowed to intervene in a salvage 
 
 suit instituted by third parties 
 against the injured ship, and to 
 have the conduct of the defence. 
 In The I)u-ina, (1892) P. 58, the 
 amt)unt of the damage was deducted 
 from the salvage award. 
 
 [h) The VandycJc, 7 P. D. 42. 
 
 (i) The Ashbourne, 99 Fed. Rep. 
 111. 
 
 (/•; Tlie Glcnrjahcr, L. R. 3 A. & 
 E. o34.
 
 COLLISION WITH TOW. 2S3 
 
 ''I know of no authority for the proposition that a vessel 
 wholly unconnected with the act of misdiief is disentitled tj 
 salvage reward simply because she belongs to the same 
 owners as the vessel that has done the mischief." 
 
 If by the negligence of those on board a tug in tho per- CIUm..,. with 
 formance of the towage the ship in tow is damaged bv *«* »'>'.^«»'t 
 collision with a third ship, or damages a third ship, and is Ircarh i.f 
 compelled to make such damage good, there is a breach of HtS. 
 the towage contract, and the tug can recover notliiug in 
 respect of the towage service (/). And we have seen [m^ that, 
 beyond forfeiting their right to remuneration, the ownere of 
 the tug, and the tug herself, are liable to the owners of the 
 tow for the loss. Where a vessel in tow is injured in a 
 collision, and has to stop and repair- her damages, the tu"- is 
 not entitled in a towage action to further remuneration 
 beyond the sum agreed for towage, because she voluntarily 
 stands by whilst the repairs are being effected, and then 
 completes the towage (n) . 
 
 Damage received in a collision by a ship or cargo is not Gcmral 
 the subject of general average contribution ; and this is so tdbuu'ou?'"' 
 whether the ship was in fault for the collision or not. But 
 loss voluntarily incurred for the benefit of all concerned after 
 and in consequence of a collision for which the ship was not 
 in fault (o), and salvage expenses incurred under the same 
 circumstances (p), may be recovered as general average. 
 The owners of a ship sunk in collision by her own fault 
 cannot recover by way of general average contribution 
 from cargo owners any part of the exi^ense of raising the 
 cargo (y). 
 
 If a ship after collision sinks, her owners are in some Kxponsc of 
 |)laces liable under local Acts to the harbour authority or Hunk in" 
 other public body for the expense of raising her; and such i""'-""'- 
 
 (F) The Chrislinn, 3 W. Rub. 27. [p) See per Brett, M. H.. in Thf 
 
 Semble, ul'dcr where the contract is Etirick, C P. D. 127; Kniip v. 
 
 for salvHg'e service : The C. S. BnlUr, JlaHidai/, L. R. 1 (^ 1?. ')J(>. But 
 
 L. R. 4 A. k E. 178. »ee Gren- v. Tool,; :> (^ M. P. 272. 
 
 {/«) Supra, pp. 272 scfj. {>/) The Ktlrick, (J 1'. I). 127. Cp. 
 
 \n) The Jljvmmelf, 6 P. T). 227. Svarumfiiuju v. Afdn/iiaiiil, .') Anp. 
 
 ('/) See J'lKiiiiiicr v. WildnKin, \i M. C. 110, .iflCi, um to thi- rifflitn of 
 
 M. & S. 482. This case was inucli the carj^o-owner und Ium uiidir- 
 
 discussed iu All wood v. HdUtr, >) writers, xnpru, p. 278. 
 Q. B. D. 286.
 
 284 
 
 INCIDENTAL KTGHTS AND LIABILITIES. 
 
 Penalty for 
 
 injuring 
 
 lightship. 
 
 Rights of 
 holder of 
 bottomry 
 bond ou 
 freia-ht. 
 
 expense may usually he recovered by the authorities by 
 sale of the ship and cargo (/•). 
 
 If a vessel wilfully or negligently injures a lightship, she 
 incurs, in addition to her liability for damages, a penalty 
 of 50/. (.s). 
 
 As to the right of the holder of a bottomry bond on 
 freight to share in the amount of the wrong-doing ship- 
 owner's statutory liability, see above, p. I(i5. 
 
 (r) As to the Thames, see T/ie Vict. c. Ixxxvii. ; 20 & 21 Vict. e. 147 
 
 i'Wric/t, G P. D. 127 \ The HarritK/lfin, (local); the Tyne, see The Crystal, 
 
 \-\ P. D. 48; The Sea Spray. (1907) (1894) App. Cas. 508. 
 
 P. 13:^ ; 40 & 41 "Vict. c. 16 ; 57 & 58 («) 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, s. 666.
 
 280 
 
 SrTvil-O of 
 
 writ out <if 
 thf jiiris«lip. 
 tioii. 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 PRACTirE (a). 
 
 Neither in the Adrairaltv (h) nor in tlio Kinjj's Boncli 
 Division (r) can a personal action for damages, in rcsiH'ot of 
 a collision occurring below low-water mark of the United 
 Kingdom, be brought against a person not domicilii or 
 ordinarily resident within the jurisdiction (d) unless tlie writ 
 of summons be served within the jurisdiction. In suclia case, 
 service of the writ out of the jurisdiction will not be ord»'red 
 except where the person to be served is a necessarj' or proper 
 person to an action properly brought against another person 
 who has been duly served within the jurisdiction (r). 
 
 A writ addressed to a person resident abroad and intended 
 to be served upon his coming within the jurisdiction, will not 
 be set aside merely because it describes him as having an 
 English address (/'). A writ addressed to a foreign cor- 
 poration without any fui-ther description than the style of the 
 corporation will be set aside ( {/) ; and a writ served upon the 
 clerk of a firm who in this country act as agents of a foreign 
 corporation, will be set aside (//). 
 
 In an action i/t rci)/ the writ of summons was served in the Ry wliom t.. 
 manner provided by Ord. IX. r. \'2. No appearance was 
 
 .\(l<ln'<s I if 
 writ. 
 
 (a) The present chapter in an 
 epitonu! of practice cases whicli have 
 arisen in e(jllisiuu actions. For in- 
 formation npon Admiralt\' practice 
 ji^enerilly, tlie reader is referred to 
 Williams & Bruce, Admiralty Prac- 
 tice ; Ruscoe's Admiralty Law and 
 Tractice : Raikes n Kilhm-n, Ad- 
 miralty Jurisdiction of the (Joiinty 
 Courts. 
 
 {b) In re Smith, 1 P. J). oOO ; T/ir 
 Vtrrir, -1 P. D. 20 ; '/'//'■ Ifc/nis/m, 7 
 P. D. o7. 
 
 (e) Harris v. Owners of the Fnni- 
 couin, 2 C. P. 1). 17:}. 
 
 {'I) Ord. XI. r. 1. 8uh-s. (.i). As 
 t ) a foreign corporation caiTyiiif.' on 
 busines.s in this (rounfry ^Or,|. IX. 
 r. >S), see '/'//'■ Uniiri/wjur, (l!S'.)i») App. 
 Cas. l.il. 
 
 >) Thr ]hic (/'.l XIII, I If. (H»();{) P. 
 18 ; action a^j^uiust Eiif^lish unr ; tow 
 Freiicii, and collisioa on liijfli hcu ; 
 service of note of writ on French 
 owners of tow ordered under Ord XI. 
 r. 1 g). Sou also '/■///■ //,i;/rii, (I aim) 
 
 P. i8y. 
 
 (/') Tfie llilni'lia, uln '■iijira. 
 (g) The II'. A. Srhultm. I.t P. 1). K. 
 (//) The I'mieemie Cleineiiluif, (IMU7) 
 P. IS.
 
 286 
 
 PRACTICE. 
 
 Plaintiffa 
 may sue as 
 " owners." 
 
 Preliminary 
 
 act. 
 
 Object of 
 
 preliminary 
 
 acts. 
 
 entered, and the action came on for judgment by default 
 under Ord. XIIT. rr. 12, 13. The writ had been served by 
 the solicitor's clerk, who made the affidavit of service. It 
 was held that the service was valid, and that service by the 
 marshal or his substitute was not necessary (0- 
 
 The old practice of the Admiralty enabling plaintiffs to 
 sue as '' owners " of ship or cargo without naming them is 
 not abrogated by the Judicature Act rules (/.•) , but in all 
 actions for limitation of liability the names of the owners 
 should be set out (/). 
 
 The enactment, E. S. C, Ord, XIX. r. 28, requires pre- 
 liminary acts to be filed in actions for collision between 
 vessels {»/). Each party is required in his preliminary act to 
 state the material facts upon which he founds his case. No 
 preliminary act is required in an action by the owner of a 
 ship in tow against the owner of a tug for negligent towage, 
 whereby a collision was caused between the tow and a thh'd 
 ship {)i) ; but in the absence of evidence that it was im- 
 possible to file a preliminary act, it was held necessary in an 
 action by the owner of cargo on board a barge against a ship 
 with which the barge was in collision (o) . In an action by 
 the owners of cargo against the carrying ship for damage to 
 cargo by collision caused by the fault of the carrying ship, 
 no preliminary act is necessary {])). 
 
 The object of the preliminary act was explained by 
 Dr. Lushiugton in T//p Vorlicjern (q). " Preliminary acts 
 were instituted for two reasons— to get a statement from the 
 parties of the circumstances recenti facto, and to prevent the 
 defendant from shaping his case to meet facts put forward by 
 the plaintiff." Consequently, ihe Court will not allow a 
 party before (r) or at (-s) the heariug to depart from or 
 
 (i) The Solis, 10 P. D. G-2. 
 
 (/.•) The yl.s.siiuU(, (1902) P. ir)0; 
 The Aliircchal Suchit, (189G) P. -233. 
 
 {/) The Inrenlor, 10 Asp. 99. 
 
 (/«) Including ca.fes of injurj" to 
 person; Webster \. Manchester, Shef- 
 field, ic. Rail. Co., 5 Asp. M. C. 2o'6, 
 note. 
 
 («) Armstrovg v. Gaselee, 22 Q. R. 
 D. 250. 
 
 (o) Secretcn-i/ of State for India v. 
 Hcwett, 6 Asp. M. C. 384. There 
 
 had been an action in Admiralty 
 between the barge and the ship. 
 This is the case referi-ed to by 
 Huddkston. B.. in Armstroiuj v. 
 Ga-selee, 22 Q. B. D. 252. 
 
 i p) The John Boijne, 3 Asp. M. C. 
 34i. 
 
 [q) Swab. 518. 
 
 \r) The Miranda, 7 P. D. 185. 
 
 (.>.) The Fronkland, L. E. 3 A. & 
 E. oil ; The Torti(jerii, Swab. 518.
 
 PLEADINGS. 
 
 287 
 
 amend (/) his preliminary act, but this practice has been 
 sometimes departed from. The information must be given 
 fully ; any concealment will be viewed by the Court with 
 suspicion {u). 
 
 It was a rule of the Admii-alty Court that a plaintil! in Pr.^f .....st i- 
 framing his statement of claim must state tlie circumstances 
 of the collision, so far as they are known to him (r), witli 
 sufficient clearness and accuracy to enable his adversary to 
 know the case which he has to meet (.r). The particular nets 
 of negligence which caused the collision must bo stated in 
 specific terms. Where the plaintiff alleged that the collision 
 was caused by the starboarding of tlie helm of the defendant 
 ship, and the fact was that the helm was never starboarded, 
 the plaintiff failed to recover, although it was proved that his 
 adversary's ship was in fact alone to blame (//), but since the 
 Judicatm-e Acts the rules as to strictness of pleading liave 
 been relaxed, and amendments are allowed so as to prevent 
 any technical injustice, but the rule that proof must bo 
 seciinthim allegata is enforced only so far as the allegatu are 
 material (~), in other words, so far as the non-observance of 
 the rule has made it impossible for the defendant to meet the 
 case brought against him. 
 
 If any of the regulations for preventing collisions at sea Infrinjroment 
 have been infringed, it has always beeu the practice (r/) for 'lionH^imilnH- 
 the plaintiff to specify whicl\ they are. In the absence of x}*L'-ifi<-;iily 
 such an allegation in his pleadings, it is doubtful if evidence 
 of the infringement woiJd be admitted {h). But it is not 
 essential that the plaintiff should prove all the allegations 
 
 {t) The Miranda, 7 P. D. IS?,. 
 
 («) The Godtra, 11 P. D. 20. 
 
 (v) As to when they are not 
 known, sec Tlie Sclnriillw , iSwah. 
 521 ; The En'/land, o Not. of Cas. 
 174. 
 
 (x) The whole subject is cxliaiis- 
 tively dealt with iti Ro.sooe's Ad- 
 miralty Praetire, .'ird ed., pp. ;52") 
 fieq. ; and see Old. XIX. r. 4. 
 
 (;/) It was .'•o held before the 
 Judicature Acts: The Ann, Lush. 
 o.T ; The M'lrpeiiia, L. R. -1 P. C. 
 212 ; The North Ameruan, Swab. 
 35S ; The Ha.sweU, Br. & L. 247. 
 See also The Jlochnng and Thv Lnp- 
 wing, 7 App. Ca.«. 512; and infni, 
 
 p. 2S7 
 
 (z) The Alice ami Jlotila, L. R. 2 
 P. C. 214. 
 
 (a) The Ehenezer, 2 W. Rob. 2t)t;. 
 211 : The n-.thnia, Lu^h. .'.2, A I. 
 
 (/-) See The Xew J'rUon, (IS'.H) 1*. 
 2r)S, -m.i. In The J'enm. Ad. Div. 
 lOih Nov. I.SSO. Sir J. Ilami.-ii 
 allowed an aniotidinoiit f>f fhi- Nfiit<>- 
 m-.'nt of chiiiu at the trial by iiiM>rt- 
 iiip a charjfe of breach nf the 
 "starboard side" ruK-. Cp. The 
 Ladi/ Ann, 7 Not. of I'a.s. .■((il, .'{70, 
 where under sjiccial circuiUHtiiiic<>N 
 the defendant sliijt wa^ finind t«i 
 blame for a faihin* t^i jwrl wiiich 
 was not allejur"d in the plondiiifTK.
 
 288 PKACTICE. 
 
 made in his statement of claim ; if he proves the material 
 part of the case alleged, it will be sufficient (c). An allega- 
 tion that the defendant ship was alone in fault does not 
 prevent the plaintiff from obtaining a judgment for half his 
 loss upon proof that both ships were in fault (r/) . 
 Defence. The defendant in his defence, besides traversing all the 
 
 allegations of the plaintiff he intends to deny, should state 
 the circumstances of the collision (c). Thus, if the defence 
 is that the plaintiff gave him a foul berth, he must so plead. 
 Before the Judicature Acts it was held that it was not suffi- 
 cient for him simply to traverse the plaintiff's statements (,/'). 
 But the plaintiff must prove his case, and where he fails to 
 do so, he will not succeed merely because the defendant has 
 in his defence told a story of the collision which he fails to 
 prove {(/). Where the defence is " inevitable accident," it is 
 usual in terms so to plead. If the defence is that of compulsory 
 pilotage, it is the practice, and it would seem to be necessary, 
 for the defendant to plead it (h). 
 
 In an appeal (/) before the Privy Council the appellant 
 will not be allowed to raise, for the first time, the question, 
 not raised in the Court below or referred to in the pleadings, 
 whether the respondent's ship was not also in fault for in- 
 fringing one of the regulations. Where there is no allega- 
 tion of contributory negligence, a party who pleads, and, in 
 the Court below, relies on fault in the other ship alone, cannot 
 for the first time upon the appeal raise the point of contribu- 
 tory negligence. 
 Judgment at Prior to the Judicature Acts it was held that a verdict and 
 it Ian be ^*'^*^^ judgment in nn action at law that one of two ships, B., A\'as 
 pleaded in {^^ f^iilt for the collision, and that the defendants, her owners, 
 ^' were liable to the plaintiffs for the amount of their loss, weie 
 
 {(■) T/te Amu/ui, Br. k'L.3\\,;ni. {(j) See The Eaat Lothian, Lusli. 
 
 See also Thf. Dispatch, Lush. 98; 241. 
 
 The Lady Ann, 7 Not. of Cas. 370 ; (/;) For the old practice, see The 
 
 The Lnylaiid, 5 Not. of Cas. 170 ; Canadian, 1 W. Rob. ;i43 ; The 
 
 The East Lothian, Lush. -^41, 248. Northampton, 1 Sp. 166, note ; The 
 
 {d\ The Auriita and 21ie lidhcrt A /hainhra, Bt. & h. 2S6 ; Tlie Euro- 
 
 Inyraiii, Lush. 327, 329. pcan, Williams & Bruce, 3ixl ed. 354, 
 
 [e] For the old practice, see Tlie note (//). 
 Virqil, 2 W. Rob. 204; The Iron- (?) The Tasmania, 15 App. Cas. 
 
 maker, fi Jur. N. S. 782. 223 ; The Pleiades and The Jane, 
 
 (/) The JflH/ Kat, L. R. 2 A. & (1891) App. Cas. 209. 
 E. 265.
 
 PLE ADI Xr,S KVI DENCE. JNJ) 
 
 no bar to subsequent proceedings in Admiralty »// rem against 
 the ship A. by the defendants in the common law action ; and 
 that the judgment at law could not be pleaded or given in 
 evidence in the Admiralty action (/). It is difficult to ivc»n- 
 cile this decision with the principle that a decision in the 
 presence of the parties upon the merits is ir/t Judicata : a 
 principle which seems to apply whether the judgment is at 
 law or in Admiralty proceedings /// rnii. Whore a defendant 
 at law pleaded a decree of the Admiralty Court upon the 
 merits in his favour, it was held that the plea was bad, because 
 it did not show that the Admiralty Court had jurisdiction {/). 
 
 As to the effect in the Courts of this country of a f<u-eio-n Foroipi 
 judgment in action relating to the collisi(m. see ab..ve J"'^^^'""'"*- 
 pp. 211,213. 
 
 It is not clear whether under 07 & 6S Vict. c. 60, ss. Evidouoo. 
 239 (6), 240, the official log is admissible in evidence (w). Log«. 
 The ship's log is not, though the mate who wrote it is 
 dead(;0. But both these documents often aiford valuable 
 evidence against the ship (o). 
 
 A protest {p), and a deposition made before a receiver of l)olx.^itions. 
 wreck (q), also the record of proceedings at an inquiry under I^«'flt'"*<''pr<>- 
 the Merchant Shipping Acts(y), at a naval court- mart ia! (x), iiKinirCJe. 
 at an inquiry by a pilotage authority (f), or at a coroner's 
 inquest (?/), — are not admissible in e^ddence, except for the 
 
 {k) The Clarence. 1 Sp. 206; but 489; The Ljudiea, 23 L. T. J71; 
 
 see per Knight-Bruce, L. J., 1 Sp. The Emma, 2 W. Rob. 31.0 ; Tht 
 
 209, note: and see The Ann and Redtvifi, 1 Sp. 19. As to the vahio 
 
 ^fary, 2 W Rob. 189 ; semble, the of such evidence, see The (isimni/i, 7 
 
 case referred to in The Clarence. See Not. of Cas. M)', olO. 
 
 also The Sylph, L. R. 2 A. & E. 24 ; {q) The Little Lizzie, L. K. 3 A. \- 
 
 The Antilope, L. R. 4 A. & E. 33; E. 56; Nut hard v. Tapper, 17 C. B. 
 
 The Biie Checchi, L. R. 4 A. & E. N. S. 39 ; The Henry Coxon, tibi 
 
 35, note. supra. As to inspwtion of copies uf 
 
 {I) Rarrin v. Willin, 15 C. B. 710. these depositions fnniishcd t^i tho 
 
 itn) There have been no decisions adverse party by tlio Hoard of Trnde. 
 
 on this point. see The Palermo, 9 P. I). 6. 
 
 (w) The Hmry Coxon, :i V.'D. \n^. (/•) The Manyerton. Swiib. 120; 
 
 In The Kuiyapore, L. R. 1 P. C. 378, The ('ity of London, Swab. 245. 
 
 the ship's log, though objected to, (v) If.M.'S. Saalloir, Swab. 30 (the 
 
 appears trj have been used as evidence report of a naval otticer to tin- I.«<trd.s 
 
 for the ship. of the Admiralty is priviU'^red hn a 
 
 (o) See observations by Westbury, Stato dncununt, and no ordor t<» 
 
 C, in The Sinyapore, nupra, as to the produce it will be made) ; The /IrlU' 
 
 value of tho ship's log as evidence rophon, 2 Asj). It!), 
 
 against tlie ship, and as to alterations (t) The L<nd Smlou, 2 W. H"b. 
 
 discrediting the log. 39 1 . 
 
 {p) Christian v. Coombe, 2 Esp. («) The Afanyertou, Hv/nh. 120. 
 
 M. U
 
 290 
 
 PRACTICE. 
 
 Protest ; 
 deposition 
 before receiver 
 of wreck. 
 
 Coastguard 
 and lightship 
 logs. 
 
 Statements by 
 master ; 
 
 by seamen 
 and others. 
 
 Letter by 
 master to 
 owner. 
 
 Evidence in 
 
 previous 
 
 action. 
 
 purpose of the cross-examination of a witness who has given 
 evidence in chief inconsistent with his previous statements. 
 
 The original depositions taken before the receiver must be 
 produced, and copies cannot be put in {x). The Board of 
 Trade usually refuses to supply copies of the depositions 
 made by those on board one ship, unless those on board the 
 other ship have also made them. 
 
 Copies of entries in the official journals kept by coast- 
 guardsmen, and copies of entries in lighthouse and lightship 
 logs relating to the weather, are usually admitted in the 
 Admiralty Division upon production of an affidavit by the 
 proper officer (?/) . 
 
 Statements by the master as to matters in issue are ad- 
 mitted to prove the facts stated against the owner (a) ; but 
 not statements by other officers, by seamen (///, or by the 
 pilot (c), though statements by seamen and others on board, 
 made at the moment of collision, have in some cases been 
 admitted as part of the res gestce {4) . 
 
 In an action by cargo-owner against shipowner for loss of 
 cargo by stranding, a letter written by the master to the 
 shipowner, detailing the facts of the stranding, was admitted 
 as evidence of those facts {e) . 
 
 Evidence in a previous action for the same collision, but 
 between different parties, is not admissible in the subsequent 
 action (,/'). But where, after judgment in an action by the 
 owner of ship A. against the owner of ship B., the latter sued 
 the former in a fresh action for the same collision, evidence 
 
 (x) It was so held by Butt, J., in 
 The Eisca, 25th March, 1886; T/w 
 Benayo, 29th March, 1886 ; and 
 {nemble) by Dr. Lushington in The 
 Emperor and The Zephyr, 12 W. R. 
 890; The Oscar, 12 \^ .' R. 872. See 
 also per Tindal, C. J., Bastard v. 
 Smith, 10 A. & E. 213, 214 ; Davies 
 V. Davies, 9 C. & P. 252 ; Hujhjield 
 v. Peake, M. & M. 109 ; BurnandY. 
 Nerot, 1 C. & P. 578 ; Eicer v. 
 Ambrose, 4 B. & C. 25. 
 
 (y) An examined copy is sufficient : 
 The Maria des JJores, Br. & L. 27 ; 
 The Catherina Maria, L. R. 1 A. & 
 E. 53. 
 
 («) The Midlothian, 15 Jur. 806 ; 
 
 The Manchester, 1 "W. Rob. 63 ; The 
 Europa, 1.'5 Jur. 856; The Artmoii, 1 
 Sp. 176 ; The Sobray, 10 P. D. 137. 
 And so in America : The Potomac, 8 
 Wall. 590. 
 
 {b) The Lord Seaton. 2 W. Rob. 
 391, 393; The Foyle, Lush. 10; and 
 see Tlic Great Eastern, Holt, 169. 
 
 (c) The Lord Seaton, 2 W. Rob. 
 391, 39;^ ; The Schwalbe, Swab. 521. 
 
 (d) The Schivalhc, Swab. 521 ; The 
 Mellona, 10 Jur. 992. 
 
 {e) The Sohcay, 10 P. D. 137. See 
 The Neptune the Second, 1 Dods. 467, 
 469. 
 
 (/) The JFilliam Hutt, Lush. 25 ; 
 The Demetrius, L. R. 3 A. & E. 523.
 
 IN'TERROOATORTES. 2<)1 
 
 in the first action was allowed to be read in the subsequent 
 action (//). 
 
 As to the mode of proving the regulations for prev.'nting R,»yul«tionn ; 
 collisions at sea, see 57 & 58 Vict. e. 60, ss. G95, 719, 7 - ''"'* P^*"^- 
 
 Where the defence raised is tliat of compulsory pilotage, Pnwf of 
 and the defendant has reason to think tliat the pilot will ]>• '"^ 
 
 a hostile witness upon the facts of the collision, the proper 
 coarse for him to take is to subpcena the pilot to prodtioo his 
 licence, and to be provided with evidence identifying him with 
 the person named in the licence {h). 
 
 There was at one time a dtuibt whether, in a collision action, int.-- - , 
 inteiTogatories with respect to matters stated in the prolimi- ''"^ 
 nary acts, and the other circumstances of the collision, could 
 be administered. Interrogatories are admissible in some 
 cases (/), but not in an ordinary collision action. 
 
 In answering interrogatories, a defendant in a collision AuHwerintr 
 action must answer as to matters touching the collision which tori,-«!'*^'' 
 are in the knowledge of his servants or agents, the master 
 and crew (k) . 
 
 It was formerly the practice, in the Court of Admiralty, W * ' Hn 
 where the plaintiff's ship was at anchor, or where the sole ,,^.t„.,j. 
 defence was inevitable accident, for the defendant to begin. 
 This practice has been changed, and the rule now is that 
 plaintiff shall in all cases begin (/) ; or, at least, in all cases 
 where (as, semhle, is always the case) the onus of proof is upon 
 him {m) . 
 
 Power is given to any party to an Admiralty action to Onlor t<. 
 apply for an order for inspection of any shi^) <m- other peisonul ""'^'* ' 
 or real property, the inspection of which may be material to 
 the issue of the action (n). This power was exercised, in T/tr 
 Jlfff/Hcf, with reference to ship's lights (o) ; also in T/ir (7>'r- 
 
 (g) Tlie North American, Lush. 80 : (/) See The Otter, L. R. •» A & K. 
 
 The RoHsendale, 2 Pritch. Ad. Dif,'. 20:1 ; Thr lUnmon; L. R. 4 A. i K. 
 
 (ed. I860) 591. See Ord. XXXVIl. 132. 
 
 r. 3. (w) See tiupra, y. 2!». iw to bunl.'ii 
 
 (A) See above, p. 225. of proof. 
 
 (i) The Biola, 34 L. T. 135. («) 24 Vict. c. 10. «. 18 ; and i«>o 
 
 \k) The Radnorshire, 5 P. D. 172: "ow Onl. T,. r. :{. of tho R. S. (,. 
 
 The Me of Cyprus, 15 P. D 134 l««'J- 
 
 (crew of plaintiff 'h Hhip drowned). (« L- R- 4 A. \, b. 41«, 4^». 
 
 U2
 
 292 
 
 PRACTICE. 
 
 Nautical 
 assessors : 
 evidence of 
 experts not 
 admissible. 
 
 Function of 
 assessors. 
 
 mania [p). In one case {q), it was held that the order will 
 not be made where the party applying has an opportunity of 
 proving the facts by evidence in the ordinary way. 
 
 In the Court of Appeal and in the Admiralty Division, 
 nautical assessors advise the Court upon questions of seaman- 
 ship. In the King's Bench Division, assessors are not, in 
 practice, but may be (r), called in. In the King's Bench 
 Division, matters of seamanship may be proved by experts ; 
 in Admiralty, and, it seems, in any Court where assessors are 
 present to advise the Court, such evidence is not admissible (■•<). 
 Thus in one case evidence directed to show what was the usual 
 mode of navigating ships in the entrance to the Mersey was 
 held to be inadmissible in the Admiralty Division {f). 
 
 The function of the assessors is not to decide questions of 
 fact arising in the case (w), but to advise the Court upon 
 nautical matters (./■), and the decision of the case rests entirely 
 with the judge. Even in purely nautical matters he is not 
 bound to follow the advice of his assessors, if it does not 
 agree with his own opinion (//), though their advice will be 
 rarely questioned (s). The advice of the Trinity Bretln^en 
 in the Admiralty Division upon a question of pure seaman- 
 ship does not conclude the ease, and may give rise to an 
 appeal {a). If the Trinity Brethren differ in opinion, the 
 
 {p) 19 L. T. 20 : 21 L. T. 44. 
 
 \q) The Victor Covacevitch, 10 P. D. 
 40. 
 
 (r) 36 & 37 Vict. c. 66, s. 56. For 
 the old practice, see Malton v. Ne.sbit, 
 1 C. & P. 70 ; Silh V. Brown, 9 C. & 
 P. 601 ; Fvmvick v. Bell, 1 C. & K. 
 312. 
 
 (s) The Gazelle, 1 W. Rob. 471; 
 The Ann and Mary, 2 W. Rob. 189, 
 196; The No, 1 Sp. 184; The S>.r 
 Robert Feel, 4 Asp. M. C. 321 ; The 
 Earl Spencer, L. R. 4 A. & E. 431 ; 
 The Assyrian, 6 Asp. M. C. 52.5. 
 
 [t) The Kirbij Hall, 8 P. D. 71. 
 But in The Velocity, L. R. 3 P. C. 
 44, such evidence (with reference to 
 the Thames) was admitted. See also 
 The Andaltman, 2 P. D. 231, as to 
 proof of usual precautions at a launch 
 in the Mersey. It seems that the 
 Court will take the opinion of the 
 assessors upon such points : The 
 Cambria, Ad. Div. May, 1887. 
 
 («) The Gannet, (1900) App. Cas. 
 204. 
 
 [x) The City of Berlin, (1908) P. 
 110. As to the practice in taking- 
 the opinion of the assessors and the 
 character of the questions asked, see 
 The New Felton, (1891) P. 258; The 
 River Derwent, 6 Asp. M. C. 467. 
 
 (y) See The Magna Charta, 1 Asp. 
 M.'C. 153; The Aid, 6 P. D. 84; 
 The Beryl, 9 P. D. 137, 141 ; The 
 Swanlayid, 2 Sp. 107; The Fred, 7 
 Asp. M. C. 550. 
 
 [z] " It would be impertinent in a 
 judge not to consider as almost 
 binding upon him the opinion of the 
 nautical gentlemen who, having ten 
 times his own skill, are called in to 
 as.sist him." Per Brett, M. R., The 
 Beri/l, 9 P. D. 137, 141 ; and see 
 The Alfred, 7 Not. of Cas. 352, 354 ; 
 The Gannet, (1900) App. Cas. 234. 
 
 («) See The Falkland, Br. & L. 
 204.
 
 it 
 
 CONSOLIDATION. 293 
 
 Court has on more than one occasion obtaineil the opinion of 
 one or more of the other Brethren {h). In a case when^ the 
 judge differed in opinion from the Trinity Brethren, and they 
 reduced their views and the reasons for them to writing and 
 at his request preserved them in case the Court of Api^nil 
 should call for them, that Coiu-t refused to order tlie Admi- 
 ralty registrar to deliver to the appellants a copy of those 
 reasons {c). 
 
 A plaintiff who has been unsuccessful in au a-tion at law 1" 
 tried upon the merits [d], or who has received payment of the |,,^ 
 sum for which he obtained judgment {c), cannot afterwanls j««l5'; 
 proceed against the ship in Admiralty for the same collision ; r ','„',„ .rafter- 
 nor would he be allowed to sue at law aud in Admiraltv at ^f^-^u^'in 
 the same time tor the same collision {/). H,. cmmoi m*- 
 
 In order to avoid multiplicity of actions, where the owners Admrmlty it 
 of two ships that had been in collision institute separate or "^n**^ *^""®- 
 cross actions agaiust each other, the Court will consolidate [, ''*^'* 
 
 the two actions (//), the litigant whose writ is first issued oruwiutioim. 
 having the conduct, in other words the position of plaintiff. 
 
 Actions by different plaintiffs in respect of the same Conwilidn- 
 collision against the same ship or the same defendants may \,'y ditr.n-nt 
 be consolidated in Admiralty, even as against an unwillinrr l''"'"*"^'*, 
 
 '-' _ ^ ilffiiiiist the 
 
 defendant, or at the instance of the defendant as against an .same di-fon- 
 un willing plaintiff {//). And where two ships belonging to * " ' 
 the same owners, one being disabled and in tow of the otlicr, 
 foviled a third ship, several actions by the owners and by tiio 
 master and crew of the third ship against the two ships that 
 fouled her were consolidated (/). 
 
 This practice of consolidating actions, which appears to 
 have been peculiar to the Court of Admiralty, has been con- 
 
 {b) 'The Magna Charta, 1 Asp. M. C. once. 
 
 153; The Friends' Goodwill auA. The («/) Judiciiture Act, IST.'J, >. '.M, 
 
 Peggy, Mars. Ad. Gas. 328. sub-s. 7. See Thom.-on v. .V. /.'. A'<n/. 
 
 (e) The Banshee, G Asp. M. C. 130. Co., 9 Q. B. D. 320. S<. '1\ Virt. 
 
 (rf) See r/ie 6^m/»ttrtW, Swab. 430, c. 10, s. 3J. >r(ive th« Admmilty 
 
 43.J. Court the saiiio powt-r. 
 
 {e) The Orient, L. R. 3 P. C. (mi. (h) The irilh.n,, U«tt, LuhIi. Ih . 
 
 (/) The John and Manj, Swab. The Mtljniiiniir, L. U. \ A. & K. I2l» ; 
 
 471. lu this respect the rif^hts of a The Fulk, 4 Amji. M, C. 592; The 
 
 person eutitlcd to a maritime lien Ciinihtrlinnl, ;'j L. T. 45HJ. 
 
 differ from those of a mortgagee, (i) The Amerieau and The Syna, 
 
 who may ijursue all his remedies at L. R. 4 .A. d K. 220.
 
 294 
 
 PRACTICE. 
 
 Plaintiff lying 
 by to await 
 judgment in 
 other action. 
 
 Cross actions : 
 one ship 
 arrested, the 
 other not : 
 stay of pro- 
 ceedings. 
 
 tinued since the Judicature Acts by the Admiralty Division (/>•) . 
 If actions are brought both by the owners of a ship, and by 
 the owners of the cargo, the usual practice is to order a stay 
 of the cargo action until after the decision in the ship action. 
 
 Where the actions are in personam and in one of them 
 service of the writ has not been effected, consolidation will 
 not be ordered (/). 
 
 Although it has the power to force consolidation upon 
 unwilling parties, the present practice of the Admiralty 
 Division is not to exercise that power {m) ; but a plaintiff 
 who unreasonably objected to consolidation and afterwards 
 succeeded in his action has been ordered to bear the costs 
 occasioned by his objecting to consolidation {}>). 
 
 The power of consolidating actions above referred to is 
 wider than the general power given by Ord. XLIX. r. 8, 
 although that power is exerciseable by a plaintiff as well as 
 by a defendant (o). The practice adopted in other Divisions 
 of trying one of several actions by different plaintiffs against 
 the same defendants as a test action {p) does not appear to 
 have been ever in use in Admiralty. 
 
 Where the rights and liabilities of the parties can be fairl}^ 
 settled in the usual way upon claim and counterclaim, a 
 party who, before bringing his action, awaits the decision of 
 an action in respect of the same collision in which he is 
 defendant, does so at the risk of having to pay costs {q) . 
 
 Where there are cross actions or action and counterclaim, 
 and the defendant ship in the principal action is arrested, if 
 the plaintiff ship has been lost or for some other reason 
 cannot be arrested, her owner may be compelled to give 
 security for the amount claimed against him in the cross 
 
 [k) E.g., The Hector, 8 P. D. 218. 
 As to the effect of 24 Vict. c. 10, 
 s. 34, see The Bemetrius, L. R. 3 
 A. & E. rv23. 
 
 (I) The Helenska, 7 P. D. o7. 
 
 [m) The Jacob Landntrom, 4 P. D. 
 191 ; The Vildonala, 4 Asp. M. C. 
 228 ; The Pasithea, 5 P. D. 5 : The 
 William Mutt, ubi supra. 
 
 (n) The Lord Sirathnairn, cited 
 Williams & Bruce, 3rd ed. 392 ; and 
 see Tlie Nicolma, 2 W. Rob. 175; 
 
 The Bartley, Swab. 198. 
 
 (o) Ma)tin v. 3Iartin ^- Co., (1897) 
 1 Q. B. 429. As to substituting a 
 plaintiff after decree, but before 
 assessment of damages, see The Duke 
 of Bitcclemih, (1892) P. 201. 
 
 (p) See Amos v. Chadivick, 4 Ch. 
 D. 869 ; Bennett v. Lord Bury, b 
 C. P. D. 339. 
 
 [q] The Caly/jso, Swab. 28; The 
 Breadalbane, 7 P. D. 186 ; The Julia 
 Fisher, 2 P. D. 115.
 
 CROSS ACTIONS. 
 
 t>95 
 
 action (/•), or counterclaim (s). This rule has been applied 
 where the parties are foreigners resident abroad (/). against 
 a British subject resident in England (u), and agninst a 
 foreign sovereign whose ship was privileged from arrest (r). 
 The Act, which enables the Court to stay proceedings in this 
 case applies only to actions in n-,n, and has no apphcation 
 where the principal action is one in personam (y). 
 
 Where actions in respect of the same collision tiTo pending Cr,.s8 h. • 
 in the Admiralty Division and in a County Court at the c?u,r" u,o" ■ 
 same time, the practice is for the former Court upon application ",''"''■ '" 
 in that behalf being made to it under :U it :VJ Vict. c. 71, c"urt""!r 
 s. t), to order that the County Com-t action be transferred to I^'lJ^'* •. ' 
 the Admiralty Division. The conduct of the consolidated 
 action will usually be given to the plaintiff in the action 
 which was first instituted (::), if there is a clear priority in 
 time (a). 
 
 Damage to ship or goods and injury to person may be s,.jmrHt.- 
 sued for in separate actions though the damage and injury iH,',]!"'^/",'! 
 were caused by the same negligent act, in the same collision, i-r-'i'-rty. ami 
 
 , , , . . 1 i ,1 , injury t<i 
 
 at trie same time, and to the same person {b}. l)t«n*o'n. 
 
 It has been held by the Court of Appeal that the High 
 Court of Admiralty has no jurisdiction to entertain an action 
 in personam against a pilot for a collision caused by his fault ; 
 and that a County Court has no power to entertain such an 
 action in Admiralty (c). 
 
 The Public Authorities Protection Act, ISQ'S, limiting the Piiblic AuUu.- 
 period to six months after the defaidt complained of, during Hy,"A ,["***' 
 which an action may be brought, does not apjdy to an action 
 
 (r) 24 Vict. c. 10, s. 84 ; T/ii 
 Charkieh, L. R. 4 A. & E. 120. 
 
 («) The Brcadalbanc, 7 P. D. 
 The Julia Fisher, 2 P. D. 115 
 Neivbaltlc, 10 P. D. 33. Cf. 
 Carnarvon Ca*ile, 3 Asp. M. C. 607, 
 aud (listing'. The Aliie liolmv (2ud 
 action), 4 Asp. M. C. 592. 
 
 {t) The ('hurk'ieh, it/jt nupra ; 
 Julia Fisher, ubi supra. 
 
 {u} The Cameo, Lu»h. 408. 
 
 (x) The Newballk, 10 P. D. 33. 
 
 (y) The Roxyemont, (I8'J3)P. 275. 
 The James WcstoU, (1905) P. 47; 10 
 Asp. 29. 
 
 («) The Never Despair, 9 P. D. 34 ; 
 
 186; 
 The 
 The 
 
 The 
 
 The Immacolala Coneezione, 8 P. 1). 
 34. See also The Cosniopo/i/nh, thut. 
 35 ; The lljorn, ibid. 36, u^iiv. 
 
 (a) The Mnscij, (1901) P. 369. 
 
 (b) Britiisdin v. Uiimfrei/, 11 (i. B. 
 D. 712; 14 Q. B. D. Ml! 
 
 (c) Jilf). V. Jlldt/f (if ''•"/ of l.iiiuioH 
 
 Court, (1892) 1 Q. B. 273, f..ll..wiit>f 
 Thf Urania, 5 L. T. 402 ; Th, Alrx- 
 audrta, L. R. 3 A. & E. 574 ; Fhwtr 
 V. ]{radl,<i, W !.. 1. \'\x. 1 : Tk* 
 Uowe» field, 5 Ahj). M. V. 206; rA# 
 Oenii'anic, (1896) P. 84, whon> Uio 
 Court rcfiiHcd to add a Jiilot mm jmrty 
 in an action in rem.
 
 296 
 
 PRACTICE. 
 
 Action at law 
 supplemented 
 by proceed- 
 ings in rem 
 and vice versa. 
 
 Recovery in 
 an action 
 in rem of 
 damages in 
 excess of the 
 res or bail. 
 
 in rem (d), nor does 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 100 (local and personal), 
 s. 8, by which no action in any of His Majesty's Courts of 
 Law shall be brought against the Dublin Steam Packet 
 Company unless a month's notice in writing shall have been 
 given to the company (e). 
 
 Where proceedings had been taken in. rem in Admiralty, 
 and the amount realized by the sale of the ship was not 
 sufficient to recompense the plaintiff, it was held, previously 
 to the Judicature Acts, that he could bring his action at law 
 for the residue of the loss (/). It would seem that he can 
 now bring such supplemental action against the shipowner in 
 person either in the Admiralty or in the King's Bench 
 Division. On the other hand an action may be brought in rem 
 for damages, which owing to the insolvency of the defendant, 
 could not be recovered at law (g). 
 
 In a salvage action {/i) in rem the writ was indorsed with a 
 claim for 5,000/. The owners of the salved ship and cargo 
 gave an undertaking to put in bail for 5,000/., and the ship 
 and cargo were not arrested. The Court awarded for salvage 
 7,500/. The plaintiffs subsequently obtained leave {i) to 
 amend the indorsement on the writ by altering the sum to 
 8,500/. The defendants paid 5,000/. and costs, but denied 
 further liability. Upon a motion, which was, by consent, 
 treated as an application for leave to issue execution for the 
 balance of the 7,500/. against the owners, it was held tliat the 
 owners were personally liable for the balance and were 
 entitled to writs of feri facias against their goods. Pre- 
 viously to this decision there had been great doubt and con- 
 flicting decisions as to the personal liability of shipowner or 
 shipmaster for damages in a collision action, where the action 
 was in rem, and the damages exceeded the value of the res or 
 bail. Dr. Lushington had, in several cases {k), expressed the 
 
 (d) The Burns, (1907) P. 137. 
 
 [e) The Longford, 14 P. D. 34, 
 following The Mullingar, I Asp. 
 M. C. 252. 
 
 ( /■) Nekon V. Conch, 15 C. B. N. S. 
 99 ;■ The Bold BuccUuch, 7 Moo. P. C. 
 267 ; The Orient, L. R. 3 P. C. 696, 
 702 ; The Pet, 20 L. T. 961 ; The 
 Zephyr, 11 L. T. 351. See also The 
 Sylph, L. R. 2 A. & E. 24. 
 
 ig) 'The John and Mury, Swab. 471 
 The Bengal, ibid. 468 ; The Demetrins 
 41 L. J. Ad. 69; The Si/lph, L. R 
 2 A. & E. 24 ; The Celhi, 13 P. D. 82 
 
 [h) The Dictator (No. 2), (1892) P 
 304 ; followed in The Gemma, (1899) 
 P. 285. 
 
 (;) The Dictator (No. 1), (1892) P. 
 64. 
 
 [k) The Hope, 1 W. Rob. 154;
 
 THIRD PARTY PKOCEPrRK. !>97 
 
 opinion that a personal action could not he " engrafted on " 
 an action in trw : althougli in one (/) of these cases he appears 
 to have been willing, in an action /*/ rem, to raonish the ship- 
 o^\^le^s to pay damages not covered by the bail bond. On 
 the other hand. Lord Stowell, in The Dundee {m), was clearly 
 of opinion that the shipowner was liable in an action in rem, 
 beyond the value of the ;v'.s, to the full amount of the 
 damages awarded. The judgment of Sir Francis Joune, 1'., 
 in T//e Dictator, No. 2, contains a full and luminous examina- 
 tion of the nature of the action in rem, and completely sets at 
 rest the question at issue. 
 
 Where the shipowner appeared and defended the action, it R<-iim-«t of 
 was held that he could, by re-arrest of the ship, be compeUed |!jiy^'" '**"'^' 
 to pay costs (w), beyond the value of the ship and freight and 
 the amount of his bail bond. 
 
 No action can be brought i/i rem for loss of life under Daiii.ifr<-N f..r 
 Lord Campbell's Act. The conflict of authority (o) which li.'n'n 11/": "" 
 existed for many years upon this point was, however, set at 
 rest by the decision of the House of Lords in T/ir Vera Cruz 
 (No. 2) ip). 
 
 Where the defendant, in a collision action, claims to be Thinl jurty 
 entitled to recover from a third party the damages for which 
 judgment may be given against him, attenii)ts have been 
 made to bring into the action such third i>arty under ( )rd. 
 XVI. rr. 48 ef seq., of the Rules of the Supreme Court. Thus, 
 a ship in tow sued by a ship at anchor which she had fovded, 
 sought to bring in the tug-owners as third parties, against 
 whom they were entitled to indemnity {q^. The judge refused 
 
 The Kalamazoo, \o Jur. 885; The w« v. ///«/■*, L. R. 7 C. P. 290. In 
 
 Victor, Lush. 72 ; The J'olant, 1 W. The Fraticonia, 2 P. D. 16:{. the Court 
 
 Rob. 383 ; The Zephyr, 11 L. T. 351. of Appeal was 0(iiially divklcd.^ See 
 
 Before the present century the master also Tti;//or v. Dnoir, 5 B. & S. 5H, 
 
 was generally a defendant in a suit and the obstrvutions of Sir U. Philli- 
 
 in rem against the ship. more on that case, L. R. 2 A. \- E. 
 
 (l) The Zephijr, ubi supra. 329. 
 
 (m) 1 Hag. Ui9. {p) 10 App. Cas. 59. Sit- ii1j*o 
 
 (m) The John Dunn, 1 W. Rob. The Ctrce, {1^6) P. 1. Tlio law in 
 
 159 ; The Freedom, I.. R. 3 A. k E. Canada seems to bo the wime. St-L- 
 
 495.' See also The Volant. 1 "\V. Rob. Monai/han v. Ilnni, The tiarlaitd, 7 
 
 383; The TemiKcouatu, 2 Sji. 208. Duval's Suj>. Ct. Roji. ("aiiudu. 409; 
 
 (o) See r/K' 'SyM. L. R. 2 A. & E. 10 Vict, c 21 (Caimda, ; 2(i \ 27 
 
 24- The Guld'faxe, ihid. 325; The Vict. c. 10 (Vice- Ad. Ct. Act), m. 7, 
 
 Beta, L. R. 2 P. C. -147 ; The lioro- 13. 
 
 dhio, 5 L. T. 291 ; and contra, Smith (y) The JUam-a, H P. I). 91. Sot- 
 
 V Broun, L. R. Q. B. 729 ; Simp- also 77^ Cartuburn, 5 P. I). 36.
 
 298 
 
 PRACTICE. 
 
 Joinder f)f co- 
 defendants. 
 
 Failure to 
 put in bail, 
 after under- 
 taking. 
 
 Arrest of 
 wrong ship. 
 
 to entertain the question of the liability of the tug-owners. 
 Tlie rules in question apply only where the right to contribu- 
 tion or indemnity is founded upon contract, express or im- 
 plied ; they do not apply where the right of the defendant is 
 to recover against a person, not a party to the principal action, 
 damages to the sarUe amount as the damages awarded in the 
 action (/•). 
 
 Where there is a reasonable doubt as to who is liable, as in 
 the case of collision with a tug or tow, or where the ship sued 
 may have been acting under the orders of a dock authority, 
 the tug and tow, or the ship and dock owners, may be joined 
 as co-defendants (s). 
 
 Where the solicitors for the owners of the ship sued accepted 
 service of the writ and undertook to put in bail, but before 
 doing so their authority was withdrawn, it was held that 
 they were not liable to attachment for contempt in not ful- 
 filling their undertaking (f). 
 
 It has occun-ed in some cases that the plaintiff has failed 
 to identify the ship sued with the ship with which his own 
 has been in collision. So where, in consequence of a collision 
 between A. and B., a third ship, C, is injured, C. may bn in 
 a difficulty as to which ship to sue. It seems that if the 
 wrong ship is arrested, she would, except in special circum- 
 stances, be entitled to costs, and, in flagrant cases, to damages 
 and costs (?/), or to her expense of procuring bail (r). In the 
 absence, however, of malice and gross negligence on the part 
 of the plaintiff, damages, and even costs, have not in all cases 
 been given to the ship wrongly arrested (//) . To entitle the 
 plaintiff in an action for wrongful arrest to damages, it is not 
 necessary to prove actual damage, if the arrest was without 
 reasonable cause (s). 
 
 {)■) The Jacul) Chriatenxen, 8 Asp. 
 M. C. 21 ; Speller v. Bristol Steam. 
 Naviyation Co., 13 Q. B. D. 96; 
 Carshorr v. North Eastern Roil. Co., 
 29 Ch. D. 344. 
 
 (,s) The River Layan, 6 Asp. M. C. 
 281 ; The Mystery, (1902) P. Ho. 
 
 (<) Tlie Anna and Bertha, 7 Asp. 
 M. C. 31. 
 
 («) The Evanyelismos, Swab. 378; 
 12 Moo. P. C. 352 ; The Active, 5 
 L. T. 773 ; The Strathnaver, 1 App. 
 
 Cas. 58 ; The Cheshire Witch, Br. & 
 L. 362 ; The Cathcart, h. R. 1 A. & 
 E. 314, 333 ; The Volant, Br. & L. 
 321; TV;*? efesywc, Swab. 145 ; The 
 Victor Lush, 72 ; The Eyerateia, 38 
 L. J. Ad. 40. 
 
 {x) The Collinyrove, 10 P. D. 158. 
 
 [y) The EvangelisiHos, Swab. 378 ; 
 llir Strathnaver, 1 App. Cas. 58. 
 
 (:;) The Walter I). Wallet, (1893) 
 P. 202.
 
 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. 099 
 
 If a ship is arrested witliout reasonable cause, as wheiv the Ar 
 owners' solicitors sign an undertaking to give bail, and no Ji|' :»vc Uui. 
 objection or inquiry is made as to the sufficiency of the 
 undertaking, the plaintiffs will be condemned in damages 
 and costs (a). 
 
 By 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, s. 504 (b), jurisdiction is given to Al•tu.n^ fur 
 the High Court (c), in proceedings by a shipowner to limit llSt'" ''^ 
 his liability under the Act, to determine the amount of such 
 liability, and to distribute the sum representing the amount 
 of such liability amongst the several claimants; and further, 
 to stay actions pending in respect of the collision. 
 
 The benefit of the enactment liiuiting the shipowner's 
 liability is ordinarily obtained by instituting an action iu 
 which the plaintiff claims a declaration by the Court to the 
 effect that the plaintiff and his vessel are not answerable in 
 damages to an amount exceeding, as the case may be, J^/. or 
 15/. per ton of the ship's tonnage. Upon payment into Court 
 of the 8/. per ton and interest at 4/. per cent, from the date of 
 the collision ; and in case of loss of life or personal injury, 
 upon payment into Coui't, or bail being given, for the addi- 
 tional amount up to 15/. per ton, or such smaller sum as ihe 
 Court specifies ; and upon payment into Court also of the 
 costs of actions already instituted against the plaintitl' in 
 respect of the collision, the Coiu-t will make the declaration 
 claimed, and thereupon all actions in respect of the collision 
 for loss of life or injury to ship, cargo, or persons on board, 
 will be stayed ((/) . 
 
 The benefit of the statutory limitation of liability may also Limit.,! • 
 
 «-' *■ *. I'll" 
 
 be claimed by way of defence or counterclaim in the collision il'.\'.i;,'i,^„"j"* 
 action (e). ''^'f 
 
 (a) The Crinidm, (1900) F. 111. 420, 8eera to be obsulett". The abovo 
 
 [b) The previous enactnieiit.s uii rule reproduces the provisiiniM of the 
 the subject were 17 & 18 Vict. Judiciiture Act, IS7.5. ami Ji \- 'J I 
 0. 104, 8. 514, and 53 Cxeo. :i, Vict. c. 120. 
 c. 159, .s. 7. {'0 For detiiilh of pniotiic in the«o 
 
 (t) By R. S. C. (Merchant Ship- uctiouM, nee WilliiimM & Hrue<', Ad. 
 
 pin^j, 1894, r. 1, this juritidictiou is I'r. 3rd ed. pp. 371 «v- 
 
 ttssij^ed to the Admiralty Division. (t) See T/n- CItUha, I') L. J. Ad. 
 
 The Act, 24 Vict. c. 10, s. 13, and 108; n'ahlhin/ v. Yuiiiuj, 45 L. J. 
 
 the decisions thereon, James v. L. (jr C. P. 783 ; Tlir Ststfvx, 1 I'. I). '-'SI. 
 
 .V. /r. Rail. Co., L. R. 7 Ex. 187, But see Jiniux v. L. iV .S". M'. Itii%l. 
 
 2?>7 ; The XorlkniiiOria, L. R. '6 A. 6c Vu., infra. 
 E. 24 ; The Fonculim, 5 Aap. M. C. 
 
 N' claimed HI 
 euciv
 
 300 
 
 PRACTICE. 
 
 Costs of 
 
 limitation 
 
 action. 
 
 Evidence in 
 limitation 
 actions by 
 affidavit. 
 
 Admission of 
 liability. 
 
 Cargo-owner 
 may in limita- 
 tion action 
 raise question 
 whetber one 
 or both ships 
 in fault. 
 
 Payment out 
 of Court of 
 unappropria- 
 ted balance. 
 
 Transfer of 
 action from 
 King's Bench 
 
 The plaintiff, in an action for limitation of liability, is 
 required to pay the costs of the action, other than costs 
 occasioned by disputes between rival claimants to the fund, 
 and also the costs of actions stayed at his request (/). Where 
 the defendant raises and fails upon special issues, he will have 
 to bear the costs of such issues {g) . 
 
 The practice of the Admiralty Division in actions for 
 limitation of liability, where no special defence is raised, is 
 for the evidence to be taken by affidavit. 
 
 There was formerly doubt as to whether, in an action for 
 limitation of liability, the plaintiff must admit that his vessel 
 was in fault (//)■ By the present practice of the Admiralty 
 Division it appears that such an admission is not necessary (/), 
 though it is usual. 
 
 An agreement between the shipowners that both ships, A. 
 and B., were in fault for the collision does not prevent the 
 owner of cargo on board one of them, B., from alleging, in an 
 action by the owner of the other. A., to limit his liability, that 
 A. was alone in fault ; and he is entitled to an issue to decide 
 that question {k). 
 
 After the expiration of the time (usually three months) 
 specified in advertisements issued by the Court in a limitation 
 action for the bringing in of claims for loss of life, an 
 unappropi-iated balance of the sum paid into Court, which 
 remained after payment of all claims which had been success- 
 fully prosecuted, was ordered to be paid to the plaintiffs in 
 the limitation action, although all the possible claims had not 
 been brought in, and the year within which under Lord 
 Campbell's Act had not expired (/). 
 
 Where the owners of a ship found alone to blame for a 
 collision had obtained in the Admiralty Division a judgment 
 
 (/) African Steamship Co. v. 
 Sivanzy, 2 K. & J. 660 ; The Eni- 
 ptcnij, 5 P. D. 6. 
 
 iff) The Evrpuia, 5. P. D. 6 ; The 
 Warkworth, 9 P. D. 20, 145. 
 
 [h) The Amalta, Br. & L. 151 ; 
 Hill V. Audus, 1 K. & J. 263 ; James 
 V. L. ^- S. W. Rail Co., L. R. 7 Ex. 
 187 ; ibid. 287 ; Miller v. ToueU, 2 
 Ct. of Sess. Cas. 3rd ser. 976. In 
 Hill V. ^ndus the bill was not dis- 
 missed for want of jurisdicticn, but 
 
 the injunction to restrain a particular 
 action was refused. See per Willes 
 and Blackburn, JJ., L. R. 7 Ex. 
 291, 295. 
 
 (i) The Sisters, 1 P. D. 281. And 
 see The Awalia, Br. & L. 151. The 
 latter decision was, however, doubted 
 in The Karo, 13 P. D. 24, at p. 29. 
 See the report of the case in 6 Asp. 
 M. C. at p. 247. 
 
 (/.•) The Euro, 13 P. D. 24. 
 
 (^j The Alma, (1903) P. 55.
 
 SUCCESSIVE ACTIONS. -301 
 
 limiting their liability, au aetiou pending in the Queen's to AdmirHlty 
 Beneh Division for damages for personal injuries sustained in jiuiy^iout 
 the collision was transferred to the Admiralty Division {///). j!'"'""^' 
 
 ' • 1 habihtv. 
 
 In an action (A) and counterclaim for a collision bt-tweeu p^^.f „,r,,i„st 
 Till- Belkaini and Britannia, a iudgment bv consent was inadf ''>^ ^»"'* ■ 
 dismissing action and counterclaim, bubsequently owners ot 
 cargo on board The Britannia brought their action (B) against 
 Tin' Bi'ilcairn. In this action both ships were found to be in 
 fault. TJie Britannia owners then instituted an action (C) 
 for limitation of their liability, aud obtained the usual 
 judgment. Thereupon the owners of The Bvllcairn, having, 
 with the consent of The Britannia owners, induced the assistant 
 reo-istrar to rescind the judgment by consent in action (A), 
 souo'ht to claim for damage to Tlie Belkairn against the fund 
 paid into Court in the limitation action (C) in competition 
 with the cargo-owners. It was held that the rescission of tlie 
 judgment in action (A) was u/tra vire.s, that 77/r Bet/cairn 
 owners were estopped from bringing any further action against 
 The Britannia, and that they could not claim against the fund 
 in Court {n). But the case is different where the agreement 
 entered into as to the first action (A) results in a discontinu- 
 ance of that action. In such a case one of the parties is not 
 estopped from asserting a claim against a fund paid into Coui-t 
 in a limitation action by the other party (o). 
 
 Where cargo-owners had recovered judgment against the 8ucc«8«ive 
 other ship, and the owners of the carrying ship, after judg- ",';r^^',"'i„vmM- 
 ment in the cargo-owners' action, brought their action agaiust ='»J •'^•''P- 
 the other ship, and the damages in the two actions exceeded stayuf pn>. 
 the statutory amount of the sliipowuers' liabiHty, wliilst the ^'I'^l'i'V'-*- 
 damages in the cargo-owners' action did not exceed that 
 amount, the Court refused to stay proceedings in the cargo- 
 owners' action until judgment was delivered in the shipowners' 
 action (;j). The object of the plaintiff in tlie second action 
 was to share pari pas.vi with the cargo-owners in the fund to 
 which the shipowners' liability was limited. 
 
 (m) Hawhim v. Mort/cn, 49 L. J. tJ,e Kro,i,jfi,iz, 11 1'. I). W ; 12 App. 
 
 OB G18 ^""- '-•"'• 
 
 (k)' The Belleairu, 10 P. D. Ifil. ( /') '/'/,. Aho Holm, /firnt ii.-ti.m). 
 
 (o) The Ardandhu, Owmrs of the 1 Anp. M. C. ^'J.*. 
 Cargo of the Kronpriuz v. Ownem of
 
 302 
 
 PRACTICE. 
 
 Damaofes 
 assessed by 
 reoristrar and 
 merchants : 
 question of 
 consequential 
 damages may 
 be decided at 
 the hearina:. 
 
 Lord Camp- 
 bell's Act : 
 assessment of 
 damages by 
 jury- 
 
 Surety in 
 Admiralty 
 bond may re- 
 cover against 
 co-owner. 
 
 Master's lia- 
 ])ility on bond 
 to prevent 
 arrest of ship 
 abroad. 
 
 It is the practice in Admiralty to refer all questions as to 
 the amount of damages to the registrar, assisted by mer- 
 chants (q) ; but where the question is raised by the pleadings, 
 it is in the discretion uf the Court to decide at the hearing 
 of the action whether a particular item of loss arising after 
 the collision is recoverable as damages in the action. 
 
 In exercising its discretion, the Court will be guided by 
 the consideration whether the matter is one which can be 
 dealt with better by the Court and its nautical assessors at 
 the hearing, than later by the registrar and a Trinity 
 Master; who now frequently attends references (r). 
 
 Where an action under Lord Campbell's Act for damages 
 was instituted in the Admiralty Division, and no application 
 for a transfer of the action to the Queen's Bench Division 
 having been made, judgment was given for the plaintiffs 
 upon default of pleading by the defendants, it was held, by 
 Sir J. Hannen, that the plaintiffs were entitled to have the 
 amount of the damages assessed by a jury in accordance with 
 the terms of Lord Campbell's Act (v). 
 
 Where a part-owner, without the knowledge of his 
 co-owner, executed a bond to obtain the release of his ship 
 from arrest in a damage action, and subsequently became 
 bankrupt, it was held that a surety who had been compelled 
 to pay the amount of the bond could recover against the 
 co-owner (t). 
 
 The master of a vessel which, by the master's fault, had 
 been in collision with another in a foreign port, in order to 
 prevent her arrest, and in the interest of her owners, gave a 
 bond in the names of himself and the shipowners to cover the 
 damage to the other ship. In an action by the master against 
 the ship for wages and disbursements, he claimed the amount 
 of the penalty of the bond, and also the sum paid by him for 
 repairs to his ship rendered necessary by the collision. It 
 was held that he was not entitled, as against mortgagees of 
 the ship, to have paid into Court the amount of the penalty 
 
 (v) This is the practice in actions 
 for damage to cargo under 24 Vict, 
 c. 10, s. 6, as well as in damage 
 actions : The St. Cloud, Br. & L. 4. 
 
 (r) The Maid of Kent, 6 P. D. 178. 
 
 (.s) The Orwell, Di P. D. 80. 
 
 {/) Barker v. Highleij, 15 C. B. 
 
 N. S. 27.
 
 ADMIRALTY JUKISDK TION OF HIGH COUUT. 303 
 
 of the bond so as to meet claims against him in respect 
 thereof (u). 
 
 The jurisdiction of the Courts of tliis country in resi>oct of Collisions 
 collisions on the liigh seas, and in the territorial waters of LT^^^.vli* 
 foreign countries, and also where one or both tlu- ships nr*- '""^-'Sf" "'"ip- 
 foreign, is considered in a former cliapter (./•). 
 
 The Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court of Justitv A.lminUty 
 
 . ' 1 • 11 ,1 jiiriMiivtion of 
 
 IS co-extensive, geogra]thicallv, with that of the late High Hi^rl. Court 
 Court of Admiralty; the jurisdiction of tlie latter Court "^ •'"-''"• 
 having, by the Judicature Act, 1873, been transf.M-rcd to the 
 High Court of Justice (//). The jurisdiction of the Court of 
 Admiralty extended to all collisions upon the high seas (z), 
 and upon tidal waters not within the body of a county (a). 
 By 3 & 4 Vict. c. 65, s. 6, its jurisdiction was extended to 
 (amongst other things) claims for damage received by '* any 
 ship or sea-going vessel " within the body of a county ; and 
 by 24 Vict. c. 10, ss. 2, 7, it was further extended to claims 
 for damage done by " any des<;ription of vessel used in navi- 
 gation not propelled by oars." It appears that these statutes 
 covered every case of collision between craft f)f all sorts, 
 except a collision within the body of a county between 
 lighters or other craft both of which are propelled by oars 
 only. Thus, it was held that where the collision was within 
 the body of a county, and the damage was done by a steam- 
 ship to a barge, the case was covered by 24 Vict. c. 10, 
 s. 7 [b) ; and where the collision was within the body of a 
 county, and the damage was done by a barge to a steamship, 
 the case was covered by 3 & 4 Vict. c. (>'>, s. ti (c). But where 
 the collision was within the body of a county, and the 
 damage was done by one Thames lighter (projielled by oats 
 only) to another similar craft, the Admiralty Court had no 
 jurisdiction {(/). Consequently, in the last-mentioned case, it 
 seems that though the Admiralty Division has jurisdiction 
 
 (m) The Limerick, 1 P. D. Ill; & L. 57. TIuh cas,. «ii-<.i..t within 
 
 reversing, 1 P. D. 292. 3 & 4 Vi(;t. c. G;'), h. (i ; 'Hn Hi/ftno, 
 
 (x) 8u/mi, pp. 198 sr>j. Lush. I4!J. 
 
 (y) 36 & 37 Vict. c. (iO, s. Ki. (e) I'urkis v. Flour,; L. U. '.' l^. I«. 
 
 (z) The Sarah, Lush. o49. 114. 
 
 (a) 13llic. 2, Ht. I,.'. T); 15 Ric 2, [d) ErrrunI v. Knnhill, L, H. .') 
 
 f. 3 C. P. 428. But st'o oil tliiN cane Thr 
 
 " [i) The MnUinu, Lush. 4'J3 ; Br. Rona, 7 P. D. 247.
 
 304 
 
 PRACTICE. 
 
 Ship not 
 arrested ; 
 judgment by 
 default. 
 
 as a Division of the High Court of Justice, there is no 
 dfimage lien. The Acts above mentioned gave the Admiralty 
 Court jurisdiction in the ease of damage by any craft not 
 pro]ielled by oars to a floating landing-stage within a 
 county (p), to oysters on an oyster-ground (_/'), and also to 
 any sort of craft or other property afloat {g), whether by 
 collision with other craft or not {//). 
 
 The High Court of Admiralty had inherent jurisdiction 
 over every sort of collision and damage to property occurring 
 on the high seas (^), and this jurisdiction is now possessed by 
 the High Court of Justice. 
 
 The Acts above mentioned, which alternately restricted 
 and enlarged the jurisdiction of the Court of Admiralty, are 
 now of importance only in connection with questions of 
 maritime lien, and questions touching the jurisdiction of 
 County Courts (/.•). 
 
 Where in an action in rem the writ was duly served within 
 the jurisdiction, but before service of the warrant to arrest 
 the ship was taken out of the jurisdiction, it was held that 
 judgment could, nevertheless, go against the ship (/). 
 
 («) The J'eritas, (1901) P. 304. 
 
 (/) The Sivift, {IdO])^. 1G8. As 
 to damage to oj sters improperly laid, 
 see Petrie v. Owners of 'The Eostrevor 
 (1898), 2 Ir. .556. 
 
 {g) For the meaning of " shij) " in 
 sect. 4o8 of 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, see 
 The Mac, 7 P. D. 38 ; ou app. ibid. 
 p. 126 ; and elsewhere in the same 
 Act, The C. S. Butler, L. R. 4 A. & 
 E. 238 ; Ex parte Per gn son, L. R. 6 
 Q. B. 280; of " vessel" in 10 & 11 
 
 Vict. c. 27, s. 3, see Hedges v. London 
 and St. Katharine'' s Locks Co., 10 Q. 
 B. D. 597. 
 
 (A) The Zeta, (1893) App. Gas. 
 468 (collision with pier head). 
 
 ((') The Sarah, Lush. 549. 
 
 [k) For detailed information on 
 this subject, see Admiralty Jurisdic- 
 tion and Practice of County Courts, 
 by Raikes & Kilburn. 
 
 (/) The Nautik, (1895) P. 121.
 
 305 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 COSTS. 
 
 Costs are in the discretion of the Court {a), but the general General rule: 
 
 rule in a collision action, in which the owners uf the two ships ^gnt.** *** 
 
 are plaintiif and defendant, is that costs follow the event of 
 
 the action, that is to say, those of the successful party must 
 
 he paid to him by the unsuccessful party, so far as they are 
 
 allowed on taxation. Therefore, if the collision is found to 
 
 have been caused by the fault of the defendant ship alone, 
 
 the plaintiff is given the costs of the action ; if his ship was 
 
 alone in fault, or he fails to prove fault in the defendant 
 
 ship, he will be condemned in costs. But the rule, as has 
 
 been said, is discretionarj^ and there is an instance of an 
 
 unsuccessful I'laintiff not being condemned in costs, although 
 
 the only special circumstance was the difficulty of proof, 
 
 owing to the collision having occurred in a dense fog (h). 
 
 Where both ships are in fault, the rule is that each party. Both ships 
 w^hether the plamtiff sues as shipowner, cargo- owner, or 
 otherwise (c), bears his own costs {d). This rule applies 
 whether there is or is not a counterclaim {e) ; also where the 
 fault of one of the ships is the fault of her compulsory 
 pilot (/). Where a defendant, before statement of claim 
 
 (a) Ord. XLV. r. 1 ; as to the 
 limit of this discretion, see Ee Milk'' 
 Estate, 34 Ch. D. 24. 
 
 (*) The SardininH, Ad. Div. 9th 
 Dec. 1886. 
 
 (c) The City of Manchester, 5 P. D. 
 221 ; The Vera Cruz, 9 P. D. 88. 
 
 {d) The Washington, 5 Jur. 1067 ; 
 The Telegraph, 1 Sp. 427 ; iFihon v. 
 Canada Shippinrj Co., The Lake St. 
 Clair and The Underwritn; 2 App. 
 Cas. 389 ; The Agra and The Elizah>th 
 Jenkins, L. R. 1 P. C. 501; The 
 Lovebird, 6 P. D. 80. The rule 
 formerly was that the costs of the 
 action were divided, and one half 
 borne by each party. The present 
 
 practice is said to have been intro- 
 duced bv Lord Stowell ^per Lord 
 Blackburn, 7 App. Cas. 818; »ed 
 vide 1 W. Rob. 21). in order to avoid 
 the cost of apportionment {prr 
 James, L. J., 'Tht Cilij of .Munchi^itr, 
 P. D. 221), or as part of the .lis- 
 cipline of the seas, so that noitlu-r of 
 two wrong-doiu)^ ships should gain 
 anytbiu-,' by the litigation. {Per 
 Brett, L. J., Thr Ihdor, 8 P. D. 
 218, std rju.) 
 
 (e) The Riijborga Mitule, 8 P. 
 132. 
 
 {/) The Itigboyi/s .Mitidr, H P 
 132; The Hector, 8 P. D. 21h. 
 
 I). 
 
 I).
 
 306 
 
 COSTS. 
 
 Inevitable 
 accident. 
 
 Arrest of 
 ■wrong ship. 
 
 delivered, admitted that his vessel was in fault, and pleaded 
 the admission in his statement of defence, and the Court 
 found that both ships were in fault, the plaintiff was ordered 
 to pay the costs incurred after the defendant's admission {(}). 
 And so, where the plaintiffs, in their statement of claim, 
 admitted that they were to blame, but alleged that the defen- 
 dants were also to blame, which the Court found to be the 
 fact, the plaintiffs were held entitled to costs (/O- In both 
 these cases, therefore, the successful party on the issue before 
 the Court obtained his costs. 
 
 It was formerly a rule (/) of the Admiralty Court that 
 where the collision occurred without fault in either ship — the 
 so-called case of inevitable accident— provided the plaintiff 
 was not unduly rash in bringing his action (k), no costs were 
 given on either side. In a case dpcided by Sir R. Phillimore 
 since the Judicature Acts, where the collision was held to 
 have occurred without fault in the defendant, no order was 
 made as to costs. But this was an exceptional case, because 
 a ground of the decision was that the defendant's ship had 
 unavoidably a riding light exhibited, though she was not at 
 anchor (^). Now, however, there is a general rule that, in 
 the absence of special circumstances, costs should follow the 
 event of the action in cases of collision by "inevitable 
 accident," as in other cases (m). 
 
 Where the plaintiffs, in their reply, admitted that the 
 collision was an inevitable accident, the defendants, upon 
 motion for judgment, obtained judgment with costs (no- 
 where the plaintiff failed to identify the ship arrested as 
 the ship with which his own had been in collision, the action 
 was dismissed with costs (o). It seems that, to entitle the 
 defendant in such a case to damages for the wrongful arrest 
 
 {g) The Elmr, cited Williams & 
 Bruce, 3rd ed. 98. 
 
 (A) The General Gordon, 6 Asp. 
 M. C. 533 ; reversed on the facts, 
 Feb. 18th, 1891. 
 
 (i) The Itinerant, 2 W. Rob. 236 ; 
 The London, Br. «fe L. h2, followed by 
 the Privy Council in The Mar^jesia, 
 L. E. 4 P. C. 212. 
 
 {k) For an instance, see The 
 Thornlcy, 7 Jur. 659. 
 
 {I) The Buckhurst, 6 P. D. 152. 
 
 {m) The Monksenton, 14 P. D. 51, 
 followed in I he Batavier, 15 P. D. 
 37. 
 
 (h) The Naples, II P. D. 124. 
 
 (o) The Evangelismos, Swab. 378 ; 
 12 Moo. P. C. 352; The Active, 5 
 L. T. 773 ; The Slrathnaver, 1 App. 
 Cas. 58. See also The Peri, 32 L. J. 
 Ad. 46.
 
 COSTS. 307 
 
 of his skip, gross negligence, eqnivalent to malice, mnst he 
 proved against the plaintiff (;)). 
 
 The decisions in Admiralty in which a successful defendant 
 has been required to hear his own costs, so far as they conflict 
 ^ath the practice of the other Divisions of the Iligli Court, 
 would probably not now be followed {<]). 
 
 The ship that succeeded in a collision action was in one Cosu n-f um«d : 
 case deprived of her right to costs by reason of the violence crow"'* "' 
 of her crew to those on board the other ship at the time of 
 the collision (r) ; and in another case (before the statutory 
 rule as to standing by was in force), a vessel was deprived of 
 her costs by reason of her failure to stand by and assist the 
 other ship (s). 
 
 The owner of cargo who sues the ship with which the Car>f.i.ownor 
 carrying ship has been in collision will not get his costs if he |iefe"d!i*[,tv 
 claims that the ship sued is alone in fault, and it is held that '**>'P H' ^" 
 both ships are in fault (i*). It has been said that the strict whero ix.th 
 course in such a case is to give the plaintiffs the costs of the *™ '" ^'*""- 
 issue upon which they succeed, and to make them pay the 
 costs of the issue on which they fail. But, to avoid the 
 expense of such an apportionment, it was held in The City of 
 Manchester that no order should be made as to costs {u). 
 
 In an action by the owners of a barge against her tug and a 
 steamship with which she had been in collision, the owners of 
 the steamship having attempted to cast the whole blame on 
 the tug, their vessel was found alone to blame, and they were 
 ordered to pay the costs, both of their co-defendants and of 
 the plaintiffs {or) . 
 
 In the case of a collision with a King's ship, the Crown Costj. in cue 
 
 - of colliiuon 
 
 used to conform to the practice of the Coui-t as to i)ayment ot with ono of 
 costs (//), and now by the Admii-alty Suits Act, L^OS, the l^y.^j.^^''^'"''-"''' 
 
 (p) See cases cited in last note, Court below; The Ilihemui, 1 Asp. 
 
 and p. 297, .s!<;5rffl. M. O. 4.')4. TUe Milan, fiUsJi. .HSS. 
 
 (q) The General Steam Navigation would not, it seems, now be f. ill.) win! 
 
 Co. V. London ^- Edinhurt/h Ship/iitig on this poiut. 
 
 Co., 2 Ex. D. 467 ; The Moukseaton, (it) See per Jiiiues, L. J., A P. I). 
 
 14 P. D. 51 : and see per Butt, J., at )>. 21.i. Bu^rj^'allay, L. J., in tlio 
 
 The Naplen, 11 P. D. 124; The same case thouK'ht tliatncitlur juirty 
 
 Batiwier, 1.5 P. D. 37. should pet any e<.st«. 
 
 ., ■ The Catalina, 2 Sp. 23. (x) Th, Knur Luijan, (i Anp. M. O. 
 
 W The Celt. Z'K&s. k?^.Vl\. 281. follow.-d in The Mgttunj, (\Wl) 
 
 («) 
 
 {t) The City of Manchester, 6 P. D. P. Uh 
 
 221,' reversing "'the decision of the (y) H.M.S. Swallow, Swab. 30. 
 
 X 2
 
 308 
 
 COSTS. 
 
 Defence of 
 compulsory 
 pilotage. 
 
 Admiralty, if it brings an action, is liable to pay or receive 
 costs according to the ordinary practice (s). 
 
 A defendant who, admitting that his ship was in fault for 
 the collision, raises and succeeds upon the defence of com- 
 pulsory pilotage, will obtain his costs (a) ; and costs were 
 given to a defendant who in his pleadings alleged that his 
 ship was not in fault, but at the trial abandoned this defence 
 and relied solely upon his alternative plea of compulsory 
 pilotage (h) ; again where, defending the ease upon the merits, 
 he fails, though he raises also, and succeeds upon, the defence 
 of compulsory pilotage, he will — the plaintiff having failed 
 in his action — be given his costs (c). But if the defendant, 
 in addition to defending the case on its merits, has set up a 
 counterclaim, it will be dismissed with costs {d). So, before 
 the Judicature Acts, where there were cross actions, and the 
 collision was held to have been caused bj the compulsory 
 pilot of the plaintiff ship, the plaintiff's action was dismissed 
 with costs, and the defendant's cross action without costs (e). 
 The above was formerly the practice in the Admiralty Court 
 and Privy Council (,/') ; it has been followed since the 
 Judicature Acts by the Court of Appeal and the Admiralty 
 Division {[/). But in the Exchequer Division this practice 
 was on one occasion not followed, and the plaintiff was 
 ordered to paj^ the defendant's costs (A). In T/ze Hankou- (i) 
 the uncertainty of the law as to compulsory pilotage was 
 assigned as a reason for not giving costs. Where, upon the 
 defendant deliveiing his defence allegiog that the collision 
 
 (z) 31 & 32 Vict. c. 78, s. 6. 
 
 (a) The Royal Charter, L. R. 2 A. 
 & E. 362 ; The Schwami, L. R. 4 A. 
 & E. 187; The Juno, 1 P. D. 135; 
 The Winston, 8 P. D. 176; The 
 Charlton, 8 Asp. M. C. 29. 
 
 [b) The Oakjield, 11 P. D 34. 
 
 (c) The Burma, 8 Asp. M. C. 547 ; 
 The Somerset, May 25th, 1909 (Ship- 
 ping Gazette) ; following The Courier 
 (1891) and The Nellie (1896). The 
 former practice was otherwise : The 
 Sehwaun, L. R. 4 A. & E. Is7 ; and 
 was followed by Bargrave Deane, J., 
 in The Celtic, July 19th, 1909 (Ship- 
 ping Gazette), but on special grounds. 
 
 [d) So held, after reserving the 
 point for inquiry, in The Ruby, 15 
 
 P. D. 139. In The Princeton, 3 
 P. D. 90, and The Mercurius, Ad. 
 Div. June, 1887, no costs were 
 given, either of action or counter- 
 claim ; but the point does not appear 
 to have been argued, at least in the 
 former case. 
 
 (f) The Annapolis, Lush. 295, 313. 
 
 [f) The Iniiis/ail, 3 Asp. M. C. 
 337 , The Princeton, 3 P. D" 90. 
 
 {y) The Matthew Cay, L. R. 5 P. D. 
 49 ; The Laioz, 3 Asp. M. C. 477 ; 
 The Riyborys Minde, 8 P. D. 132. 
 
 (A) General Steam Saviijatioyi Co. 
 V. London and Edinburgh Shipping 
 Co., 2 Ex. D. 467. 
 
 (i) 4 P. D. 197.
 
 COSTS. 
 
 309 
 
 was caused by the fault of the compulsory pilot iu charge of 
 his ship, the plaintiff discontiuued his action, Butt, J., ht-ld 
 that the plaintiff must pay the defendant's costs, upon the 
 ground that there were no facts before him upon which he 
 could exercise a discretion [k). 
 
 The rule as to no costs being given where both ships are in 
 fault applies where the fault is that of a compulsory pilot (/). 
 
 In an action in the City of Loudon Court, after judgment Judpmeut 
 for the plaintiff with costs, and before the reference, the de- ^llot '£* 
 fendant paid into Com-t a sura which at the reference was 'ilterod. 
 found sufficient to cover the daraages. The judge thereui)ou 
 altered his judgment as to the costs of the action, and ordered 
 the plaintiff to pay them. It was held by the Court of Appeal 
 that he had no power to make such an order (w). 
 
 The costs of a reference do not follow the costs of the action (w), Coats of the 
 for the investigation before the registrar is in the nature of a ''^*®'*"<*- 
 new litigation, and the costs of it are in the discretion of the 
 registrar (o), subject to an appeal to the Com-t. The general 
 rule now is that except under special circiuustances, the 
 claimant is entitled to his costs, in-espective of the proportion 
 which the amount allowed bears to the amount claimed. The 
 rule is the same whether one or both ships tu-e iu fault ( p) ; 
 whether the claim is by an owner of ship or of cargo (y) ; 
 whether the claimant is plaintiff or defendant claiming upon 
 a counterclaim (/•) ; and whether, both ships being in fault, 
 proceedings upon the reference have been taken with respect 
 to the damage to one or both ships (.s) . Whore at the refer- 
 ence in a limitation action an exorbitant claim was made, the 
 claimant was ordered to bear his own costs (i), and where in 
 a limitation action the cargo owners contested the ship claim 
 
 (A) The J. H. Ilenkes, 12 P. D. 
 106. Butt, J., expressed an opiuion 
 that the practice as to costs should 
 be uniform in all Divisions of the 
 High Court. 
 
 {I) The Riqborgs Minde, 8 P. D. 
 132; The Oakfield, 11 P. D. 34. 
 
 {m) The Recepta, (189;<) P. 255, 
 265. 
 
 («) Formerly a different practice 
 prevailed : see The Peerless, G L. T. 
 107. 
 
 {(,) S. C. Rules, Ord. LVI. r. 8 ; 
 The Friedeberg (1885), 10 P. D. 112. 
 
 {p) The Comett, 5 P. D. 52 ; Thr 
 Saveru'ike, 5 P. D. 166 ; and The 
 Mary, 7 P. D. 201, hotli were in 
 fault. 
 
 (7) In The ('o)isett, 5 P. 1). 52, 77, 
 the claim wa.s by par;r(i-'>wiicT. 
 
 (rj In The Mar;/ both phiintitf and 
 defendant f^ot their costs. 
 
 (x) In 'The Sa remake, 5 P. I). IHG, 
 it did not appear that before the 
 reference any j)roct'fdin>,'s liad been 
 taken by one of the hhips. 
 
 (t) The Hijnulruom, « Asp. M. 0. 
 538.
 
 310 
 
 CORTS. 
 
 Report of 
 registrar as 
 to costs. 
 
 Costs of 
 appeal from 
 registrar. 
 
 Costs in Court 
 of Appeal. 
 
 and reduced it materially on the point whether the ship was 
 or was not a constructive total loss, the ship claimants were 
 ordered to pay the costs of the cargo owners over and ahove 
 the costs of the cargo owners in proving their claim {u) . 
 
 The report of the registrar is seldom disturbed (x). Where 
 there is no report, an order as to the costs will be mado ui)on 
 motion by the Court (i/). 
 
 The costs of an appeal from the registrar, as a general rule, 
 follow the result of the appeal (z). 
 
 The cardinal principle in regard to the costs of an appeal 
 is that costs shall be given to the successful party whether 
 appellant or respondent ; thus where the Court below held 
 one ship only to blame, and such ship appealed, and admitting 
 that it was to blame, claimed that the other ship was also to 
 blame, and this contention succeeded, it was held that the 
 appellant was entitled to the costs of the appeal (a). 
 
 In The Ann (b) the Privy Council dismissed the appeal, 
 but without costs, because, although the appellant's ship had 
 been found solely in fault in the Court below, whereas in the 
 opinion of the Privy Council she was free from blame, the 
 appellant had in his pleadings alleged that the collision was 
 caused by his adversary's ship starboarding, the fact being 
 that she had caused the collision by not porting in time. A 
 similar order was made where, both ships having been held 
 in fault in the Court below, it was held upon appeal that 
 neither was in fault (c). 
 
 On the principle above stated {d), the Court of Appeal, 
 reversing the decision of the Court below, having found the 
 collision to have occurred without fault in either ship, the ship 
 sued was given her costs both of the appeal and in the 
 Court below {e) . 
 
 {u) The Chatham (1907), Fo. 460, 
 Ad. Court, October 26th, 1908. 
 
 (x) The Cunsett, 5 P. D. 77 ; The 
 Savernake, 5 P. T>. 166. 
 
 (f/) The Mary, 7 P. D. 201. 
 
 (z) The Black Prince, Lush. 568 ; 
 The Farana, 1 P. D. 452 ; 2 P. D. 
 118 ; and recent uni-eported cases, 
 e.g., The Lindisfarne (1908), Fo. 604. 
 
 {a) The London, (1905; P. 152; 10 
 Asp. 109 ; The Anselm, (1907) P. 
 151 ; The Ceto, 14 App. Cas. 670 ; 6 
 
 Asp. 479. These cases clearly over- 
 rule such decisions as The Hector, 
 8 P. D. 218, and TJie Rigborgs Minde, 
 8 P. D. 132. 
 
 {b) Lush. 55. 
 
 [c) The Utopia, (1893) App. Cas. 
 492. 
 
 {d) Notwithstanding The Swansea 
 and The Condor, 4 P. D. 115, and 
 The Milanese, 4 Asp. M. C. 318. 
 
 ie) The Monkseaton, 14 P. D. 51 ; 
 but see The Marpesia, L. R. 4 P. C.
 
 COSTS. 
 
 311 
 
 Likewise where both shi]is are held in fault in the Court 
 below, and upon the appeal by one of the parties the other party 
 applies to have the judwrnent varied or reversed, and the 
 Court of Appeal affirms the decision of the Court below, the 
 appellant will be ordered to pay the costs of the appeal, except 
 so far as they have been augmented by the notice given by 
 the respondent (f). 
 
 Where in the Court below both ships are held in faidt, and 
 one only of them appeals, and the appeal is dismissed, the 
 appellant will be ordered to pay the costs of the appeal (//). 
 
 Where, upon a claim and counterclaim, ship A. is held 
 solely in fault, and upon appeal the decision is reversed, and 
 ship B. held solely in fault, the appellant will get his costs 
 both of the appeal and in the Court below {//). 
 
 A plaintiff, or a defendant having a counterclaim, who is Security for 
 resident out of the jurisdiction elsewhere than in Scotland or 
 Ireland (?'), may be required to give security for costs (k) ; but 
 he will not be required to give security for damages that may 
 be awarded against him (/). 
 
 The general rule as to the costs of an action for limitation Cost-* of 
 of liability is that they shall be borne by the plaintiff. But ii,„it^,tiou of 
 if the defendant raises at the trial or at the reference (w) issues l"il>ility. 
 which are decided against him, as where he disputes the right 
 of the plaintiff on the ground that the loss was by and with 
 the privity of the owners (»), or was not caused by improper 
 navigation (o) , or that there is a separate liability in respect 
 of each of two collisions (p), he will be compelled to pay tlie 
 extra costs occasioned to the plaintiff by such issues. Nor 
 
 212 ; The City of Cambridge, ?> Asp. 
 M. C. 307. In The Chance (March 8th, 
 1907, Shipijiiif? Gazette), appollantH 
 who succeeded in establisliiufir the 
 defence of inevitable accident in the 
 Court of Appeal were ffiven the 
 costs of the appeal, but each side was 
 ordered to bear their own costs in 
 the Court below. 
 
 (/) The Lauretta, 4 P. D. l^u 
 
 ((/) The inianese, 4 Asp. M. C. 
 438; and see per Brett, L. J., in 
 The Hector, 8 P. D. 218. 
 
 (A) The Glannibanta, 1 P. D. 283 
 (1876). 
 
 (i) See 31 & 32 Vict. c. 56; 36 & 
 
 37 Vi<t. c. 66, 8. 76; Thr Ptlaw, 
 cited Williams & Bruce, Ad. Pr. 
 3rded. 482, note (/). 
 
 (/;•) Thf Constant in,: 4 1'. D. 166; 
 The ^,'ivbattle, 10 P. D. 33; The 
 Julia Finl.er, 2 P. D. ll/i. 
 
 (/) The Mary or Alexandra, L. K. 
 1 A. & E. 335. 
 
 (m) The Rijnstroom, 8 Asp. M. C. 
 538. 
 
 (n) African Steamxhip Co. v. Swanzy, 
 •1 K. it J. (16') ; The City of Jlnftios 
 AyrcH. 1 Asp. M. C. UiU ; Thr 
 Einpuxa, 5 P. D. 6. 
 
 (o) The H'arkuorfh, it P. 1). 2U. 
 
 Ip) The Creadon, 5 Asp. M. C. 586.
 
 312 
 
 COSTS. 
 
 Costs of 
 action for 
 amount below 
 County Coui't 
 limit. 
 
 Costs of 
 appeal from 
 County Coui't 
 
 Costs of 
 excessive bail, 
 
 will the plaintiff in the limitation action have to pay the 
 costs of litigation between the claimants upon the fund 
 representing the amount of their statutory liability as to their 
 respective rights to share in the fund {q). 
 
 As already said {ante, p. 30-3), costs are now in all cases in 
 the discretion of the Court. The provisions therefore of the 
 County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 18t)8 (31 & 32 
 Vict. c. 71), ss. 3, 9, as to costs, are no longer in force, and a 
 plaintiff who brings his action in the Supreme Court may 
 receive his costs, though the amount of his damages is 
 less than the County Court (Admiralty) limit (y) ; but in 
 practice he will not get them unless there are special cu'cum- 
 stances justifying his proceeding in the High Court (sj. In 
 The Saltburn, for example U), such circumstances were held 
 to exist. The size of the vessels, the nature of the collision, 
 the length of the trial, and the judgment pronounced were 
 such that the Court was satisfied that the plaintiff had acted 
 reasonably in bringing the action in the High Court ; similar 
 decisions have been given according to the circumstances of 
 the case. 
 
 Upon appeal from a County Court, 31 & 32 Vict. c. 71, 
 s. 30, provides that an unsuccessful appellant shall pay the 
 costs of the appeal, unless the Appellate Court otherwise 
 directs. This enactment, if not repealed, is subject to the 
 discretion vested in Divisional Courts by Ord. XLV. r. 1. 
 
 If a plaintiff arrests the defendant ship, and requires bail 
 for an exorbitant sum, he will be ordered to pay all the costs 
 and expenses to wliich the defendants have been put in finding 
 bail. iSuch an order is sometimes made in a salvage action, 
 as where 3,000/. was claimed, and bail for that sum required, 
 and only 450/. was awarded (m), but seldom in a collision 
 
 {q) African Steamship Co. v. 
 Swanzy, ubi supra ; The City of 
 Buenos Ayres, ubi supra ; The Em- 
 pusa, ubi supra. As to the costs of 
 an exorbitant claim at the reference, 
 see The Rijnstroom, supra. 
 
 (»•) Garnett v. Bradley, L. E. 3 
 App. Cas. 944 ; Ttnnant ^ Co. v. 
 Ellis % Co., 6 Q. B. D. 46; The 
 Camellia, 9 P. D. 27 ; SnelUng v. 
 PitlUng, 29 Ch. D. 85; Farnell v. 
 Mort, Liddell 6; Co., ibid. 325. 
 
 (s) The Herald, 6 Asp. M. C. 542 ; 
 
 The Asia, (1891) P. 121 ; The Zeta, 
 (1891) P. 216; (1893) App. Cas. 
 468; Rockett v. Chippingdale, (1891) 
 2 Q. B. 293, where Lord Esher re- 
 marked that no rule was intended to 
 be laid down in The Asia, supra. 
 
 it) (1892) P. 333. 
 
 (m) The George Gordon, 9 P. D. 
 46 ; and see The Earl Grey, 1 Sp. 
 ISO; The Eleonore, Br. & L. 185. 
 As to moderation of bail, see supra, 
 p. 80.
 
 COSTS. 
 
 313 
 
 action, as the amount of the claim is usually difficult to 
 
 formulate at the time of the issue of the Nvi-it. 
 
 The costs of the attendance of the country solicitor at tli.> Attendaiu-e 
 
 trial in London will be usually allowed on taxation. solicitor. 
 
 The owner of cargo arrested for freiorht, upon paying into f*)*!"?. 
 
 ° 111 e • frtuirht into 
 
 Court the amount of freight, may deduct the cost of paymg Com-t. 
 
 it in {v) . 
 
 Money paid to sureties on a bail bond in consideration of Expou*- of 
 
 their suretyship ^vill be allowed as costs {ic). 
 
 The expense of detaining seamen witnesses until the trial DctamniK' 
 is allowed as costs {x), when such detention is, under the witms^s. 
 circumstances, reasonably necessary. 
 
 Costs occasioned by a mistake of the examiner in taking ^^^'J^^j;"''* 
 evidence are costs in the cause (//) . 
 
 Judgment with costs does not include the cost of a tran- shortlmud 
 script of shorthand notes, unless it is applied for at the trial 
 and specially ordered (s) . 
 
 (v) The Leo, Lush. 444. See (i/)' The Knutxford, {\89l) P. 219 
 
 Ord. XXIX. r. 4. (2) The Turret Court, 9 Asp. M. C. 
 
 (w) Ord. XII. r. 21a. 162. 
 
 {x) The Ear la, Br. & L. 367. 
 
 notes.
 
 314 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 to the rule of 
 the road 
 
 THE KEGULATTONS FOR PREVENTING COLLISIONS AT SEA. 
 
 Legislation as ^^^y years before the rule of tlie road at sea was regulated 
 
 to the rule of "^ . „ it^itij 
 
 by Act of Parliament, the practice ot seamen had established 
 rules to enable approaching ships to keep clear of each other. 
 These rules, which are the foundation of those now in force, 
 were well established by custom, and formed part of the 
 general maritime law administered by the Admiralty 
 Court (fl). In the year 1840 a rule (^>) as to the side on 
 which steamships were to pass each other was promulgated by 
 the London Trinity House, and enforced by the Admiralty 
 Court. In 1846 the subject was first dealt with by the 
 Legislature (c), and since that year the law has been altered 
 
 (a) A rule of the road for ships ou 
 opposite tacks existed in the latter 
 part of the eighteenth century. 
 Admiralty Regulations of that date 
 direct that a ship on the larboard 
 tack shall bear up for another on the 
 starboard tack. In The Resolution 
 (Marsd. Ad. Cas. 332), of the year 
 1789) the rule is said to have been 
 framed by Lord Howe seven or 
 eight years previously. In the 
 Earl of Warwick's Sailing Instruc- 
 tions of 1645 there is an Article 
 directing that no captain shall take 
 the wind of an admiral. (Ad. Ct. 
 Rec. Miscell. bundle 56.) And the 
 Duke of York's Sailing Instructions 
 of about 1670 contain an Ar-ticle to 
 the like effect. In neither of these 
 codes, nor in any of the pleadings or 
 sentences of the seventeenth and 
 eighteenth centuries, is there any 
 trace of the " port tack " rule. 
 
 The rule that a ship with the wind 
 free must give way to a ship close- 
 hauled appears to have been first 
 recognized by the Courts in Lord 
 Erskine's time, " in a case tried at 
 Guildhall before Mr. Justice BuUer.' ' 
 
 In 18'28, the rule is thus stated : 
 "The ship which has the wind at 
 large may go either to leeward or to 
 windward ; but, as a general rule, 
 she ought to expect that the ship 
 which is close-hauled will keep to 
 windward, and therefore she ought 
 to go to leeward, unless it is quite 
 clear that she can go to windward 
 with safety." See Handaysyde v. 
 Wilson, 3 C. & P. 528. In Jainieson 
 V. Brinhald, 5 L. J. C. P. 0. S. 30, 
 expert evidence as to the custom was 
 heard, and the judge had "the 
 assistance of two Brethren of the 
 Trinity House, to explain the duties 
 of the masters of both ships." 
 
 {b) This rule — to the effect that 
 steamships shall pass on the star- 
 board hand of each other — will be 
 found 1 W. Rob. 488. As to its 
 construction, see The Friends, 1 W. 
 Rob. 484 ; 4 Moo. P. C. 314 ; The 
 Unity, Swab. 101 ; The Duke of 
 Sussex, 1 W. Rob. 274 ; The Hope, 
 ibid. 154 ; The Immaganda Sara 
 Clasina, 8 Moo. P. C. 85. 
 
 (c) 9 & 10 Vict. c. 100.
 
 ENACTMENT OF EXISTING T^EGIXATTONS. 
 
 •^15 
 
 or added to by four successive Acts of Parliament ((/). The 
 only Act now in force is 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60. 
 
 By that Act (sect. 418), power is given to his Majesty, K: • o 
 
 upon the joint recommendation of the Admiralty and the |.etfulttUuuir' 
 Board of Trade, by Order in Council, to make regulations 
 for preventing collisions at sea. Such regulations are to 
 apply to British ships everywhere, and to foreign ships when 
 within British jurisdiction. 
 
 By Order in Council of 27th November, 189H, the Regu- 
 lations of 1884 (except Art. 10) were annulled as to British 
 ships, as from the 1st July, 1897, and the regulations printed 
 below (hereinafter called the Regidations of 1897) were sub- 
 stituted for them. 
 
 By Order in Council of 4th April, 1906, Art. 10 of the 
 Regulations of 1884 and the provisions of the Orders in 
 Council of 30th December, 1884, 24th June, 1885, and 
 23rd October, 1905, so far as they affected the provisions of 
 Art. 10 of the Regulations of 1884, were repealed, and the 
 new article in the schedule to that order is to be read and 
 construed as part of the regulations contained in Schedule I. 
 to the Order in Council of 27th November, 1896, and as if it 
 had formed one of such regulations and had been numbered 9 
 among the articles containing the same. 
 
 By 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, s. 424, his Majesty is empowered, 
 with the consent of the foreign government, to direct that 
 the regulations shall apply to the ships of foreign countries, 
 whether within British jurisdiction or not, and that such 
 ships shall, for the purpose of the regulations, be treated as 
 if they were British ships. By Orders in Council of 18th May 
 and 7th July, 1897, they have been applied to ships of the 
 Argentine Republic, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Brazil, 
 Chili, China, Costa Rica, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, France, 
 Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Nether- 
 lands, Norway, Peru, Portugal, Russia, Siam, Spain, Sweden, 
 United States ; with a proviso that, in the case of China, they 
 
 (d) 14 & 15 Vict. c. 79; 17 & 18 Swaboy's Ilop ; 25 & 26 Viot. 
 Vict. c. 104 ; Admiralty Order of c 03 ; 67 & 58 Viot. c. OO. 
 26th Oct. 1858, Hee Appendix,
 
 316 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Proof of 
 regulations. 
 
 Submarine 
 Telegraph 
 Act, 1885. 
 
 Scope of 
 authority to 
 make Regula- 
 tions conferred 
 by Merchant 
 Shipping Act, 
 1894,s.418(i). 
 
 shall apply only to ships of war and merchant ships of 
 foreign type {e) . 
 
 At the present date (1903) ships of Cochin, Kattyawar, 
 Khelat, Kutch, Muscat, Travancore, and Zanzibar (see Order 
 in Council of 6th September, 1880) ; ships of Ecuador and 
 Hawaii (see Order in Council of 27th November, 1880) ; and 
 ships of Turkey (see Order in Council of 9th July, 1885), 
 are subject to the Regulations of 1880 or 1884 (/), except, in 
 the case of Japan, the Article as to fog-horns, and, in the 
 case of Turkey, the Article as to bells. 
 
 Production of the Gazette containing the Order in Council 
 making or altering such regulations, or a copy of the regu- 
 lations signed or purporting to be signed by a secretary or 
 assistant secretary of the Board of Trade, or sealed or 
 purporting to be sealed with the seal of the Board of Trade, 
 is sufficient evidence of the due making and purport of 
 such regulations [g). 
 
 The Submarine Telegraph Act, 1885 (48 & 49 Vict. c. 49), 
 embodying a Convention, to which the principal maritime 
 nations are parties, provides for the making of special 
 regulations for preventing collision with ships engaged in 
 telegraph cable work. No such regulations as are referred to 
 in the Convention have been agreed to by the signatory 
 Powers up to the present date. The Convention has been 
 amended, with reference to the liability for damage to 
 cables, by 50 Yict. c. 3, and an Order in Council of 3rd May, 
 1888, in pursuance of a notice of 20th April, 1888 (gazetted 
 24th April, 1888). 
 
 In accordance with the powers conferred by the Merchant 
 Shipping Act, 1894, the Crown may " make regulations for 
 the prevention of collisions at sea, and may thereby regulate 
 
 {e) As to the application of the 
 rule as to presumption of fault con- 
 tained in sect. 419 (4) of the M. S. 
 Act, 1894, to a foreign vessel in the 
 case of a collision occurring beyond 
 the territorial jurisdiction when there 
 is no Order in Council applying 
 Part V. of the M. S. Act, 1894, to 
 the country to which such vessel 
 belongs, see The Koning Willem I., 
 (1903) P. 114, and JFtn. Cory ^ Son, 
 Ltd. V. Eopajtic, So. L. Rep., XLV., 
 216, in both of which cases the point 
 
 was taken that the rule would not 
 apply in such circumstances. In 
 both cases it became unnecessary to 
 decide the point. In Australia it 
 has been held that the rule does not 
 apply in such a case : The Ooogee, 
 Victorian L. R., XXIX., p. 874 ; see 
 also The Astrakhan, Ship Gaz. Nov. '4, 
 1909. 
 
 (/) See 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, s. 745. 
 
 \g) 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, ss. 695, 
 719, 738.
 
 THEIR ENACTMENT AND APPLICATION. '^V 
 
 the lights to be carried and exhibited, the fog signals to be 
 carried and used, and the steering and sailing rules to be 
 observed by ships ..." These words have been the object of 
 close scrutiny. The power conferred is to " make regulations 
 for the prevention of collisions at sea" (//), and the Order in 
 Council of 27th November, 189H, describes the regulations 
 contained in the schedule attached thereto as being such 
 regulations. The preliminary paragraph of the regulations, 
 on the other hand, lays down that the " rules shall be followed 
 upon the high seas and in all waters connected therewith, 
 navigable by sea-going vessels." In view of this discrepancy 
 it was contended in respect of a collision, which occurred in 
 the Para estuary of the River Amazon (/), that the regulations 
 were not applicable to these waters, and that, in so far as 
 they purported to control the navigation of vessels in such 
 waters, they were u/fra vires. The Court of Appeal, haWng 
 regard to the many cases (A-) in which the regulations have been 
 treated as applicable to rivers and narrow waters, refused to 
 interfere with what had become the established practice, and 
 it may now be regarded as settled law, so far as that Court is 
 concerned, that the regulations ar<^ applicable to all waters 
 within the preliminary paragraph, and, in view of the 
 expressions of the learned Lords Justices, it may be regarded 
 as almost equally certain that a breach of the regulations in 
 such waters carries with it the statutory penalty. 
 
 The regulations can, however, only apply to waters which 
 are within the preliminary paragraph of the regulations, and 
 accordingly do not apply to an artificial channel connected 
 with the sea by means of locks, such as the Manchester Ship 
 Canal (/). 
 
 (/j) The Act (s. 421), aud also o App. Cas. 876 (Peuiiiifjr thauuel) ; 
 
 Art. 30 {infra, p. 501), pre.serve the and see T/ie Fyenoord, Swab. a74 ; 
 
 force of rules made under local Acts ; Tiiv Gertnania, P. C. I7th June, 1876, 
 
 aud the same section enables the cited I Maude A: Pollock ou Shipping, 
 
 King to make rules for waters where <)06. note (i) ; TJir Lneruiydo,. II 
 
 there IS no other authority to make P. D. 117. In America tlic Ai^t of 
 
 them. Under this power rules have Congre.ss embodying,' tlie lifKtihitions 
 
 been made for Windermere Lake; of 1863 is expressed to be fur prt»- 
 
 Ord. in Council, 19th Nov. 1902. venting colli.Mons " on water." By 
 
 ^i) The An-elm, (1907) P. 151. the Canadian statute 31 Viot. c. 58, 
 
 [k) The Coricordia, L. R. 1 A. & the roguhitioiis are upidi.iible over 
 
 E. 93; The Vclociti/, L. k. 3 P. C all the inland and other uavi^fablo 
 
 44; The Colofftw and The Itaiiijcr, waters of the Dominion. 
 iAtrf. 4 P. C. 519; The Owen Walhs, (/) The Hare, (VM\) P. 3.U. In 
 
 L. K. 4 A A: K. 175 ; The Khedive, ^Vnierica, power in given by Act of
 
 318 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 It has also been unsuccessfully contended that no power is 
 given by the Merchant Shipping Act to make regulations in 
 regard to sound signals other than fog signals {m). 
 
 In regard to the regulations, it has been said that their 
 object is not only to prevent collisions but to minimise their 
 effects {n). It is not clear that his Majesty has power to 
 make regulations for any object but to prevent collisions. 
 Any regulation, however, directed to mitigate the effect of 
 a collision would probably be held to tend to the prevention 
 of collision, and to be well made under the powers given by 
 the Act above mentioned. 
 
 On the sea, everywhere, except where inconsistent (o) local 
 rules are in force, the collision regulations are directly appli- 
 cable ( p) . Their application in winding rivers and in waters 
 where local rules are in force is considered below under 
 Arts. 19, 25 and 29. 
 
 By Scottish Courts the regulations have been held to apply 
 in the Clyde. Notwithstanding the existence of local rules 
 of navigation applicable to the Clyde, a steamship was held 
 in fault for disobedience to Arts. 13 and 18 of the Regula- 
 tions of 1863(5-). From this decision it appears that in 
 Scotland the regulations are held to be applicable in rivers, as 
 well as at sea, and that where local rules are in force they are 
 to be construed and applied in conjunction with the general 
 regulations. In The CarloUa (r) Grorell Barnes, J., was 
 disposed to hold that they so apply in the Thames. 
 
 Congress of 19th Feb. 1895, c. 102, 
 to a department of the Government 
 to fix the line dividing- waters with- 
 in which the sea reuriilations are 
 applicable from inland and coast 
 waters within which loi al rules are 
 in force. The " London Gazette " 
 of 30th March, 1897, contains Notices 
 to Mariners (No. 349 of 1895, and 
 No. 171 of 1897) of the fixing- of such 
 lines in certain American waters. 
 
 (/«) The ArisfocrrH. (1908) P. 9. 
 
 (n) See per Lord Watson in The 
 Voorwaarts and The K'ledire, 5 App. 
 Cas. 876, 903, 904 ; and see Maelnren 
 V. Compagnie, ^-c, 9 App. Cas. 640, 
 651, 65-2. 
 
 (o) 43 Vict. c. 29 (Canada), s. 4, 
 makes void local rules which are 
 inconsistent with the rea-ulations. 
 
 {p) See The Saxonia, Ijvish.. 410, as 
 
 to the appli(^ation of a former Act to 
 foreign ships in the Solent. 
 
 [q) Little V Burns, The Owl and 
 The Ariadne, 9 Ct. of Sess. Cas. 
 4th ser. 118, where, however, the 
 ship was in fault upon the facts. 
 See also The Germania, cited Maude 
 .i- Pollock on Shipping. 4th ed. 606, 
 note (i), where the collision was in 
 the Humher, near the Flat Holm 
 Sand, and the regulations as to lights 
 were held to apply. In The Fekin, 
 (1897) App. Cas. 533, they were 
 applied in a foreign river. In Thi^ 
 Nerano and The Dromedary, 22 Ct. of 
 Sess. Cas. 4th ser. 237, it was as- 
 sumed that the sea regulations 
 applied in the Clyde. But in none 
 of these cases was the point really 
 discussed. 
 
 (/-) (1899) P. 22a,
 
 TO WHAT SHIPS THEY APPLY. 
 
 319 
 
 The regulations apply to all seagoing ships and craft. To wlmt ships 
 whether large or small, and whether propelled by oars, sails, **'"''' *^^^^- 
 or steam (s). A large and unwieldy steamship will not be 
 heard to allege, as an excuse for not obeying them, tbat tlie 
 craft with which she was in collision was a small and handy 
 boat that could easily have got out of the way ; or that she 
 (the steamship) was a trader carrying mails, and that the 
 plaintiff ship was a pleasure craft {f). Whether they apjily to 
 craft intended never to go to sea, as hulks, harbom* lighters, 
 and such craft, seems doubtful {u). As to their ajiplication to 
 his Majesty's ships, ships of foreign governments, and ships 
 sailing under convoy, see Art. 13, iu/ra, p. 365. 
 
 The regulations apply to British ships everywhere (/•). To 
 foreign ships within British jurisdiction, b}" 07 vt olS Viot. 
 c. 6, s. 418, they apply directly, as forming part of the muni- 
 cipal law of this country. They are also applicable to foreign 
 ships out of British jurisdiction, and, in the case of a collision 
 on the high seas, or in foreign waters, are applied to such 
 ships by British Courts by virtue of 57 & 58 Vict. c. (iO, 
 s. 424. 
 
 The regulations are part of the municipal law of this Their inter- 
 country, of some foreign countries (//), and ot several Bntish ciianictir. 
 Colonies. In the United States it has been held that, having 
 been adopted by all maritime nations, the regulations are of 
 universal application, and form part of the international or 
 general maritime law of the world (s). 
 
 The international character of the regulations, and the Unifonn 
 
 safety of navigation, require that they should be understood „f t^o r^^,,. 
 
 J^ i^ liltioTls 
 
 ilosinihle. 
 
 by the seamen oi different nations in the same sense. 
 
 (.») Ez pu'-te Ferguson and Hutch- 
 inson, L. R. 6 Q. B. 280 ; and see 
 25 & 26 Vict. o. G3, ss. 2o, 27 and 
 28, where the regulations, including 
 those for fishing boats, are spoken of 
 as regulntions for nhips. As to 
 electric ships, sec infra, p. 333. 
 
 {t) The Medusa, 4(5 Fed. Rep. 303. 
 
 («) The C. S. Jiutkr, L. R. 4 A. & 
 E. 238. A hulk was lield not to be 
 a ship within 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, 
 H 00 ; European, ^-c. Mad Co. v. P. 6; 
 0. Steam Naiujation Co., 14 L. T. 
 
 704. 
 
 {x) Subject, it seems, tolocal rules, 
 and in colonial and foreign waters to 
 
 colonial and muiiicipiil laws. In 
 America it has bei-n doulited whether 
 two American ship.s, wliilht p.i.s.sing 
 through Caniidiau waters on tlieir 
 vo^'age.s to and from American ports, 
 are required to comply with the sea 
 regulations or Ciinadinn local rulon: 
 The New York, S2 Fed. liep. silt. 
 
 (y) Among.Ht otliers, the ITnifrd 
 States, where t ley apply t<« all 
 public and private ves.s«"ls : Cli. 802 
 of the laws of l.'sitO ; and ticrm:iiiy. 
 
 (2) Tiff Scntia and Thr Urrkshirr, 
 14 Wall. 170; Thr Itrltjrnland, 7 
 Davis, i^T).
 
 320 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 therefore of importance that the construction placed upon 
 them by the Courts of different countries should be uniform. 
 This has been distinctly recognized in America. The 
 following observations occur in a judgment of a Circuit 
 Court of the United States : " The paramount importance of 
 having international rules, which are intended to become 
 part of the law of nations, understood alike by all maritime 
 powers, is manifest ; and the adoption of any reasonable 
 construction of them by the maritime Powers named affords 
 sufficient ground for the adoption of a similar construction of 
 our statute by the Courts of this country " (a). 
 
 In the Courts of this country the ships of a foreign country 
 to which the regulations have been applied by Order in 
 Council, will, it is conceived, be bound by the English version 
 of the regulations. The foreign versions of the Regulations 
 of 1863 were not, in all cases, exactly equivalent to the 
 English version. An important article of the Portuguese 
 regulations was open to a construction which was entirely 
 different to that borne by the English version {b' . 
 Rule for The following observations of Jessel, M. R., upon the con- 
 
 them. ° struction of the Thames Rules appear to supply the rule for 
 construing all statutory regulations for preventing colli- 
 sions (r) : " It must be remembered what these rules are. 
 They are issued for the guidance of masters of vessels ; and, 
 therefore, the proper mode of construing them is to read them 
 literally. . . . Certainly rules issued as these are should be 
 construed literally, if they can be construed at all." In T/ze 
 Bunelm {d), Brett, M. R., with reference to Art. 9 of the 
 Regulations of 1863, said: "My view of an Act of Parlia- 
 ment — and this article is equivalent to an Act of Parliament 
 — which is made applicable to a large trade or business is, 
 that it should be construed, if possible, not according to the 
 strictest and nicest interpretation of language, but according 
 to a reasonable and business interpretation of it with regard 
 
 {a) Per Benedict, J., in The Sijl- and The Citii of Mecca, Pari. Pap. C. 
 
 resfer Hale, 6 Bened. 523; and a .3443, Sess. 1882. 
 
 .similar opinion was expressed by the (c) The Libra, 6 P. D. 139, 142. 
 
 Court in The Free State, Brown, Ad. See also per Brett, M. E, , in The 
 
 251, 261. Margaret, 9 P. D. 47. 
 
 {b) See correspondence relating to (<^) 9 P. D. 164. 
 the collision between The Insulano
 
 HOW COXSTKUED— Tl.ST OF NEGLIGENCE. 321 
 
 to the trade or business with wliich it is dealing." And in 
 another case the same learned judge said: "I take it that 
 the basis of the regulations for preventing collisions at sea is, 
 that they are instructions to those in charge of ships as to 
 their- conduct ; and the Legislature has not thought it enough 
 to say, ' We will give you rules which shall prevent a colli- 
 sion ' ; they have gone further and said that, for the safety 
 of navigation, we will give you rules which shall prevent risk 
 of collision" (r). 
 
 Wliere no special circumstances exist to make the regida- They funii^li 
 tions inapplicable, they furnish the paramount rule for the I^.^iV'^^Vtl 
 decision of the question as to which ship is in fault in every 
 ease of collision. Public policy, as well as the best interest 
 of all concerned, requires that they should be enforced in all 
 cases to which they apply (_/'). Departure from them is 
 justifiable only in one event ; nameh', where it is necessary 
 in order to avoid immediate danger {(/). It is not justifiable 
 on the ground that, under the circumstances of the case, it 
 would be better seamanship not to comply with them (//) ; or 
 on the ground that by departing from them the violence of 
 the blow would be lessened [h] ; or because both ships (tugs) 
 are racing for a schooner to get the towage job (/). But 
 though the regulations are the paramount rules of navigation, 
 yet, where the usage of the place and the business and courses 
 of particular vessels are obvious and well known, no seaman 
 has a right to neglect the knowledge he has of the probable 
 movements of other ships with reference to such usage. Thus, 
 in New York harbour it is held that a vessel must act ac- 
 cording to her knowledge of the course which a ferry-boat 
 usually takes in making her slip (/). So where warps are to 
 be expected and are commonly used in transporting vessels 
 and shifting berths, a look-out for them is no more tliau 
 
 (e) Per Erctt, M. R., T/ie Beryl, {</) See below, Art. '.'7, as to the 
 
 9 P. D. \'')1, 138. And see mjra, eirciniistances under wliicli depurturo 
 
 p. 323, as to the circumstances under from tlio rejruhitions is allowed, 
 
 which the rotjulations are applicable. (/i) The J'ooruiniris uvA Thv h'/i<-- 
 
 {/) New York and Liverpool U. S. dire, 5 App. Gas. H'd, s;»,'). 
 
 Mail StcaniAhip Co. v. I'liinhaU, '21 (i) Lai ham v. Jfami/loii and Mrrri- 
 
 How. 372, 383. And see 'J7ie ])>/- man Co., 63 Fed. Kep. HoG. 
 
 foged CJirislmnC)), 4 App. Cas. UG'.), (/.) The John S. Ihnrij, 29 Fctl. 
 
 infra, p. 401; The Voortvuartu and Rep. Gil. 
 The ICtudive, b App. Cas. 870. 
 
 M. Y
 
 ^"^2 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 reasonable (/). Although the regulations in ordinary cases 
 afford a test of negligence, and in some case proof of depar- 
 ture from them is equivalent to proof of negligence, they are 
 not to be applied mechanically, to determine whether a ship 
 is in fault for a collision. Even where a position of risk is 
 established, and a particular Article is proved to have been 
 applicable, a vessel will not be held in fault for non-compli- 
 ance with it, if the time during which it was applicable was 
 so short, or the circumstances so startling, that a seaman of 
 ordinary skill, care, and nerve might reasonably be excused 
 for not having appreciated the situation in time to enable him 
 to obey the law (/>?). 
 
 Where the regulations are clearly inapplicable, as where 
 the ship cannot take the step required without going ashore, 
 or endangering herself or other vessels, the question whicli 
 ship is in fault is tried, without regard to the regulations, hy 
 the ordinary rules of seamanship. Provided they are not 
 inconsistent with the regulations, the rules or practice of 
 seamen, although they have not the force of law, are equally 
 binding with the regulations, and upon British and foreign 
 sliips alike (i/). 'I'lie regulations are framed, primarily, for 
 the purpose of preventing collision between two sliips navi- 
 gating in tlie ordinary way upon definite courses. There are 
 many cases to which they are inapplicable, and in such cases 
 the ships must keej) clear of each other by the exercise of 
 ordinary care and seamanship. Thus, it has been held in 
 America that the " crossing " rule does not apply to two 
 steamships, of which one was backing stern foremost out of 
 her slip in New York harbour and the other was on her 
 course down the river (o) . The Court intimated that the case 
 was one of " special circumstances," and provided for by 
 Art. 29. There is a similar decision as to the rule requiring 
 a ship to keep her course and speed, where the ship in ques- 
 tion was a New York ferry-boat about to " make her slip " (j)). 
 Both ships The regulations define the steps to be taken by each vessel, 
 
 must obey the 
 
 regulations. 
 
 (/) The Fulda, 31 Fed. Rep. 351. matters of nautical skill and seaman- 
 
 (»») The Vooncaarts and The Khc- ship, see supra, p. 292. 
 
 dive, 5 App. Cas. 876, 902 ; The (o) The Servia, 42 Davis, 144. 
 
 Theodore If. Hand, 12 A-p-p- d^s. 2i7. {p) Wahh v. Brooklyn and New 
 
 («) As to the mode of proving York Ferrij Co., G8 Fed. Rep. 507.
 
 lIMOU. 
 
 RISK OF COLLTSTOX. 323 
 
 and they are not complied witli unless oacli vessel takes the 
 steps required of her. The neglert of one to comply witli 
 the regulations is no excuse to the other, if she fails to do 
 what is required of her, although a collision would have been 
 avoided if either had complied with the law (7). 
 
 The question as to the time and circumstances at and under Ciroum- 
 which the regulations become applicable was discussed by ^^1!^^^^^' 
 Brett, M. R., in T/io Beryl (r). The ^Master of the Pvolls, and '"»'""" ="^- 
 the other members of the Court of Appeal (Bowen and Fry, S'!".?''''' ' 
 L.J J.), held that the regulations were intended not only to *^''''*'' 
 prevent collision, but to prevent risk of collision ; and that it 
 is a rule of interpretation of the regulations that " they are 
 all applicable at a time when the risk of collision can be 
 avoided, not that they are applicable when the risk of colli- 
 sion is already fixed and determined." The Court laid stress 
 upon the words "so as to involve risk of coUisiou," which 
 occur in several of the Articles (x), and held that they do not 
 refer to an existing risk of collision, but point to a time before 
 risk of collision has arisen, and where it is, or ought to be, 
 apparent that there will be risk, if nothing is done to prevent 
 it. "Another rule of interpretation of these regulations is 
 (the object of them being to avoid risk of collision), that they 
 are all applicable at a time when the risk of collision can be 
 avoided — not that they are applicable when the risk of colli- 
 sion is already fixed and determined. AVe have always said 
 that the right moment of time to be considered is that which 
 exists at the moment before the risk of collision is consti- 
 tuted " (f). So, in T/w Stanmore {u), Brett, M. li., held the 
 regulations to apply where there is " a probability of risk." 
 
 {(/) The Clara, 49 Fed. Rep. 765; the steps required by them are ti) 
 
 The America, 2 Otto, 4 32 ; The he taken, D(jt only wlicro tliero w 
 
 ytraxes and The lllack Prince, 1-5 risk of cullisiou, but whiri' tlu-ri' in 
 
 Moo. P. C. 122; Little v. Burns, no ri.sk, and only a i>riilial)lt' risk — 
 
 9 Ct. of Sess. Cas. 4th s^r. 118. will raise tieriuus ditlit ultio.-*, both 
 
 (?) 9 P. D. i;37 ; and in The Bor- for teamen aiid the law courtM. 
 
 <?0(7W(?, 10 P. D. 6. See also y%e 7s/;or, Previously to 77«.' //c;-///, the view of 
 
 HP. D. 24, 29; The 3Iemno>i, 6 At^i). the Kn^^lish Courts seems to have 
 
 M. C. 317. been that the retrulations (tlic (.t"»'r- 
 
 (s) In Art. 20 the words " such iii;^ and sailint,' rulis) aiiplii'd only 
 
 directions " are substituted for "ko." when; there was risk of fullisinn ; 
 
 (<) J'er Brett, M. R., 'The Beryl, and it is submitted that this is the 
 
 9 P. D. 137, 140. It is submitted more mitural and more buuefieiiil 
 
 tliat this view of tlio application of 
 
 the steering' aud sailing rules— that («) 10 P. D. 131. 
 
 y2
 
 324 
 
 THE RKGULATIONS. 
 
 What consti- 
 tutes " risk 
 of collision." 
 
 Indications 
 of risk. 
 Approaching 
 ship not 
 altering her 
 bearing. 
 
 What constitutes risk of collision it is difficult to define ; 
 " It was utterly impossible for the Legislature to have deter- 
 mined, or described, what should constitute risk of a collision ; 
 for that must always be decided, according to the circum- 
 stances of eatili case, by men of nautical experience " {x). It 
 has been described as a " chance," a " probability," a 
 " strong," or a " reasonable " (//) probability of collision ; 
 and distinguished from a " possibility " of collision (z). In a 
 ease under 14 & 15 Vict. c. 79, Dr. Lushington said: " This 
 chance of collision is not to be scanned by a point or two. 
 We have held over and over again that if there be a reason- 
 able chance of collision it is quite sufficient. . . . We have 
 never got to this, and I hope never shall, that it (the rule) 
 applies where two vessels are sailing properly, and there is 
 no chance of a collision " (a). In another case the same 
 learned judge said : " The whole evidence shows that it was 
 the duty of T/ic Colonia, with the wind free, to have made 
 certain of avoiding T//e Susan. She did not do so, but kept 
 her course till she was at so short a distance of a cable and 
 a-half's length, in the hope that the vessels might pass each 
 other. Now it never can be allowed to a vessel to enter into 
 nice calculations of this kind, which must be attended with 
 some risk, whilst it has the power to adopt, long before the 
 collision, measures which would render it impossible " (/>). 
 
 In practice, one of the most usual indications of risk of colli- 
 sion is that the approaching ship remains upon the same bearing 
 from the observing ship for an appreciable length of time. 
 If the bearing alters quickly when the ships are a consider- 
 
 constrnction. The danger is that 
 two minds -will seldom agree as to 
 there being a probability of risk. 
 The actual existence of ris-k is 
 a fact about which there can be 
 less doubt. Cp. T/ie Genevdl U. S. 
 Grant, 6 Bened. 465. Similar words 
 occur in 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, 
 8. 296, and were commented upon by 
 Dr. Lushington in The Ivjtcxible, 
 Swab. 32. In an American case, 
 The MUwnvhce, Brown, Ad. 313. the 
 view of Bi-ett, M. R., in Tlie Brri/l, 
 seems to have been taken, that the 
 regulations apply Ix'fore there is 
 actual risk. 
 
 (x) Fer Dr. Lushington in The 
 Maiiffcrtoii, Swab. 120. 
 
 [y) The Cleopatra, ibid. 135; The 
 Eriesion, ibid. 38; The Duke of 
 Sussex, 1 W. Rob. 274 ; The Dum- 
 fries, Swab. 63, 65 ; with reference 
 to the same expression in 17 & 18 
 Vict. c. 104, s. 296. 
 
 [z) The Ericsson, Swab. 38. But 
 see The Voorivaarts and The Khedive, 
 per Lord Hatherley, 5 App. Cas. 
 876, 905 ; and per Pollock, C. B., 
 General Steam Navigation Co. v. 
 Mann, 14 C. B. 127, 132. 
 
 («) The Sylph, 2 Sp. 75, 82. 
 
 [b) The Colonia, 3 Not. of Cas. 
 13, note.
 
 RISK OF COLLISION. 
 
 325 
 
 able distance apart, there is no risk. The existing rej^ulutions 
 (Art. 17) call attention to this fact (c). 
 
 Another indication of risk of collision at night is the Oponiupor 
 alteration of the apparent horizontal distance between an l„",|st\u.ui 
 approaching steamship's masthead and side light. This ami sido light, 
 alteration usually indicates a change in direction of the 
 approaching ship's head and course, but it is of little value in 
 estimating risk of collision, unless the relative positions of 
 the masthead and side lights are known. Steamships' side 
 lights are seldom carried exactly abreast of her masthead 
 liaht, and are often a considerable distance forward or aft of 
 it. In most vessels they are carried abaft the niastheail 
 light ; but in some of the newer vessels, and in ocean liners, 
 they are carried in miniatiu-e lighthouses erected on the deck 
 forward of the masthead light. When the relative position 
 of the lights is known, the alteration in the sliip's course may 
 be known by the following rule : — 
 
 Where the side light is abaft the masthead light, the 
 apparent distance between those lights increases as the ship's 
 head turns away from the observer ; they close as the shi[»'s 
 head is turning towards him (d). Where the side light 
 is forward of the masthead light, the masthead and side light 
 broaden as the ship's head is turning towards an observer 
 forward of a line joining tlio masthead and sidelights ; whilst 
 to an observer abaft that line, the lights are at the same time 
 
 closing {o). 
 
 In estimating risk of collision, it seems that the possibility 
 of the other ship being unable to comply with the regulations, 
 or of her negligently departing from them, is not, under 
 ordinary circumstances, to be taken into consideration (./"). 
 
 Risk of collision, such as will bring into operation Art. 'S-l 
 (requiring a steamship under certain circumstances to slacken 
 
 iO See The CK;/ of Bcrlu,, (1908) (.) Except in t»»-\'^'^''!;./"^";J'"""J 
 
 p\^f, in iho lust note. In //f .//''i«, » 
 
 (rf Except in the case ..f an ob- Asp. M. C. <.)2 it was hel.l that iho 
 
 server abai? the line at ri.^ht anj^les clu>injr of the h.^hts w.s not M..-h an 
 
 to a lino juinin- the n.asthead and indh^alion ut n^k as to n.ako it n.ve«- 
 
 side li-hts (supposin- them to be in sary t- stop and reverse. 
 
 ^he s.une horU.ntal plane), a case (./) '(^^^'■. f ^^^ "J^V ^'.t I 
 
 which lor the present purpose n.ay hyu,, L. K. « l^' ' '. 'I] .,,, 
 
 be neglected. The Stauo.on;^) VA) '/"■''''•. /vV iV 4,- 
 
 134, is an instance of the rule stated huuj, 4-J led. lU-p. 40-J. 
 
 iu the text.
 
 326 
 
 THK IIEGULATIOXS. 
 
 American 
 
 cases as to 
 the meaning 
 of "I'isk of 
 collision." 
 
 her speed or to stop or reverse), appears to bo of a more 
 iraminent character than that which brings other articles into 
 operation. The question will be considered below in connec- 
 tion with that article. 
 
 The difficulty of defining the moment at which these 
 regulations become applicable has been recognized by the 
 American Courts (//). The following passage from a judg- 
 ment of the Supreme Court of the United States expresses 
 the general rule as to the time at which and during which 
 they become and remain applicable : — " Rules of navigation, 
 such as have been mentioned (as to the duties of two vessels 
 approaching each other), are obligatory upon such vessels 
 when approaching each other from the time the necessity for 
 precaution begins ; and they continue to be applicable as the 
 vessels advance so long as the means and opportunity to 
 avoid the danger remain. They do not apply to a vessel 
 required to keep her course after the approach is so near that 
 the collision is inevitable, and are equally inapplicable to 
 vessels of every description while they are yet so distant from 
 each other that measures of precaution have not become 
 necessary to avoid a collision " {//). 
 
 It would therefore seem that the regulations do not apply, 
 or at least that departure from them is justifiable, where the 
 collision is in fact inevitable, though there appears to be a 
 chance of escape by departing from the regulations (/). 
 
 In T/ie Milicaiilcci' (/.•), it was said by the same Court that 
 where vessels are meeting or passing in a crooked and narrow 
 channel there is always risk of collision. 
 
 In T//e Libra (/), decided under the Thames Rules, in which 
 the same phrase, "risk of collision," occurs, Brett, L. J., con- 
 sidered that, when the vessels were each rounding a point 
 upon concentric circles of different diameters, and so that 
 they would clear each other without further alteration of tlio 
 helms than the course of the river required, there was no risk 
 of collision. 
 
 {(/) The Nicholk, 7 Wall. 656. 
 
 (A) The Wcnona, 19 Wall. 41, 52; 
 Lake Erie Transp. Co. v. Gilcltr'tst 
 Transp. Co., 142 Fed. Rep. 89. Similar 
 expressions occur in the judg-ments 
 in The NkhoUs, 7 Wall. G56 ; The 
 
 Johnaoti, 9 Wall. 146 ; and Tlte Bextcr, 
 23 Wall. 09. 
 
 [i) See The Benares, 9 P. D. 16. 
 
 (/.) Brown, Ad. 313 ; The Neicport 
 Neu-s, 83 Fed. Rep. 522. 
 
 (/) er. D. 139, infra, p. 541.
 
 APPLICABLE UNDKR WHAT CIKCUM.SI'ANCES. 327 
 
 The distance, rate of sailiuo;, and course of another vessel, Uiut rtaiiay 
 and the direction of the wind, are never known exactly, and eluMiIg riU. 
 in practice there is often dithcuUy in determinin<^ the moment 
 at which, and the manner in which, the regulations are to bo 
 applied (w). In judging of the course and probable move- 
 ments of a strange vessel, it must be assumed, under ordinary 
 circumstances, that she can, and will, comply with the regu- 
 lations (ii). 
 
 Where there is no risk of colli^ion, a vessel that improperly Alt«Tiiti..ii .if 
 alters her helm so as to bring about a collision will bo held to ^'"^IJ^Vi^ 
 be in fault (o). 
 
 If a vessel is disabled, or slow in answering her hclui, it is 
 her duty to be prompt in taking the measures required by the 
 regulations [p). 
 
 If a ship sees another in a position that may involve risk Ro«:iilitti«»n« 
 
 of collision, but is unable to make out what course the other „„tii iiu-L 
 
 is on, she should keep her course, and not alter her helm, or J*""^*"- 
 
 take any decisive step until she has ascertained the other 
 
 ship's course (7). "The mere discovery of a strange light 
 
 does not necessarily immediately bind a person in charge of 
 
 a vessel to follow any particular rule ; but as soon as he has 
 
 opportunity of ascertaining, by reasonable care and skill, what 
 
 the strange vessel is, and what course she is pursuing, then 
 
 the rule which is applicable to the circumstances at once 
 
 becomes binding on him " (r). 
 
 An alteration of the helm in a fog, when the other ship Altoration ..f 
 
 ,.,.", , . , •! Iioliii 111 f'>ir. 
 
 cannot be seen and only her whistle is heard, is not necessarily 
 
 (ill) In the Courts, owing to ihe In the pame case, it was lieUl that 
 
 form of the pleadinj^-s, the question the chancn of the other vessel dis- 
 
 as to the moment when the rogula- obeying the regulations must he 
 
 tious become applicable docs not taken into aucount. <SVy/ tjN. 
 
 often arise. ('^) T/ic Vehcibj. L. K. 3 P. C. A\ ; 
 
 ()i) The Jesmond and Tli'' Kml of TUr Esl: and The NionI, L. K. ;j P. C. 
 
 Klf/in, L. R. 4 P. C. 1. See also 436; Tiir JvJIrxiUf, Swab. ;iJ: The 
 
 The Free State, 1 Otto, -200, for a Svalmi,^ V.D. \ ; The Cly „/ Mncou, 
 
 decision of the Supreme Court nf the !)_' Fed. Kep. 207. 
 
 United States to the same effect. (jj) y/i.' 7'<'.s7. ;> Not. of CaH. 'JTfi. 
 
 The view seems to have been taken (</) The Jlmia and The Am, 2 .\x\y 
 
 in some American cases that the M. C. 182; The Jnniei Watt. 2 W. 
 
 steps required by the regulations Kob. 270 ; The Mmlnnlion, !» L. T. 
 
 should be taken, and the hel.ri 5S(i ; 1 Moo. P. C. 62K : Thf //««- 
 
 altered, before any risk is incurred, i/aiinille and The Jumrs r. StnetmoH, 
 
 if the courses are such that, if con- L. Ii. r) P. C. .ilii. .'{21. 
 
 tinued, there would be risk. See (») J'er Dr. Lushingtoii, 7hf Omit 
 
 The Milwaukee, Brown, Ad. 313, 331. Eaulcrti, 1 1 L. T. .').
 
 328 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Alteration for 
 greater safety, 
 
 negligence, though it is made merely upon a guess as to the 
 distance, course, speed, and direction of the other ship, and 
 may, where the position of the other vessel is ascertained 
 beyond reasonable doubt, be required under the rules (s). As 
 a general rule, where a reasonable doubt exists as to the 
 position of the other ship, a ship should not alter her 
 course ; but each case must depend upon its own circum- 
 stances, and it cannot be laid down that every alteration of 
 course in ignorance of the position and course of the other 
 ship is in itself a fault (f). 
 
 An alteration of the helm made for greater safety when 
 where no risk, there is no risk of collision will not be held to be a fault. 
 A sailing ship (in 1856) seeing a green light from two to 
 four points on her starboard bow, and distant about a mile 
 and a-half, put her helm to starboard, and subsequently came 
 into collision with the other ship. It was held that she was 
 not in fault for starboarding (u). 
 
 It has been held that the vessels were approaching " so as 
 to involve risk of collision " in the following cases : — Two 
 steamships meeting on nearly opposite courses at a joint speed 
 of eighteen or nineteen knots, and distant a mile and a-half (.r) ; 
 a steamship and a sailing-ship, distant two or three miles, 
 and meeting at a joint speed of seventeen knots, the steam- 
 ship not being able to make out the course of the sailing-ship, 
 but knowing that it was probably nearly opposite to her 
 own (//) ; a steamship two jioints on the quarter of another 
 and overtaking her, distant a mile or less than a mile (s) ; a 
 steamship overtaking another upon a converging course, and 
 distant three miles (a). Where two sailing vessels were 
 approaching each other on courses only half a point from 
 being directly opposite, at a joint speed of twelve knots, and 
 distant from each other two or three miles, it was held by the 
 
 Cases in 
 which there 
 was "risk of 
 collision." 
 
 (.v) See rJ<P 2Icrthijr, 8 Asp. M. C. 
 475, and cases quoted under Art. IG. 
 
 [t) The Viiidomora, 14 P. 172 ; 
 a£Ed. in H. L., (1891) A. C. 1. The 
 Efsohitio)/, 6 Asp. M. C. 363. is not 
 to the contrary. See jycr Lord Her- 
 schell, (1891)' App. Cas. 4. So in 
 America : The Umhria, 166 U. S. 
 Eep. 404. 
 
 (ti) The Sylph, Swab. 233; see 
 also The Franconia, 2 V. D. 8, 13. 
 But see The Corsica, 9 Wall. 630. 
 
 [x) The Jenmond and The Earl of 
 Elgin, L. R. 4 P. C. 1. 
 
 (y) The Bougainville and The James 
 C. SUveiison, L. R. 5 P. C. 316. 
 
 {z) The Franconia, 2 P. D. 8. 
 
 (a) The Seaton, 9 P. D. 1.
 
 THEIK APPLICATION — KISK OF COLLI.SlOX. 329 
 
 Supreme Court of the United States tluit there was risk of 
 collision (h). 
 
 In T/te Bans/ice (c), a steamship was going seventeen knots 
 in Dublin Bay, and overtaking another going ten or twelve. 
 The latter was 80() yards ahead, and the overtaking vessel 
 was going in such a direction as to pass within a ship's length 
 of her. It was held that there was no risk of eollisii)n, and 
 tliat the leading ship was not in fault for not keeping her 
 course. Sed qu. 
 
 When two ships are approaching each other with risk of Wh.n tlu< 
 collision, the rule of the road applies once and for all to take ..r'^cnlHu..''" 
 them clear. A ship is never required by the regulations, f'^' "ppHi* 
 after having sighted another, to alter her course ni*st to star- t.. l*- npplir- 
 board and then to port; or, first to keep her course, and thm "*''''"""• '*'« 
 to keep out of the way ; or vice versa. In the case, for ex- miuc-d. 
 ample, of steamships meeting end on, or nearly so, eadi is 
 required to alter her course to starboard. If, while under the 
 port-helm, the relative positions and heading of the ships are 
 changed, so that from meeting ships they become crossing 
 ships, the " meeting " rule does not cease to operate, or give 
 place to the "crossing" rule. The manoeuvre of porting 
 must be persisted iu until the risk of collision is determined. 
 If porting will not take the ships clear, Art. 2''i or Art. '27 
 may apply and the engines may be stopped, or any other 
 step taken which is necessary to avert collision ; but the ships 
 cannot afterwards, and whilst the risk continues, become 
 crossing ships. If once a ship is within the " meeting " rule 
 or any other rule requiring her to take or keep a definite 
 course, or requiring her to keep out of the way, she cannot, 
 whilst the risk continues, come within the operation of the 
 " crossing" rule, or any other rule requiring her to adopt a 
 different manoeuvre. The object of the rule of the road and 
 of the regulations would bo entirely frustrati'(l if it wtTo 
 possible for a ship to be thrown from one rule to another; if, 
 whilst in the act of obeying one Article, she was suddeidy lo 
 come within the operation of another Article, requiring Ikt, 
 perhaps, to take an exactly opposite course, and so mukiug 
 
 (h) r/ieNicholls,l^yM.C,r)C,. And (c) G Asp. M. C. •-'Jl. Tlu- fH.'t« 
 
 see 'T/tc Caynya, 14 Wall. 270. a.s utiited in the tuxt iiro lak.n fn-m 
 
 the j udgiULUt of Lord liahcr.
 
 ^3<^ THE KEGULATIONS. 
 
 the previous manoeuvre of uo effect. Thus, The Jlo/iere, 
 overtaking The Baines Hmclxim, brought the side h"ghts of 
 the latter into view as she drew up abreast. It was held that 
 this did not bring into operation the " crossing " rule, and 
 that The Jlolierc was an overtaking ship until she passed clear 
 of The Hawkins (d). So a crossing ship cannot, by getting 
 ahead or across the bows of the other, make the latter an 
 overtaking ship (c). 
 
 The reguia- ^he precautions required by the law to be taken where 
 
 tions muist bo ..,„,,., ,. .. 
 
 complied with there IS risk of collision must be taken m time to determine 
 eiectuaily'!''*^ that risk (./'). An alteration of the helm or other step taken 
 in pursuance of the regulations, is no defence, unless it is 
 shown that such precaution was taken at the proper time. 
 To be effectual, precautions must be seasonable. If taken at 
 an improper time they are not a compliance with the regula- 
 tions, and are no defence. " If you adopt a measure at an 
 improper time, it does not take away the culpability of not 
 having done it before and prevented the accident" (g). 
 
 Clobe shaving. A vessel is not justified in delaying to take precautions 
 until the last moment ; or in trusting to being able to " shave " 
 clear of the other (//). If by doing so she frightens the other 
 into taking a wrong step, and a collision occurs, she will be 
 responsible for the entire loss (/). By a prompt compliance 
 with the regulations, where a vessel is required to alter her 
 course to avoid another, she apprises the latter of her ability 
 and intention to comply with the regulations; whereas by 
 delaying to take the required step, she may lead the other 
 vessel to suppose that she is unable to comply with them, and 
 cause her to take a step which may make a collision inevitable. 
 Where a ship, in order to show that she is free from blame, 
 is required to prove that she altered her course at the proper 
 time, it is not enough for her to show that her helm was 
 
 (d) The Mohhr, (1893) P. 217. Courts of the United States is tlie 
 
 (e) T/ic &a(c of Texas, -lOFed. Rep. same: The Johnson, 9 Wall. 146; 
 254. The Vamlerbilt, 6 Wall. 2'2,'i ; Tf)e 
 
 {/) The Trident, 1 Sp. 217, 222; Syracuse, 12 W^all. 167; The SHnny- 
 
 The Wrslhall, 153 Fed. Rep. 1010. side, 1 Otto, 208 ; The America, 2 
 
 {g) Per Dr. Lushington in The Otto, 432. 
 
 Stndacona, 5 Not. of Cas. 371, 374; (/() The John Brothcrick, S Jur. 
 
 The Fenham, L. R. 3 P. C. 212 (as 276; The Benefactor, 14Blatchf. 254. 
 
 to lights). The view taken by the (i) See above, p. 3.
 
 THEIR APPLICATION UNTIL lilSIC DKTKUMlNKn. Xil 
 
 altered at that time ; she must prove that she answered her 
 helm (/.•) in time. 
 
 Where, by the action of the helm in accordance with the r, . 
 regulations, risk of collision has apparently been determined, "/^i^,,;,. • 
 but in fact it continues, and the risk again becomes apparent, (U-teriniii.;i. 
 the regulations are not compHed with unless tlie steps recpiired '"' '■'''^" '''■'"'■ 
 by them to be taken are taken and persisted in up to the 
 time of collision or until the ships are clear. Thus where, by 
 porting, a steamship, A., shut in the green of B., a steamship 
 which had been approaching her witli all lier liglits showing, 
 and shortly afterwards, owing to the perverse starboarding of 
 B., her green again became visible to A., and tliereupon A. 
 again ported and again shut in B.'s green, but B. continued 
 to starboard, and again showed her green to A. ; though A. 
 ported a third time, it was held tliat slie was in fault, 
 because she did not stop and reverse when B. (/) showed her 
 green for the third time. 
 
 A vessel sailing upon a voyage that may not be terminated Ship «<. Jh< 
 until a regulation as to lights or fog-signals comes into force, l"^'*!''*''' ^*"'' 
 and which is enacted, but not in force, wlien she sails, must, npi'liiniccs. 
 if possible, be provided with fog-signals, liglits and whatever 
 is necessary to enable her to comply with the regulation wlien 
 it comes into force (///). 
 
 No alleged practice of seamen of avoiding other slups by Praotifo or 
 taking measures other than, and inconsistent witli, those si"tont\v'i'th'' 
 required by the regulations is recognized by the law. A tlio n-ifuLi- 
 defendant cannot be heard to allege such a pi'actice as an bojjr.KHl. 
 excuse for a violation of the regulations (ii). Where a custom 
 was set up that merchant ships should keep out of the way of 
 Queen's ships coming out of Uevonport harbour by the deep- 
 water channel, it was held that it was not binding in law («). 
 On the same principle, under former Acts requiring ships to 
 navigate on the starboard side of a river, it was held that it 
 was no excuse for a vessel on her wrong side that she was 
 
 (k) T/ic La r/ata, Hwsih. '220. Pioridmcr, ihvl. 107: Tin- Jrart-i 
 
 U) The Arratoon Apcar, 1') Ann. luid Tlic Jllnck I'limr, l.'i JI<>«>. P. 0. 
 
 Cas. 37. •2-2 ; Tlu Vehcify, L. R. :J 1'. C 
 
 [in) The Love Bird, G 1'. D. 80. IJ, M)\ Oceithii'al, S[f. Co. v. Sm\(h, 
 
 [h) Thr Sylph, 'l Si). T.") ; The 74 Fed. Rep. 261. 
 
 Umtii, Swab. 101; The Hand of ^o) H.M.H. Topazc, IQIj.I. ti'^i.
 
 332 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 keepiug out of tlie strength of the tide (;;). So a custom to 
 treat sailing- ships in the trades as close-hauled, when in fact 
 they are a point or two free, was disregarded by the Courts 
 in applying the steering and sailing rules (</). 
 
 The penalties attached to non-observance of the regulations 
 have been considered in former chapters (r). 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 The following are the regulations made by the Order in 
 Council of 27th November, 1896, and subsequent dates, under 
 the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, s. 418. At the present 
 date there are a few foreign countries to the ships of which 
 they have not yet been applied (.s) ; and to such ships the 
 regulations of 1880, or of 1884, are still apphcable. The 
 existing regulations are substantially the same as those of 
 1884. Many of the cases cited below arose under the earlier 
 regulations, but are, it is submitted, binding authorities upon 
 the points for which they are cited as to the construction and 
 effect of the existing regulations (0- Those of 1880 will be 
 found L. R. 4 P. 1). p. 241 ; and those of 188 J, L. R. 9 P. D. 
 p. 247 ; and the existing regulations (of 1897) inL. R. (1895) 
 P. p. 307. 
 
 Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea. 
 
 Preliminary. 
 
 TIu'HV niks shall be foUoiced by all rem'ls upon the hhjh -sms, 
 and in all waters connected therenith, nuvujabk by sea-goiny 
 ■vessels. 
 
 ' p) Beluw, p. 44(3. one of the Superior Courts, and the 
 
 («) T/ic /;«Vr/rf»»/.s.s-, 6 Asp. M. C. Lej^i^latiire has repeated them, 
 
 ^Q7_ ■ without any alteration, in a subs^e- 
 
 (r) See pp. 39 sf^., 279 se?., above. quent statute, I conceive that the 
 
 \s) See above, p. 315. Legislature must be taken to have 
 
 U) Cf. ))tr James, L. J., L. R. 5 used them according to the meaning 
 
 Ch. 706: "Where once certain which a Court of competent juris- 
 
 words in an Act of Parliament have diction has given them." 
 
 received a judicial construction in
 
 WHERE APPLICABLE — DEFINITIONS. 'i'^i 
 
 In the following rules cveri/ steam vessel irfiieh is under sail 
 and not under steam is to be considered a sailing vessel, and ereri/ 
 vessel under steam, whether under sail or not, is to be considered 
 a steam vessel. 
 
 The words ^^ steam vessel'^ shall inelude any vessel propelled 
 by machinery. 
 
 A vessel is " under way " within the meming of these rules, 
 when she is not at anchor, or made fast to the shjre or aground. 
 
 This Article corresponds with Art. 1 of the Regulations of 
 1884. The paragraphs defining the local application of the 
 regulations, providing for electric and other modes of pro- 
 pelling ships and defining the term " under way," are new. 
 
 The words applying the regulations in all waters connected 
 with the high seas navigable by sea-going vessels must bo 
 read in connection with Art. 30, which preserves the effect of 
 local rules. The express application of the sea regulations to 
 all waters connected with the sea is new, and has given rise 
 to difficulty (see p. 316, supra). 
 
 The regulations contain no definition of a " sailing vessel "; 
 nor would any definition have been necessary had not the 
 new Art. 20 distinguished a " sailing vessel " from '* .sailing 
 vessels . . . fishing Avitli . . . trawls." This distinct ion 
 creates a cross classification, and may lead to diiliculty in 
 construing Arts. 17, 20, and 2 k 
 
 Under former regulations it was liold that a steam tug 
 with lier engines idle and her fires banked was " under 
 steam " and required to keep out of the way of a saiHng- 
 ship (//) ; and it would seem that the case would l)c the same 
 if she were hove-to under canvas. 
 
 A steamship in tow, whether under steam or not, is required 
 by Art. o to carry her side lights ; and this appears to liave 
 been the practice apart from the regulations (s). 
 
 (i/^ The Jennie S. Barker and T/ie naphtha- on jfine, wo T/n Caplaiii 
 
 ,W.A L. R. 4 A. & K. 4.5G. Tho »VA,r, 8-» Fed. Hop. 'J.-.T. Ah t« 
 
 report of this caf^e in Mit.h. Mar. the duty t.f a t.i;r witlioiit Ht^-ani to 
 
 -Reg. statc-H that the tu^' ha^l no ^'et way on licr, mv /V„- //y-»". .1.//.'. 
 
 canvas set. The Suiuii/side, 1 Otto, p. :Jf*2. 
 
 208, is a similar decision of tho (z\ The Amrrtrjin and //,r .S;,rui, 
 
 v. S. Supreme Court. As to a L. K. G P. C. 127. 
 sailing - sloop with an auxiliary
 
 334 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 As to the meaning of " under way " and " at anchor," see 
 the cases cited under Arts. 2 and 11. 
 
 Rules concernikg Lights, &c. 
 
 Article 1. The word ^'risih/e^^ in these rules, whe)i applied to Vujhts, 
 
 shed] niean visible on et dark iiigi/f irith a clear atmospJtere. 
 
 A tug is a 
 steamship 
 ■within tlie 
 meaning- of 
 the regula- 
 tions. 
 
 Article 1. 
 
 The rules concerning licjhts shall he complied ivith in all 
 leeathcrs from sunset to sunrise, and during such time no other 
 lights which mai/ Ijc mistaken for the prescrif)ed lights shall he 
 exJiibited. 
 
 Tliis Article corresponds with Art. 2 of the Regulations of 
 1884. Tlie words " which may be mistaken for the pre- 
 scribed lights " were not included in those regulations. They 
 were probably inserted in consequence of a question which 
 arose under former regulations, as to the legality of using a 
 flare to attract the attention of a vessel coming dangerously 
 near the vessel using the flare [a). The use of the flare and 
 of detonating signals in such a ease is expressly authorized 
 by the existing regulations, Art. 12. 
 
 It appears that by the maritime law there was no obliga- 
 tion upon a ship to carry a light at night. It depended 
 upon the darkness of the night, and other circumstances, 
 whether a light was necessary or not {fj). Even so late as 
 1852, sailing ships did no more than exhibit a light as 
 occasion required, though steamships were at that date by 
 law required to carry lights as at present. 
 
 The effect of this Article, when read together with Article 3 
 and the following Articles, is to place a steamship towing 
 another vessel in the same category, generally speaking, with 
 other steamships ; that is to say, the fact that she is engaged 
 
 [a] See The Simla and The City of 
 Luchiwu\ Ship. Gazette, 8th March, 
 1884 ; The Merchant Frince, 10 P. D. 
 139; The Narragansett, 2U Blatchf. 
 37; The Eleonora, 17 Blatchf. 88. 
 
 [b) The Victoria, 3 W. Rob. 49 ; 
 The Iron Duke, 4 Not. of Gas. 58.5 ; 
 The Lonionderrij , ibid., Supj^l. xxxi. 
 But see contra, per Dr. Lushiogton 
 ia The Saxonia, Lush. 410, as to a 
 vessel at anchor.
 
 SHIPS LIGHTS. 
 
 335 
 
 " No otbiT 
 liglittt " tu bo 
 carried. 
 
 in to-vsing does not exempt her from the ohligations otherwise Article i. 
 imposed on her by the regulations (c). 
 
 In America it was held that a ship was not in fault for 
 ha^-ing two riding lights instead of one, or for having cabin 
 lights visible along her sides ((/). This decision would 
 probably be followed as regards the numerous electric lights 
 which are now common about a large ship's decks. So, before 
 a light was prescribed by law for a ship ashore (<•), or being 
 overtaken at night by a ship that appears not to see lier, it 
 was held that a ship was not in fault for showing over her 
 stern to an approaching vessel a flare or one of her side 
 lights (/) ; and that there was no duty cast upon a vessel 
 being overtaken to show any light astern, until it became 
 clear that the overtaking ship was not keeping out of the 
 way (y). So in the case of a ship sunk (//) in a navigable 
 channel, or casting off from her moorings [i), it was held 
 that she w^as not wrong in exhibiting a light, though not 
 required to do so by law; 
 
 The duty of lighting sunken ships and wrecks is, under 
 certain circumstances, cast upon the harbour or liglithouso 
 authority of the district (/•). Care should be taken tliat tlic 
 lio-hts used for this purpose are not such as ma}- mislead (ithor 
 vessels. In an unreported case (///), a collision witli a wreck 
 was caused by tlie wreck being lit witli two vertical white 
 lights, which were mistaken for those of a tug. 
 
 It is the duty of a sliip tliat has lost her lights by bad if i.,st must 
 weather or other accident to replace them as soon as i"*' '■'•p'»««i- 
 possible («). 
 
 (c) The American and The Syria, 
 L. R. 4 A. & E. -226 ; S. C, on app. 
 ■dnd. 6 P. C. 127; -The Warrior, 
 L. R. 3 A. & E. 5i;{. 
 
 {d) The Avon, 22 Fed. Rep. 905. 
 
 {e) The Industrie, L. R. 3 A. & E. 
 303 ; The Thomas Lea, 3 Asp. M. C. 
 2G0. 
 
 (/) The Auglo-Indian, 3 Asp. 
 M. C. 1 ; The Merchant Trince, 10 
 P. D. 139 ; not followed in America, 
 The Ah/iers, 38 Fed. Rep. .'J26. 
 
 (<?) The Jane Bacon, 27 W. R. ■'>■>. 
 
 \h) The Bonijlax, 7 P. D. 1^1. 
 
 (i) The John Fenuick, L. R. 3 A. 
 & E. 500. 
 
 (/.) See 40 & 41 Vict, c If., and 
 the various local Act". Jturmunt v. 
 Farness Hail. Co., 11 (i. H. D. \'M\, 
 was a case whcic tlic duty was )nld 
 to be cast upon the locil autlmrity. 
 See also cases citt>d, supra, pp. 8H 
 
 ('/«) Ad. Div. 1885. 
 
 (») The Sa.n,nia and The Felip^r, 
 Lush. 410, 422 : The Aurora and 7"/i* 
 lioherl Ini/ram, Lush. 327 ; Thr (Iruij 
 Ea<jle, 1 ili.ssel, 47ti ; 2 Bissd, 25.
 
 33« 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 1. 
 
 Lights beiug 
 trimmed. 
 Misleading 
 lig-hts. 
 
 Spare lights. 
 
 Obscuration 
 of lights. 
 
 It is no excuse for not carrying the regulation lights that 
 they were being trimmed or went out by accident (o). 
 
 A wrong light or a light in a wrong position will almost 
 certainly cause the ship carrying it to be held in fault, if it 
 could by possibility have misled the other ship (p). It is an 
 infringement of Art. 1, and therefore it is not necessary for 
 the latter to prove that she was in fact misled (q). It lies 
 upon those who are admittedly in fault in respect of the light 
 to make out beyond all doubt that the light was in such a 
 position that it must have been seen (r). 
 
 Notwithstanding the express terms of the regulations, 
 that the lights shall be carried, it seems that a ship will not 
 necessarily be held in fault for a collision caused by the 
 absence of lights, or by improper lights, if the regulation 
 lights have been destroyed, and there are no spare ones on 
 board. The point, however, has not been expressly decided. 
 A steamship at anchor, with her masthead light up instead of 
 her proper riding light, was held free from blame. Her 
 riding light had been broken shortly before the collision in a 
 previous collision for which she was not in fault (.s). 
 
 The duty to equip a ship with fog-signals before sailing 
 upon a voyage, so that she may be able to comply with a 
 regulation that is enacted, but not in force, when she sails, 
 was insisted upon in T//e Lore Bird (/). The same rule would 
 apply to ship's lights. 
 
 The regulation lights must not be obscured in any ^aj. 
 A flare must not be burnt so as to blind them (?f). If a 
 steamship has the wind aft, so as to blow her smoke ahead 
 and thereby obscure her lights, it is her duty to slacken and 
 
 (o) T/ie C. M. Palmer and The 
 Larnax, 2 Asp. M. C. 94; The 
 Eclipse and The Saaonia, nvpra ; The 
 Victoria, 3 AV. Eob. 49 ; The Sylph, 
 2 Sp. 75, 85. 
 
 (jy) The Scotia, 7 Elatchf. 308 ; 14 
 Wall. 170 ; Ihe Benares. 9 P. D. 16 ; 
 The Bob Boy, 3 W. Eob. 190 ; The 
 Mary HovmeU, 40 L. T. 368: The 
 Lome, 2 Stuart's V. Ad. Eep. 
 (Canada) 177 (ship at anchor with a 
 green light showing) ; The Haverlox, 
 31 Fed. Rep. nC3 (a pilot boat with 
 side lights and no masthead light). 
 
 ((?) The Tttlhot, (1891) P. 184 ; The 
 
 Kessmore, 50 Fed. Eep. 616 ; La 
 Champagne, 60 Fed. Eep. 299 ; The 
 Excelsior, 39 Fed. Eep. 393. 
 
 (r) P!>- Halsbury, 0., The Gannet, 
 (1900) App. Cas. 234. 
 
 (») The Kjobenhavu, 2 Asp. M. C. 
 213. But see The Si/lph, 2 Sp. 75; 
 The Boh Boy, 3 W. Eob. 190 ; The 
 C. 31. Falmer, 2 Asp. M. C. 94 ; The 
 Btnares, 9 P. D. 16; for cases of 
 ship's lights going out and mislead- 
 ing the other ship. 
 
 {t) 6 P. D. 80. 
 
 (?<) The Sea Nymph of Chester, 
 Holt, 34.
 
 SHIPS' LIGHTS. 
 
 337 
 
 not go at full speed (.r). Wliere a ship carried a bright light Article i 
 in her cabin, which showed (^ deck and obsciir«xl lier side 
 lights, and tlie other ship alleged thut she mistook it for a 
 riding light, the former was held in fault for the collision (//). 
 Where a tow lashed alongside had hoisted her foresail so as 
 to obscure the tug's side lights, both tug and tow were, in 
 America, held in fault (;:) ; so where the tug's side lights 
 were obscured by a car float lashed alongside (^). Where a 
 ship carried her lights aft, it was held in America that the 
 burden was on her to show that they were not obstructed by 
 the sails or ship's side (h). 
 
 The fact that it is only a short time after sunset, and fine Liirlif--* t.i »h> 
 and clear weather, does not relieve a ship from th<^ obliga- lljj^j^ricd 
 tion to carry lights. Under the Admiralty Regulations as 
 to lights it was held that " it is not to be said that because it 
 was a bright night it was not necessary to obey the Act of 
 Parliament " (r) . By the existing regulations vessels are 
 expressly required to carry them in all weathers. When, on 
 account of bad weather, it is not possible to cany them fixed, 
 Art. 6 may apply, and proper lights must be exhibited from 
 the deck (d). 
 
 Special lights are required by local Acts and rules to bo Sjit^ial li^rht*. 
 exhibited by barges, dredgers, and other craft in the Thames, ['i^.'"|'r„i,Jf' 
 Mersey, Clyde, Humber, Oiise, and Trent rivers, and in 
 various other rivers, harbours, canals, and navigable waters (r). 
 Private signal lights for vessels belonging to the same owner, 
 and flash lights (./) for drift-net fishing-boats (r/), and 
 quarantine (h) lights (a lantern at the masthead, or in case of 
 plague two lanterns), are also enjoined by statute when in 
 sight of other ships or within two leagues of the United 
 
 (x) The Rona and The Ava, 2 Asp. 
 M. C. 182. 
 
 (y) The Ida and The Mary Ida, 
 Ad'. Div. Feb. 5th, 1878. 
 
 (-) The W. A. Lt^crim/, 30 Fed. 
 Rep. 511. 
 
 {a) The Titan, T.i Fed. Hop. 413; 
 Marshall v. The Conroij, 2 Fed. Rep. 
 785 ; The JI. W. Hills, 21 Fed. Rep. 
 727 ; The Buffalo, 50 Fed. Rep. G28. 
 Cf. The Seacancus, 31 Fed. Rep. 08 ; 
 The Manhassel, 34 Fed. Rep. 408, 
 aliter. 
 
 (A) Th*- Caro, 23 Fed. Rep. 734. 
 
 (c) The City of London, Swiib. 245, 
 249. 
 
 [d) See infra, p. 348. 
 
 {e) For the Tlmines. Mers<'y, mid 
 other looiil ref,'iil;iti.piiH. Ht>«< the Ap- 
 I)endix, infra. As to local ruK«H 
 .'(jiuT;illy, see Art. 30, itifrn. 
 
 (/) 3G&37 Viet.o. 85.SS. IS 21. 
 
 (g) Ah to these, see Art. !•, inO'i. 
 
 (//) Geo. 4. o. 78. hh. 8. l». TliiH 
 .\(T ii])i)(iirH to be still ill t'orre. 
 
 Z
 
 338 
 
 thp: regulations. 
 
 Article 1. 
 
 Consequences 
 of not carry- 
 mg lig'hts to 
 shipowner 
 and master. 
 
 Kingdom. The signals for pilots (i) are, by day, the pilot 
 jack or certain other flag or cone and ball signals ; by night, 
 a blue light or a flare shown over the bulwark for one minute. 
 As to distress signals, see Art. 31, infra. 
 
 In American, Swedish, and other foreign waters, and in 
 some British and colonial waters, ships are required to carry 
 lights other than those described in Art. 2. 
 
 A master or owner wilfully neglecting to carry lights in 
 accordance with the regulations is guilty of a misdemeanour, 
 and punishable with a fine of 100/. or imprisonment for six 
 months {k). And a ship proceeding to sea may be stopped, 
 if she is not properly supplied with lights ands creens, or if 
 they are improperly placed (/). It has been held that, as 
 regards third parties, the shipowner, and not the pilot, is 
 responsible for proper lights being carried (ni). 
 
 Article 2. 
 Article 2. A steam resael ichen under way sJiaJl carry : — 
 
 (a,) On or in front of the foremast, or if a vessel withotit a 
 foremast, then in the fore part of the vessel, at a 
 height above the hull of not less than twenty feet, and 
 if the breadth of the vessel exceeds twenty feet, then 
 at a height above the hull not less than such breadth, 
 so, however, that the light need not be carried at a 
 greater height above the hull than forty feet, a bright 
 white light, so constructed as to shoiv an unbroken 
 light over an arc of the horizon of twenty jJoints of 
 the compass, so fixed as to throw the light ten jjoints 
 on each side of the vessel, viz., from right ahead to 
 two points abaft the beam on either side, and of such 
 a character as to be viable at a distance of at least 
 five miles. 
 
 {b) On the starboard side a green light so constructed as to 
 show an unbroken light over an arc of the horizon of 
 
 (i) See Ord. in Council of 29th 
 June, 1900, made under the Merchant 
 Shipping Act, 1894, s. Glo, and 52 i: 
 53 Vict. c. 03, 8. 37. 
 
 ijc) 57 & 58 Vict. c. GO, s. 419. 
 
 (0 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, s. 420. 
 And see, as to fishing craft, 46 & 4 7 
 Vict. c. 92, ss. 6, 12. 
 
 (w) The Ripnn, 10 P. D. 65.
 
 LIOHTS FOR STFAMSHTPR UNDER WAY. ^^^ 
 
 fen points of the rowpass, so fi.red as fo throu- fho Article 2. 
 fif/Jif from right ahead to tiro points ahaft the beam 
 on the starboard side, and of such a character as to 
 he risible at a distance of at least two mites. 
 
 (c) On the port side a red fight so constructed as to show an 
 
 unbroken fight over an arc of the Jiorizon of ten 
 points of the compass, so fixed as to throw the fight 
 from rigfit ahead to two points ahaft tlie beam on tlie 
 port side, and of such a cJiaracter as to be visibfe at 
 a distance of at feast two mifes. 
 
 (d) The said green and red side fights shaU be fitted with 
 
 inboard screens projecting at least three feet forward 
 from the fight, so as to prevent these fights from 
 being seen across the how. 
 
 ye) A steam vessel ichen under way may carry an additional 
 white fight simifar in construction to the fight men- 
 tioned in sub-division (a) . These two fights shall be 
 so pfaced in fine with the keef that one shall be at 
 feast fifteen feet higher than the otJier, and in such a 
 position with reference to each other that the fower 
 fight shaft be forward of the upper one. The vertical 
 distance between these lights shaft be fess than the 
 horizontaf distance. 
 
 This Article corresponds with Art. 3 of the regulations of 
 1884. The present Article differs from the old Article both 
 in language in a few cases and also in the following respects: 
 (I) it applies to all steam vessels, whereas Art. 3 of 1884 
 applied to "seagoing steamships" only; (2) the provisions 
 in sub-division (a) as to the position of the mast-head light 
 in vessels having no foremast, and as to its height, are new ; 
 (3) the provision in sub-division (e) for the optional carrying 
 of a range light is new. 
 
 Coloured side lights were first required for steamships by 
 rules made by the Admiralty in 1 852 under the powers of 
 14 & 15 Vict. c. 79. In 1858 they were first required to be 
 carried by sailing ships. 
 
 A British steam trawler is not a " steam vessel " within 
 Art. 2, special lights being provided for her by a subsequent 
 Article. 
 
 z2
 
 340 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Artir'le 2. By the preliminary Article a ship is defined to be " under 
 
 way " when she is " not at anchor, or fast to the shore, or 
 ao-round." So a ship fast to another that is moored or 
 brought up, or to a buoy, boom, or other fixed object, would, 
 it is submitted, be held not to be under way within the 
 meaning of Art. 2. A ship getting her anchor is " under 
 way " so soon as she ceases to be holden by and under the 
 control of her anchor {n). A steam tug waiting for employ- 
 ment and drifting in the sea(o), or lashed alongside and 
 towing a ship up to her anchor (p), or ready to hold her if 
 her anchor comes home (q), a ship riding to her chains with 
 anchors unshackled (r), and a sailing ship hove to (.s), are 
 under way and required to carry side lights. So a ship 
 riding to a sea anchor, or with her anchor off the ground, 
 up and down, in deep water, would, it seems, be required to 
 carry side lights (t) . 
 
 A ship dropping or dredging with the tide, stern foremost, 
 is under way and required by Ai't. 2 to carry her side lights (it) ; 
 but a Thames sailing barge, with her mast lowered, was held 
 not to be a "sailing vessel under way" within the meaning 
 of the Thames Rules (v). Under former regulations there 
 are contradictory decisions as to the duty of a vessel driving 
 in the sea in an unmanageable state, with regard to carrying 
 side lights (x). Such a case is now provided for by Art. 4. 
 The phrase " under way " occurs also in that Article, and has 
 been the subject of discussion in the House of Lords and 
 elsewhere (?/) . 
 
 A steam vessel under sail, and not under steam, but with 
 her funnel up, is a sailing ship within the meaning of Art. 2, 
 
 (n) The Esk and The Gitana,'L.'R. "at anchor," see under Art. 11 at 
 
 2 A. & E. 350. It seems that she is p. 362. 
 
 " at anchor " whilst being towed up {u) The Hullanrha and The John 
 
 to her anchor, so long- as the anchor Ormston (two steamships), Com-t of 
 
 is not broken out of the ground : The Appeal, loth June, 1885 ; but under 
 
 Romance, (1901) P. 15. former regulations Dr. Lushington 
 
 (o) See The ' Jennie S. Barker and seems to have held otherwise. See 
 
 The Spindrift, mipra, p. 333. The Smyrna, mentioned in The George 
 
 {p) The Romance, (1901) P. 15. Arkle, Lush. 382, 385. 
 
 {q) The Devonian, (1901) P. 221. {v) The Indian Chief, 14 P. D. 24 ; 
 
 (r) The FaedreUndet, (1895) P. 205. aad see The Juno, 7 Asp. M. C. 506. 
 
 («) The Rosalie, 5 P. D. 245 ; The [x) The George Arkle, Lush. 382 ; 
 
 City of London, Swab. 245 ; The Jama, The Buckhumt, 6 P. D. 152. 
 Swab. 60. [y] See The P. Caland, infra, 
 
 {t) For cases on the meaning of p. 346.
 
 LIGHTS FOE STKAMSHIPS UNDER WAY. 
 
 341 
 
 aud must carry side lights and no mast-head light ; but by Article 2. 
 Art. 14 she is required to carry in the daytime a black ball 
 or shape. 
 
 In America, under former regulations, a tug " at rest" (s), 
 and a sailing ship hove-to {a), were held not to be under way. 
 Tlie decisions are contrary to the English cases ; but the 
 definition of " under way " contained in the existing regula- 
 tions sets the matter at rest. 
 
 There is some doubt whether lights carried elsewhere than The rcgula- 
 in the position described in Art. 2 are in accordance %vith the fitUii<^of" ^ 
 law, although the lights are visible in the required directions, sliips' lights 
 and are in other respects sufficient (b). The side lights must exactly 
 be so fixed that their range is such as is described in the observed. 
 Article. If they are liable to be unnecessarily obscured by 
 the sails, rigging, or other part of the ship, they do not 
 comply with the law (<?). 
 
 Minute instructions are issued by the Board of Trade to Board of 
 their surveyors with regard to the fixing and construction of stnictions 
 ships' lights. These instructions have not the force of law, »» to shipa' 
 so that a ship should be held in fault for a collision merely 
 because her lights are not fitted in accordance with them {d). 
 
 A ship whose side lights were fixed on the top of a galley, 
 or deck house, seven feet high and six feet broad, so that 
 each light was seven feet inboard from the ship's side, was 
 held not to be in fault, the lights being properly screened and 
 visible in the required directions (e). 
 
 Although the requirements of Art. 2 are not exactly com- Slight in- 
 plied with, the ship guilty of the infringement will not be there"ula-" 
 held to be in fault for a collision that could not possibly have fions may be 
 been caused by the infringement of the law. In T/ie Faun// 
 M. Carvill {/) it was held that the lights of the other sliip 
 
 (z) T/ie America, 29 Fed. Rep. 304. 
 
 (a) The Alfredo, 32 Fed. Rep. 240. 
 
 (b) Upon the regiilatious of 1863, 
 the law officers of the Cro^vn advised 
 that it was not ; see Pari. Paper, 
 No. 53 of 1874. 
 
 (c) The Tirzah, 4 P. D. 33; The 
 Mcujmt ; Thr Duke of Sutherland; 
 The Fanny M. Carvill, L. R. 4 A. & 
 E. 417; The Funny M. Carvill (on 
 app.), 2 Asp. M. C. 5G5 ; The Duke 
 of Bucckuyh, ^I891y App. Cas. 310 ; 
 
 The Circaiisia, 53 Fed. Rep. 113. 
 
 {d) The Magnet; The Luke of 
 Sutherland ; The Fanny M. Carvill, 
 ubi supra. 
 
 [e) The City of Carlisle, Br. & Lush. 
 363 ; The .Samitel H. Crawford, 6 
 Fed. Rep. 906. 
 
 {/) L. R. 4 A. & E. 417 ; on app. 
 2 Asp. M. C. 565. In The Emperor 
 and The Lady of the Lake, Holt, 37, 
 Lord Chelmsford said that the regu- 
 lations are tatisfied only by a " close
 
 342 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 8. not having in fact been seen across her bow, she was not in 
 fault for the collision. And in The Duhe of Sutherland {(j) 
 one of two ships in ^collision was held not to be in fault, 
 although her side lights were partially obscured by the cat- 
 head, the obscuration not being such as would have prevented 
 the other from seeing the former in time to avoid her if she 
 had exercised proper skill. Again, in The Chtisan (h), a 
 trawler carrying a bright mast-head light in addition to side 
 lights was held free from blame for collision with a steamer, 
 on the ground that those on board the steamer not having 
 seen the bright light, it could not possibly have contributed 
 to the collision. 
 
 Before the enactment of 36 & 37 Vict. c. 85, s. 17, a sailing 
 ship was held not to be in fault, even upon the assumption 
 that her side lights were so fixed in the mizzen rigging that 
 they were not visible in the directions required by the regu- 
 lations, it being proved that the other vessel, a steamship, 
 might, by slackening her speed and using proper care, have 
 avoided her, notwithstanding the suggested insufficiency of 
 her side lights (?'). And in another case (/.•), where the screens 
 of one ship were only a foot in length, and the side lights 
 could be seen across the bow, it was held that she could 
 recover against the other ship for a collision, it being proved 
 that the lights were not in fact seen across the bow. A 
 schooner's side lights were so screened that both were visible 
 to a person standing on her own deck at the ship's stem. It 
 was held in America that they were not in accordance with 
 the law (/). And a sloop with no screens to her side lights 
 was held in fault for a collision with another vessel also in 
 fault for not keeping clear of her (m). Under the existing 
 law, however, any infringement of the regulations as to lights, 
 
 and literal adherence to what they 
 prescribe." But see The Fire Queen, 
 ■supra, p. 55. 
 
 iff) L. R. 4 A. & E. 417. The 
 Duke of Bucclench, 15 P. D. 86, was 
 a similar case, the obscuration being 
 by the foot of the fore sail, but the 
 positions of the ships being such that 
 it could not have affected the colli- 
 sion. Cp. The Hermod, 6 Asp. M. C. 
 509. 
 
 (A) 5 Asp. M. C. 476. 
 
 (i) The Bougainville v. The Jas. C. 
 Stevenson, L. R. 6 P. C. 316. 
 
 (/c) The Emperor v. The Lady of the 
 Lake, Holt, 37, 202. 
 
 (0 The Alhambra, 4 Fed. Rep. 86 ; 
 but, as the fault did not contribute 
 to the collision, the schooner was not 
 held liable. 
 
 {m) The Alabama, 10 Fed. Rep. 
 394.
 
 LIGHTS FOR STEAMSHIPS UNDER WAY. 
 
 343 
 
 which might bj possibilit}' have contributed to the collision, -^ticle 2. 
 would be held to be negligence contributing to the collision (ii). 
 
 Where the side lights were fixed to the pawl bitts, and the 
 other ship alleged that she could not see them, it was held 
 that the ship so carrying them was in fault for the collision (o). 
 A ship ha\'ing in tow a pilot boat, which carried a mast-head 
 light and no side lights, was held in fault (p). 
 
 It is not clear whether the distance at which the lights are Visibility of 
 to be visible is stated in statute or nautical miles. In the ^ ^" 
 French regulations the distance is given as deitx tnilles. 
 
 The power of ordering inspection of a ship's lights, alleged luspoctioa by 
 to be deficient, giveu to the judge of the Admiralty Court ^"^^ ^'''^■ 
 by statute {q), was exercised by Sii* R. Phillimore in The 
 JTagiief (/■). The Trinity masters having inspected them and 
 found them visible for less than two miles, the ship was held 
 in fault under the statute {n). 
 
 Article 3. 
 
 A steam vessel when toning another vessel shall, in addition Article 3. 
 to her side lights, carrij two bright tvhite lights in a vertical line Li«>-lits for 
 one over the other, not less than six feet apart, and tvhen towing ^*^™J*^^^^'^ 
 more than one vessel shall carri/ an additional bright white light 
 six feet above or beloic such lights, if the length of the tow, 
 measuring from the stern of the towing vessel to the stern of the 
 last vessel towed, exceeds 600 feet. Each of these lights shall be 
 of the same comtrucfion and character, and shall be carried in 
 the same position as the tvhite light mentioned in Art. 2 {a), 
 except the additional light, which may be carried at a height of 
 not less than fourteen feet above the hull. 
 
 Such steam vessel may carry a small white light abaft the 
 funnel or after-mast for the vessel towed to steer by, but such 
 light shall not be visible forward of the beam. 
 
 (n) The Tirzah, 4 P. D. 33 ; The (>•) L. R. 4 A. & E. 417. 
 
 Dmielm, 9 P. D. 164. See supra, (.?) In The Duke of Buccleuch, ubi 
 
 pp. 39 seq. supra, the Trinity Brethren inspected 
 
 (o) The New Ed v. The Gustav, 9 The J^nndnlia, with her sails sut and 
 
 L. T. 547. her lights in position, for the pur- 
 
 ( p) The Mary Hounsell, 4 P. D. pose of seeing the effect of the former 
 
 204. in obscuring the latter. 
 
 (q) 24 Vict. c. 10, 8. 18. 
 
 towing.
 
 344 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 3. This Article corresponds with Art. 4 of the Regulations of 
 
 ~ 1884. The provisions as to (1) the distance between the 
 
 lights, (2) the additional light where the tow exceeds 600 
 
 feet, and (3) the steering light first appeared in the present 
 
 Article. 
 
 The distinguishing lights of the tug are " for the purpose 
 of warning all approaching vessels that she is not in all 
 respects mistress of her movements " {t), and to show that she 
 is encumbered. It would seem that as soon as the tow line 
 is fast, and so long as it is fast, the towing lights should be 
 up. A tug fast alongside a ship at anchor and towing her 
 up to her anchor («), or ready to hold her up to her anchor if 
 it comes home, or if the cable parts, must exhibit her towing 
 lights and her side lights {x). 
 
 The regulations contain no provision for lights to dis- 
 tinguish a sailing ship towing another vessel. 
 
 Article 4. 
 
 Lights and 
 signals for 
 vessels not 
 under com- 
 mand. 
 
 Article 4. 
 
 {a) A vessel which from any accident is not under coniinaiid 
 shall carry at the same height as the white light mentioned in 
 Art. 2 (a), where they can best be seen, and, if a steam vessel, 
 in lieu of that light, two red lights, in a vertical line one over the 
 other, not less than six feet apart, and of such a character as to 
 be visible all round the horizon at a distance of at least two 
 miles; and shall by day carry in a vertical line one over the 
 other not less than six feet apart, where they can best be seen, two 
 black balls or shapes each two feet in diameter. 
 
 (/>) A vessel employed in laying or in picking up a telegraph 
 cable shall carry in the same position as the white light mentioned 
 in Art. 2 (a), and if a steam vessel, in lieu of that light, three 
 lights in a vertical line one over the other, not less than six feet 
 apart. The highest and loivest of these lights shall be red, and 
 the middle light shall be white, and they shall /je of such a cha- 
 racter as to be visible all round the horizon, at a distance of at 
 least two miles. By day she shall carry in a vertical line one 
 over the other, not less than six feet apart, ichere they can best be 
 
 (t) The American and The Syria, 
 L. K. 6 P. C. 127, 131. 
 
 («) The Romance, (1901) P. 15. 
 
 {x) The Devonian, (1901) P. 221 ; 
 so held by the Court of Appeal. 
 Sed qci.
 
 LIGFITS SHIPS TOWING OR NOT UNDER COMMAND. 345 
 
 seen, three shapes not /ess than t no feet in diameter, o/ichich the Article 4. 
 hitjhest and lowest shall he (jlobular in shape and red in eolour, 
 and the middle one diamond in shape and ichite. 
 
 (e) The vessels referred to in this Article when not making wat/ 
 fhroiKjh the water, shall not carry the side lights hut, when 
 making way shall carry them. 
 
 (d) The lights and shapes required to be shown by this Article 
 are to be taken by otJier vessels as signals that the vessel showing 
 them is not under command and cannot therefore get out of the 
 way. 
 
 These signals are not signals of vessels in distress and re- 
 quiring assistance. Such signals are contained in Art. 31. 
 
 This Article corresponds with Art. 5 of the Regulations of 
 1884. There are certnin verbal differences, and in the first 
 paragraph two red lights are substituted for the three red 
 lights of 1884. 
 
 Steamboats of less than forty tons, steam launches, sailing 
 and rowing crafts of less than twenty tons, and row boats are 
 by Art. 7 exempted from the operation of Art. 4 (a). 
 
 The words of paragraph (a) applying the Article to a ship 
 " which from any accident is not under command " are vague, 
 and have already given rise to difference of judicial opinion. 
 They refer to a ship afloat and moving, not to a ship iiard 
 and fast aground {y). In the ordinary course of navigation 
 a ship is sometimes not under command ; a steam or sailing- 
 ship hove-to in heavy weather, a sailing- shij) in a calm, a 
 heavy ship in stays, a vessel with her anchor down but not 
 holding, are common instances of such a case ; but it is 
 apprehended that Art. 4 does not apply in such circum- 
 stances, which cannot be said to be accidental (s). A vessel 
 with headway on her, and therefore probably able to steer, 
 may be " not under command " within the meaning of the 
 Article, for it directs side lights to be carried in such circum- 
 stances, presumably for the purpose of indicating the direction 
 of her head and course. It appears to be assumed in 
 Art. 15 (e) that a vessel under way and unable to get out of 
 
 (y) The Carlotta, (1899) V. i'ili. A. C. 269. Also of a Hidliug ship 
 
 (j) .So held of a voHsel drHprH'''>H" hove to: Jl/irruivx v. Gowcr, 119 
 through mud: The Bdlanuch, (liJU7] Fed. licp. lilG.
 
 346 The regulations. 
 
 Article 4. ^j^e way of another approaching her, or unable to manoeuvre 
 as required by the steering and sailing rules, is a vessel " not 
 under command " ; but it is not clear why different words are 
 used to express the same thing. 
 
 " Making way through the water " appears to have a 
 different meaning from " under way," which by the Pre- 
 liminary Article is interpreted to describe a ship that is not 
 at anchor, or made fast to the shore, or aground. The dis- 
 tinction between "under way" and "having no way on 
 her " is strongly marked in Art. 15 (a) and (b). By Art. 11a 
 ship aground in or near a fairway is required to carry, in 
 addition to her riding lights, the two red lights of a vessel 
 not under command within the meaning of Art. 4 (a) {a). 
 
 A ship hard and fast ashore is not required to exhibit the 
 two black balls {h). 
 
 Art. 4 does not in terms exclude the operation of the 
 "meeting" and "crossing" and other rules of navigation 
 for vessels approaching each other with risk of collision. It 
 appears, however, that a duty is cast upon a vessel falling in 
 with another vessel exhibiting the red lights to keep out of 
 the way of the latter, and upon the vessel exhibiting such 
 lights to keep her course and speed {c) . 
 
 Art. 4 (a) has no application to ships at anchor or to a ship 
 fast ashore {cl) ; but, as already pointed out, by Art. 11 it is 
 made to apply to a ship aground in or near a fairway. 
 
 The P. Calaiid (e) is an important decision upon the cor- 
 responding Article of the Regulations of 1884. A steamship, 
 owing to a breakdown of one of her cylinders, was able to 
 use one engine only, with which she was able to maintain a 
 speed of from four to five knots. She had the red lights ex- 
 hibited, but no side lights. In the House of Lords she was 
 held in fault, both for exhibiting the red lights and for not 
 exhibiting her side lights. In the Court below, Jeune, J., 
 expressed the opinion that if a vessel is able to comply with 
 the sailing rules for vessels approaching each other with risk 
 
 {a) In Germany, this was so held {c) The Rawthombank, (1904) P. 
 
 under the Regulations of 1 884, which 120. 
 
 contained no provision for a ship [d) The Carlotta, ubi supra. 
 
 aground: The John Johansson, 6 Asi^. (e) (1893) App. Cas. 207; in the 
 
 M. C. 39, note. Court of Appeal, (1S92) P. 191. 
 
 [b) The Carlotta, (1899) P. 223.
 
 1 
 
 LIGHTS FOR SHIPS NOT UNDER COMMAND. 347 
 
 of collision, she is not justified in exhibiting the red lights ; Article 4. 
 and in the Court of Appeal Fry, L. J., took a similar view. 
 In the Court of Appeal Lord Esher, M. R., said that a vessel 
 that is, in fact, under command, is not justified in exhibiting 
 the thi-ee red lights, merely because she may shortly be out of 
 command. Lord Hersohell, C, in the House of Lords, said 
 that this was too narrow a view of the regulation, and that a 
 steamship with her machinery in such a condition that she 
 might at any moment be unable to keep out of the way of an 
 approaching vessel would be justified in showing the three 
 ■ed lights, and not the less so because she was able to keep 
 moving ahead ; but that it must depend upon circumstances 
 whether she is justified in moving ahead at all. Lord Watson 
 cuncurred in this view of the law. 
 
 This decision has been followed in Scotland, where it was 
 held that a steamship which by reason of injui'ies sustained 
 in collision was unable to go at full speed, but whose engines 
 and steering gear were intact, was not justified in exhibiting 
 the " not under command " signals (/'). 
 
 It may be observed that those in charge of an injured 
 vessel may, in considering the advisability of exhibiting " not 
 under command " signals, take into consideration the nature 
 of the traffic with which they may expect to fall in. Thus, 
 a sailing ship making from off Dover to the Downs, which, 
 by reason of injuries, could only act slowly for other vessels, 
 was held justified in exhibiting these signals, regard being 
 had to the crowded nature of Channel traffic {;/) . 
 
 In The Faedrelandet {//) it was held that a steamship riding 
 in the sea to her chains, with anchors unshackled, should 
 exhibit the three red lights. 
 
 In T/ie Buck hurst (/), a sailing ship parted from her 
 anchors in a gale and drove over Cardiff sands, so that she 
 injured her rudder and became unmanageable. She did not 
 exhibit the three red lights, but it was held that she was not 
 therefore to be held in fault under 36 & 37 Vict, c, 85, s. 17. 
 The importance of the decision, however, is lessened by the 
 
 (/) William Cory ^ Son, Ltd. v. 120. 
 Kopajtic, So. L;iw Hop. XLV. 216. (A) (1895) P. 205. 
 
 (y) The Mawthornbank, (l'J04) P. (j) 6 P. D. 152.
 
 348 
 
 Article 4. 
 
 THK REGULATIONS. 
 
 finding of the learned judge that the circumstances made a 
 departure from the regulations necessary, and that the 
 absence of the lights could not have contributed to the 
 collision. 
 
 Article 5. 
 
 Lights for 
 sailing ships. 
 
 " Under 
 way" : 
 meaning of 
 the term. 
 
 ArtK'LE 5. 
 
 A miling vesael under waij^ and ani/ vessel being fotced, shall 
 cany the same lights as are prescribed by Art. 2 for a steam 
 vessel under u-ai/^ icith the exception of the white lights mentioned 
 therein, which tliey shall never carry. 
 
 This Article corresponds with Aii. 6 of the Regulations 
 of 1884. 
 
 A ship hove-to is under way Avithin the meaning of 
 Article 5 (/.•). It was so held under the Regulations of 
 1863 (/ ) ; and a ship hove-to comes under the steering and 
 sailing rules {ni) . 
 
 A vessel coming to an anchor while hauling down her jibs, 
 and having little or no way on her, was carrying her side 
 lights ; it appears that she was right in doing so (n). 
 
 It has been said that, where a vessel parted from her 
 anchors and drove over a sand in an unmanageable state, 
 owing to her rudder being disabled, it would have been 
 wrong for her to have exhibited her side lights (o). 
 
 Article 6. 
 
 Special lights 
 for small 
 vessels. 
 
 Article 6. 
 
 Whene'cer, as i)t the case of small vessels under way during bad 
 weather, the green and red side lights cannot be fixed, these lights 
 sJkiU be kept at hand lighted and ready for use; and shall, on 
 the approach of or to other vessels, be exhibited on their respective 
 sides in sufficient time to prevent collision, in such manner as to 
 make them most visible, and so that the green light shall not he 
 
 (k) See the definitiun, tiupra, p. 333. 
 
 [l) The Pennsyhania, 23 L. T. 55. 
 The Supreme Court of the U. S. came 
 to the same decision upon the .same 
 facts: The Pennsylvania, 19 Wall. 
 125. 
 
 (>«) The Rosalie, 5 P. D. 245 ; The 
 City of London, Swab. 245 ; The 
 James, ibid. 55. The words of the 
 
 regulation under which these cases 
 were decided are " under sail." See 
 Swab. App. 1, for these rules. The 
 same words, ' ' under sail, ' ' occur in 
 the rules made under 17 & 18 Vict, 
 c. 104, s. 295. As to " under way," 
 see pp. 333, 340. 
 
 (w) The Adriatic, 3 Asp. M. C. 16. 
 
 (o) The Buckhurst, 6 P. D. 152.
 
 LIGHTS SAILING SHIPS SMALL VESSELS. 349 
 
 seen on the port side nor the red light on the starboard side, nor, Article 6. 
 if pracficabte, more than tiro points aha/t the hoam on thoir 
 respective sides. 
 
 To mahi' the use of these portable lir/hts more certain and easy, 
 the lanterns containing them shall each be painted outside trith 
 the colour of the light they respectireli/ contain, and shall be 
 provided with proper screens. 
 
 This Article is almost identical with Art. 7 of the 
 Regulations of 1884. 
 
 It is not easy to see to what vessels the Article has What vessels 
 application. Art. 10 provides for boats, and there are few IS-'sid7 
 craft other than boats in which side lights " cannot be fixed " liglitson 
 and carried even in the worst weather, if properly fitted. It 
 was assumed in a case in Ireland that a full-decked trawler of 
 41 tons cannot conveniently work her trawl with side lights 
 fixed, and that such a vessel may carry them on deck, even in 
 fine weather and when not at work (;;). This can scarcely 
 have been the intention of the framers of Art. 6. 
 
 If a vessel seeks to excuse herself for not having her side 
 lights fixed in their proper place, the burden is on her to 
 prove that the lights could not with safety be carried fixed. 
 In the case of a brig of 255 tons {q), and in another case of a 
 vessel of 239 tons (>■), the Court appears to have doubted 
 whether it was practicable in bad weather to carry them fixed 
 in the usual places. It is submitted that such vessels would 
 not come within the operation of Art. 6. 
 
 Article 7. 
 
 Steam vessels of less than forty, and vessels under oars or sails Article 7. 
 of less than tirenty, tons gross tonnage, respectively, and rowing Lig-hts for 
 boats, when under way, shall not Ijc obliged to carry the lights '*'"'^^' '''■"^^• 
 mentioned in Art. 2 (a) 'b) and (r), hat f they do not earry 
 them they shall be provided with the following lights: — 
 1. Steam vessels of less than forty tons shall carry — 
 
 {a) In the fore part of the vessel, or on or in front 
 of the fnnnel, where it can best be seen, and at a height 
 
 (p) The Margaret iind The Tuscar, {qj The Lirimisamc, Swab. T)!!); 
 
 IT) L. T. 86. Hee also The Calia, ibid. 4G5. 
 
 (»•) The Tirzah, 4 P. D. ;j;}.
 
 350 
 
 Article 7. 
 
 Article 8. 
 
 Lights for 
 pilot boats. 
 
 THE KEGULATTONS. 
 
 ahore the f/iimcale of not tes.^ than nine feet, a bright 
 white tight constructed and fi.red as prescribed in 
 Art. 2 (a), and of such a character as to be visible at 
 a distance of at least two miles. 
 
 (b) Green and red side lights constructed and fixed 
 as prescribed in Art. 2 {b) and (c), and of such a 
 character as to be visible at a distance of at least 
 one mile, or a comhined lantern shoicing a green 
 light and a red light from right ahead to two points 
 ahqft the beam on their respective sides. Such 
 lantern shall be carried not less than three feet 
 below the tvhite light. 
 
 2. Small steamboats, such as are carried Inj seagoing vessels, 
 
 mag carry the white light at a less height than nine 
 feet above the gunwale, but it shall be carried above the 
 combined lantern, mentioned in sub-division 1 (b). 
 
 3. Vessels under oars or sails, of less than ticenty tons, shall 
 
 have ready at hand a lantern with a green glass on one 
 side and a red glass on the other, which, on the approach 
 of or to other vessels, shall be exhibited in sufficient time 
 to prevent collision, so tha^^ the green light shall not be 
 seen on the port side nor the red light on the starboard 
 side. 
 
 4. Bowing boats, whether under oars or sail, shall have ready 
 
 at hand a lantern showing a white light, lohich shall be 
 
 temporarily exhibited in sufficient time to 2>^^cve')it 
 
 collision. 
 
 The vessels referred to in this Article shall not be obliged to 
 
 carry the lights prescribed by Art. 4 {a), and Art. II, last 
 
 paragraph. 
 
 This Article first appears in the Regulations of 1897. 
 
 Artict.e 8. 
 
 Pilot vessels, when engaged on their .station on pilotage duty 
 shall not show the lights required for other vessels, but shall carry 
 a white light at the mast-head, visiljle all round the horizon, and 
 shall also exhibit a flare-up light or flare-up lights at short in- 
 tervals, which shall never exceed fifteen minutes.
 
 LIGHTS FOR PILOT BOATS. 
 
 On the near approach of or to other vessels the// »hall hare 
 their side lirjlif-s lighted^ readi/ for hsp, and shall ffa-sh or shoir 
 them at short intervals, to indicate the direction in which thei/are 
 heading, but the green light shall not be sliomi on the port side, 
 nor the red light on the starboard side. 
 
 A pilot vessel of such a class as to be o/jliged to go alongside of 
 a vessel to put a pilot on board, mail slioic the white light instead 
 of earri/ing it at the mast-head, and niaii, instead of the coloured 
 lights above mentioned, have at hand read g for use a lantern irith 
 a green gla.'is on the one side and a red glass on the other, to lie 
 used as prescribed above. 
 
 Pilot vessels, when not engaged oh their station on pilotage 
 dutji, shall carrg lights similar to those of other vessels of their 
 tonnage. 
 
 The following regulation, applicable only to the pilot craft 
 and in the waters therein mentioned, was added by Order in 
 Council of 7th July, 1897 : — 
 
 A steam pilot vessel exclusivelg employed for the service of 
 pilots licensed or certified bg anij pilotage authority or the Com- 
 mittee of any pilotage district in the United Kingdom when 
 engaged on her station on pilotage duty and in British waters 
 and not at anchor shall in addition to the lights required for all 
 pilot boats carry at a distance of eight feet below her white mast- 
 head light a red light visible all round the horizon and of such a 
 character as to be visible on a dark night with a clear atmosphere 
 at a distance of at least two miles and also the coloured side 
 lights required to be carried by vessels when under way. 
 
 When engaged on Iter station on pilotage duty and in, British 
 waters and at anchor she shall carry in addition to the lights 
 required for all pilot boats the red licjht above mentioned but not 
 the coloured side lights. 
 
 When not engaged on her station on pilotage duty she shall 
 carry the same lights as other steam vessels. 
 
 This Article corresponds (with additions) with Art. 9 of 
 the llegulations of i«84. 
 
 It has been held that a pilot boat in tow of the ship to 
 
 351 
 
 Article 8.
 
 3()2 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Ar'ifie 8. which she had supplied the pilot was in fault for carrying 
 her mast-head light (•§) . 
 
 A boat serving ships with pilots would seem to be a " pilot 
 vessel" whether the pilots held licences or not {t). 
 
 A pilot vessel, within the limits of her station, is " engaged 
 on her station on pilotage duty," not only whilst she is 
 actually putting a pilot on board or taking him out of a ship, 
 but whilst she is cruising or at anchor and on the look-out 
 for ships. Unless, however, she is engaged in one of these 
 ways, the fact that she is within the geographical limits of 
 her station will not bring her within the definition (//). 
 
 The words of the first paragraph, " shall not show the lights 
 required for other vessels," would seem to forbid the use by 
 pilot boats of the stern light of Art. 10. 
 
 Neither the regulations, nor the Merchant Shipping Act, 
 1894, nor the Interpretation Act, 1889, contain any defini- 
 tion of " British waters." Perhaps they would be held to be 
 waters within a marine league of low water mark of the 
 United Kingdom. It would seem to be an infringement of 
 Art. 8 for a steam pilot vessel to carry the red light in the 
 Channel or elsewhere outside " British waters." 
 
 The Order in Council (No. 1) of 7th July, 1897, so far as 
 it is in pursuance of 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, s. 424, does not 
 extend to the steam pilot vessel's red light directed by Order 
 in Council (No. 2) of 7th July, 1897. 
 
 In America, a ship that ran down the boat from which she 
 was taking her pilot was held alone in fault, though the pilot 
 boat had a wrong light ; but in another case the pilot boat 
 was held to be in fault for not complying with the regula- 
 tions whilst she was approaching the vessel she had served in 
 order to pick up her skiif (,r). In a case where two competing 
 pilot boats (a steamer and a schooner) collided, it was held 
 that neither was in fault (//). 
 
 The object of the special lights for a pilot boat is, not only 
 to apprise other vessels of the presence of a pilot, but also to 
 enable them to keep clear of her (s). 
 
 (.v) T/ie Mary HounseU, 4 P. D. 204. [x) The City of JFashingion, 2 Otto, 
 
 [t] See The Mary HounseU, supra. 3 1 . 
 
 \i() The Reginald, 10 Asp. ,519; (y) T//e Pifo<, 20 Fed. Rep. 860. 
 
 The Leo, 34 Fed. Rep. 140. (2) TheHavcrton, 31 Fed. Rep. r^GS.
 
 fishermen's lights. 
 
 353 
 
 It has been held in America that it is no breach of the 
 regulations, nor is it negligence, not to answer a pilot-boat's 
 flare (n). Where a sailing ship by biu-ning a flare in answer 
 to a steamship's blue light misled the latter into thinking 
 that she was a pilot -boat, the sailing ship was held in fault (b). 
 The duty of a steamship to stop when taking her pilot on 
 board has been insisted on (c). 
 
 As to signals for ships wanting pilots, see above, p. 338. 
 
 Article 8. 
 
 Article 9. 
 
 Fishing-vessels and fishing-boats, ichen under way and when 
 not required hy this Article to carry or shoic the tights herein- 
 after specified shall carry or show the lights prescribed for vessels 
 of their tonnage under way. 
 
 (a) Open boats, by which is to be understood boats not protected 
 
 from the entry of sea water by means of a continnous 
 deck, when engaged in any fishing at night with out- 
 lying tackle extending not more than 150 feet horizon- 
 tally from the boat into the seaicay, shall carry one 
 all-round white light. 
 
 Open boats, when fishing at night, with outlying 
 tackle extending more than \6Q feet horizontally from 
 the boat into the seaway, shall carry one all-round 
 ichiie light, and in addition, on approaching or being 
 approached by other vessels, shall shoio a second lohite 
 light at least '^ feet below the first light and at a hori- 
 zontal distance of at least b feet away from it in the 
 direction in which the outlying tackle is attached. 
 
 (b) Vessels and boats, except open boats as defined in sub- 
 
 division {ri), when fishing tvith drift nets, shall, so long as 
 the nets are wholly or partly in the water, carry two 
 white lights where they can best be seen. Such lights 
 shall be placed so that the vertical distance betieeen them 
 shall be not less than 6 feet and not more than 15 feet, 
 and so tJiat the horizontal distance betiveen them, 
 measured in a line with the keel, shall be not less than 
 5 feet and not more than 10 feet. The loioer of these 
 
 (ft) The f'amhmdoon, 30 Fed. Eop. 283, affirmiug 23 Fed. Rej). 831. 
 704. Ic) The Columbia, 27 Fed. R«'p. 704. 
 
 {b) The Wisemmin, 23 Fed. Rep. 
 
 Article 9. 
 
 M, 
 
 A A
 
 354 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 9. two lights shall he in the direction of the nets, and both 
 
 of them shall he of such « character as to show all 
 round the horizon, and to he visihlc at a distance of not 
 less than 3 miles. 
 
 Within the Mediterranean Sea and in the seas bor- 
 dering the coasts of Japan and Korea sailing fishing- 
 vessels of less than 20 tons gross tonnage shall not be 
 obliged to earn/ the lower of these two lights; should 
 they, however, not carry it, they shall show in the same 
 positio)i {in the direction of the net or gear) a white 
 light, visible at a distance of not less than one sea mile, 
 on the aijproach of or to other vessels, 
 {c) Vessels and boats, except open boats as defined in sub- 
 division (a), u-Jien line-fishing with their lines out and 
 attached to or hauling their lines, and lohen not at 
 anchor or stationary tcithin the meaning of sub- 
 division (A), shall carry the same lights as vessels 
 fishing uith drift-nets. When shooting lines, or fishing 
 with touring lines, they shall carry the lights prescribed 
 for a steam or sailing vessel under way respectively. 
 
 Within the Mediterranean Sea and in the seas bor- 
 dering the coasts of Japan and Korea sailing fishing- 
 vessels of less than 20 tons gross tonnage shall not be 
 obliged to carry the lower of these two lights ; should 
 they, hoioever, not carry it, tJiey shall show in tlie same 
 position {in the direction of the lines) a white light, 
 visible at a distance of not less than one sea mile on the 
 approach of or to other vessels. 
 (cl) Vessels, when engaged in trawling, by which is meant the 
 dragging of an apparatus along the bottom of the sea — 
 1. If steam- vessels, shall carry in the same position 
 as the white light mentioned in Art. 2 {a), a tricoloured 
 lantern so constructed and fixed as to shoio a white 
 light from right ahead to tico points on each bote, and 
 a green light and a red light over an arc of the horizon 
 from two ^joints on each how to two points abaft the 
 beam on the starboard and port sides respectively ; and 
 not less than 6 nor more than 12 feet below the tri- 
 coloured lantern a white light in a lantern, so con- 
 structed as to show a clear uniform and unbroken light 
 all round the horizon.
 
 fishermen's lights. 355 
 
 2. If sailing-vesse/s, shall carry a ichite li'glif in a Article 9. 
 lantern, so constructed as to s/ioir a clear uniform and 
 unbroken light all round the horizon, and shall also, on 
 the approach of or to other vessels, show where it can 
 best be seen a white flare-up light or torch in sufficient 
 time to prevent collision. 
 
 All lights mentioned in sub-division (d) 1 and 2 
 shall be risible at a distance of at least 2 miles. 
 
 [e) Oyster dredgers and other vessels fisfiing with dredge-nets 
 shall carry and sfioic the same lights as traivlers. 
 
 (/) Fishing-vessels and fishing-boats may at any time use a 
 flare-up light in addition to the lights which tliey are 
 by this Article required to carry and show, and they 
 may also use working lights. 
 
 (g) Every fishing-vessel and every fishing-boat under 160 feet 
 in length, when at anchor, shall exhibit a white light 
 visible all round the horizon at a distance of at least 
 one mile. 
 
 Every fishing-vessel of 160 feet in length or tipivards, 
 wJien at anchor, shall exhibit a white light visible all 
 rbund the horizon at a distance of at least one mile, and 
 shall exhibit a second light as provided for vessels of 
 such lengtfi by Article 1 1 . 
 
 S/iould any such vessel, whetJier under 150 feet in 
 length, or of 160 feet in lengtli or upicards, be attached 
 to a net or other fishing gear, she shall on the approach 
 of other vessels shoiv an additional ichite light at least 
 3 feet below the anchor light, and at a Jiorizontal dis- 
 tance of at least 6 feet away from it in the direction of 
 the net or gear. 
 
 [h) If a vessel or boat tvhen fishing becomes stationary in con- 
 sequence of her gear getting fast to a rock or other 
 obstruction, she shall in daytime haul don^)i the day 
 signal required by sub-division {k) ; at night shoic tJie 
 light or lights prescribed for a vessel at anchor ; and 
 during fog, mist, falling snow, or heavy rain-storms 
 make the signal prescribed for a vessel at anchor. (See 
 sub-division (d), and the last paragraph, of Article 15.) 
 
 (i) In fog, mist, falling snow, or heathy rain-storms, drift-net 
 vessels attached to their nets, and vessels when trawling, 
 A A 2
 
 3o6 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 9. dredging, or fishing with any kind of drag-net, and 
 
 vessels line fishing with their lines out, shall, if of 
 20 tons gross tonnage or upn-ards, respectively, at inter- 
 vals of not more than one minute make a blast ; if 
 steam-vessels, with the irhistle or syren, and if sailing- 
 vessels, with the fog-horn ; each blast to be /ollo?ced by 
 ringing the bell. Fishing vessels and boats of less than 
 20 tons gross tonnage shall not l^e obliged to give the 
 above-mentioned signals ; but if they do not, they shall 
 make some other efiUcient sound signal at intervals of 
 not more than one minute. 
 (/•) All vessels or boats fishing with nets or lines or trauis, 
 when under way, shall in daytime indicate their occu- 
 pation to an approaching vessel by displaying a basket 
 or other efiicient signal where it can best be seen. If 
 vessels or boats at anchor have their gear out they shall, 
 on the approach of other vessels, show the same signal 
 on the side on which those vessels can pass. 
 The vessels required by this Article to carry or show the lights 
 hereinbefore specified shall not be obliged to carry the liglits 
 prescribed by Article 4 [a), and the last paragraph of Article 11. 
 
 This Ai'ticle came into force on the 1st May, 1906, by 
 virtue of an Order in Council dated 4th April, 1906, and 
 takes the place of Art. 10 of the Regulations of 1884 and the 
 Orders in Council of 30th December, 1884, 24th June, 1885, 
 and 23rd October, 1905, which amendpd it. The Article is 
 to be read and construed as though it had formed Art. 9 of 
 the Regulations of 1897, and has therefore application to all 
 British ships and to all foreign ships within the jiu"isdic- 
 tion {a). Inasmuch as it provides a complete code in regard 
 to fishermen's lights it must be held to supersede the various 
 Acts of Parliament and Orders in Council which formerly 
 controlled the rights of fishing- vessels to which Art. 10 did 
 not apply {b). It would seem doubtful whether the Article 
 
 {(() In vii-tue of sect. 418 of the dates: 9th January, 1863; 6th 
 
 Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. January, 1869; I4th August, 1879; 
 
 [h) The Acts and Orders referred 'IMh. March, 1880 ; 26th August, 
 
 to in the text are as follows :— 6 & 7 1881 ; 18th August, 1882 ; 23rd 
 
 Vict. o. 79 ; 25 .\i: 26 Vict. c. 63 ; 31 Auijust, 1883 ; 2nd February, 1884 ; 
 
 & 32 A^ict. c. 15 ; 38 Vict. c. 15 : 40 and a notice pursuant to 46 & 47 
 
 i: 41 Vict. c. 42 ; 46 & 47 Vict. c. 22 ; Vict. c. 22, s. 29, 17th November, 
 
 Orders in Council of the following 1888 (as to Danish boats), dated 26th
 
 fishermen's lights. 357 
 
 can be applied to foreign vessels outside the jurisdiction until Article 9. 
 it has been applied to the nations to which such vessels 
 belong, by Order in Council under sect. 424 of the Merchant 
 Shipping Act of 1894. 
 
 The only words in the present Article which have so far "Fishing 
 received attention are "fishing with di-ift-nets " (under nets."" 
 sub-s. (b)), and "when engaged in trawling" (under 
 sub-s. (d) ). In the case of The Cockatrice (c) it was held, that 
 a steam- drifter is not " fishing with drift-nets " within the 
 meaning of the Article, which, having cast off and buoyed 
 her nets, steams off towards a trawler, which she believes to 
 have become entangled with the nets. The drifter was 
 accordingly held to blame for not having shown the ordinary 
 under way lights. 
 
 In this case it was urged on behalf of the drifter that the " When 
 trawler, with whom she collided, was at fault, inasmuch as trawUuo-.''^ 
 she had shown the triplex trawling light, required by 
 sub-s. (d), not only while her trawl was down, but also duriug 
 the interval between hauling up and shooting the trawl, an 
 operation which she had completed some ten minutes before 
 the collision. It was held that she was justified in exhibiting 
 the triplex light during this interval. This case is to be 
 distinguished from that of The Upton Castle (d), where a 
 trawler was held at fault for exhibiting the trawling lights — 
 then authorised by Order in Council — when she had finished 
 trawling, and she was proceeding with her engines work- . 
 ing at full speed ahead. Both cases were decided by 
 Bargrave Deane, J., who distinguished them as follows: — 
 " I think a distinction has to be drawn. If a trawler, imme- 
 diately after hauling her net, without going to any other 
 ground, shoots her trawl, then she is still fishing during the 
 interval ; but if she changes her ground, then she must 
 change her lights " (e). 
 
 Under the present Article the option which was formerly Former 
 given to trawlers in respect of lights, and which has caused li^rhts'. ^^ 
 
 March, 1884 (as to the Sea Fisheries Clark, /iO Fed. Rep. 58;"), where a 
 
 Act, 1883). lobster-boat "fast" to lier trawl, 
 
 (c) The Oockatric/', (1908) P. 182. on the port tack, was held not to 
 
 {d) The Upton C'a.st/e,(l'JO(i) P. 147. be in fault for not keeping out of 
 
 (e) The Coclcatrice, (1908) P. 18"_', the way of a schooner ou the star- 
 
 at p. 188. In America The Nellie board tack.
 
 358 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 9. difficulties (,/'), has been withdrawn. Under the Orders in 
 Council, by which this option was conferred, a trawler was 
 authorised to show either extraordinary lights indicative of her 
 employment or else the ordinary under way lights. It was 
 judicially held that if the trawler had sufficient way on her to 
 act with effect for an approaching ship, then it was her duty to 
 exhibit the ordinary under way lights. If, however, she had no 
 more than just steerage way and had therefore little power of 
 keeping out of the way of another vessel, then it was her duty 
 to show the extraordinary lights (i/). Under the present 
 Article one set of Kghts is prescribed for steam-vessels and 
 one set for sailing-vessels [h), trawling. While this system 
 has manifest advantages, it is submitted that it affords less 
 indication to an approaching vessel, than did the old system, 
 of the power of complying with the regulations, which the 
 trawler deems herself to possess. 
 
 There is still a duty, under sub-s. (i), upon a vessel or boat 
 becoming stationary in consequence of her gear getting fast, 
 to behave as though at anchor (/). 
 
 The white flare-up light to be shown by sailing-trawlers on 
 the approach of other vessels is to be shown " in sufficient 
 time to prevent collision." Jeune, J., has held similar words 
 only to apply when the vessels "are approaching one 
 another under such circumstances that there exists a risk of 
 collision " {k). 
 Fog signals. The duty upon steam-trawlers to sound fog-signals is now 
 beyond doubt (/). 
 
 Vessel 
 
 becoming 
 
 stationary. 
 
 Flare-up 
 
 li!?lit. 
 
 Article 10. 
 
 Article 10. A vessel ichich is being overtaken by another sliall slioiv from 
 
 Lifht for h^^^ stern to such last-mentioned vessel a white light or a flare-up 
 
 overtaken ^/^,;^^_ 
 
 ship, "^ 
 
 (/) The Bunehn, 9 P. D. 164 ; 
 The Tu-eedsdale, 14 P. D. 164 ; The 
 Upton Castle, (1906) P. 147 ; see also 
 The Robert and The Ann, Holt, 55 ; 
 The Englishman, 3 P. D. 18; The 
 Edith, Ir. Eep. 10 Eq. 345. 
 
 {g) The Twecdsdale, sttpra, at j)- 171. 
 
 (h) Under the Regulations of 1884 
 there was a question as to saUing- 
 
 trawlers : The Chusan, 5 Asp. M. C. 
 476. 
 
 (i) Cf. The JFarwick, 15 P. D. 189. 
 
 {k) The Orion, (1891) P. 307 at 
 p. 311. See The Picton, (1910) P. 46. 
 
 [l) Under the Regulations of 1884 
 the application of Art. 10 to steam- 
 trawlers was questioned : The London, 
 (1904) P. 355.
 
 STERN LIGHT. ^^^ 
 
 The ichite light required to be shown by thin Article may be Article 10. 
 fijced and carried in a lantern^ but in such case the lantern shall 
 be so constructed, fitted, and screened that it shall throw an un- 
 broken light over an arc of the horizon of twelve points of the 
 compass, viz., for six points from right aft on each side of the 
 vessel, so as to be visible at a distance of at least one mile. Such 
 light shall be carried as nearly as jjracticable on the same level as 
 the side lights. 
 
 This Ai'ticle corresponds with Art. 1 1 of the RegMilations of 
 1884. The paragraph describing the position, fixing, and 
 range of the stern light is new. It was inserted in conse- 
 quence of decisions which threw doubt upon the legality of so 
 carrying it (//?). The provision against the side light and 
 stem light showing at the same time is also new. There 
 were previous decisions, on the former regulations, to the 
 same effect {n). 
 
 Before the Regulations of 1880, which first provided for a 
 stern light, there had been doubt as to whether it was not 
 contrary to the regulations to show a light astern to an over- 
 taking vessel (o). 
 
 The application of Art. 10 is not limited, as are the steer- Stem light to 
 ing and sailing rules, to cases where there is risk of collision, thouo-h no 
 It applies where the ship astern is broad on the quarter, and "^,^. °* 
 is broadening, so long as she is overtaking the ship ahead. 
 And it is not necessary that she should be on a course such 
 that there is or will be risk of collision (p). 
 
 The duty to exhibit the stern light " does not arise till the When the 
 vessel which is being overtaken has had an opportunity of ^^^^ arises, 
 seeing that the vessel which is overtaking her is a vessel 
 coming nearer to her, and that she is approaching upon such 
 a coiu-se that she cannot see the lights of the overtaken ship. 
 When the overtaking ship is seen to be thus approaching, 
 
 (m) The Imbro, 14 P. D. 73 ; T/m P. D. 277 ; T/ie Ain/lo- Indian, 3 As^ip. 
 
 Essequibo, 13 P. I). 51 ; and see The M. C. 1 ; The Lena, 14 L. T. G75 ; 
 
 Breadalbanc, 7 P. D. 186 ; The I'aofic, The John Femvick, L. R. 3 A. & E. 
 
 9 P. D. 124 ; The Stake^sby, 16 P. D. 500 ; The Earl Spencer, L. R. 4 A. & 
 
 166. E. 431 ; aff. 2 Asp. M. C. 523 ; The 
 
 (w) The Unbbuck, Ad. Div. 28th Oder, 13 Fed. Hep. 272 ; aliter The 
 
 June, 1887 ; The FuUnuriix, 13 P. D. Cybele, 5 Quebec L. R. 202. 
 14 ; The Fire Queen, 12 P. D. 147. {p) The Main, 11 P. D. 132. 
 
 {u) See The City of Brooklyn, 1 •
 
 ^60 
 
 • Article 10. 
 
 When it 
 ceases. 
 
 Overtaking 
 
 vessel : 
 definition. 
 
 Overtaken 
 ship : 
 definition. 
 
 Look-out 
 astern. 
 
 THE REGTILATIONS. 
 
 then the duty arises to give the specified warning within a 
 reasonable time, to afford an opportunity to the other vessel 
 to keep out of the way " ((/). 
 
 It was held, in an early case (r) under this Article, that, 
 after risk of collision had apparently ceased, the obligation to 
 exhibit the stern light also ceased. But this decision was 
 overruled in The Main {nbi supra). The stern light must be 
 shown so long as the ship from which it is shown is being 
 overtaken (s). 
 
 Article 24 coutains the definition of an "overtaking" 
 vessel. " Every vessel coming up with another vessel from 
 any direction more than two points abaft her beam " is over- 
 taking the other. This definition, though framed, apparently, 
 for the purpose of distinguishing an overtaking from a cross- 
 ing vessel within the meaning of Arts. 24 and 17 respectively, 
 would probably be held to apply to Art. 10. 
 
 A smack hove-to is " being overtaken " by another coming 
 up with her astern, and is required to show the stern light (/). 
 It would seem that to be an "overtaken" ship within the 
 meaning of Art. 10, the ship must be under way ; that a 
 vessel at anchor is not required to show the stern light ; and 
 that a sailing ship beating to windward across the bows of a 
 steamship, with her side light visible to the steamship, is 
 being overtaken by the steamship when she puts her helm 
 down to go about, and must show the stern light. 
 
 Art. 1 imposes upon those in charge of a ship the duty of 
 keeping a look-out astern, and a ship would probably be held 
 in fault, under 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, s. 419, if she were struck 
 by an overtaking ship to which she had not shown a stern 
 light, when she might have shown it [u) . 
 
 [q) Per Lord Herschell, T/ie 3£ain, 
 11 P. D. 132, 136. 
 
 (r) The Reiher, 4 Asp. M. C. 478. 
 A smack hove-to observed the three 
 lights of a steamship coming up with 
 her astern. She showed her stern 
 light until the steamship shut in her 
 green, and then she ceased to show 
 the light. The steamship then altered 
 her helm again and ran into the 
 smack. It was held (wrong-ly) that 
 the smack, having exhibited her light 
 
 until risk of collision was apparently- 
 determined, had complied with 
 Art. 11, and was free from blame. 
 
 (.s) See per Hannen, P., The Esse- 
 guibo, 13 P. D. 51, 53; followed in 
 The Basset Sound, 7 Asp. M. C. 467. 
 
 [t) The Reiher, 4 Asp. M. C. 478. 
 
 {u) The Main, 11 P. D. 132; The 
 Imbro, 14 P. D. 73 ; The Marion, 56 
 Ped. Rep. 271 ; Kennedy v. The Sar- 
 matian, 2 Fed. Rep. 911.
 
 STERN LIGHT — RIDING LIGHT. 361 
 
 The binnacle light, although visible astern, is not such a Article 10. 
 hght as is required by Art. 10 (.r). Binnacle 
 
 In The Pacific (//) a smack was held in fault for exhibiting J,? |*' , 
 no hght or flare to a steamship wliieh overtook and ran into light. 
 her. The smack had her trawl down, and was carrying, sus- 
 pended from her weather cross-tree, a white light in a 
 globular lantern. It was held that the light did not comply 
 with the law. 
 
 Whether a pilot boat may use the stern light seems 
 doubtful. See supm, p. 352. 
 
 Article 11. 
 
 A vesnel under 150 feet in length, when at anchor, shall carri/ Article 11. 
 forward, tchere, it can best be seen, but at a height not exceeding 
 20 feet above the hull, a ichite light in a lantern so constructed as 
 to show a clear, uniform, and unbroken light visible all round the 
 horizon at a distance of at least one mile. 
 
 A vessel of 150 feet or upwards in length, when at anchor, 
 shall cany in the fonvard part of the vessel, at a height not less 
 than 20, and not exceeding 4:0, feet above the hull, one such light, 
 and at or near the stern of the vessel, and at such a height that 
 it shall be not less than 16 feet lower than the forward light, 
 another such light. 
 
 The length of a vessel shall be deemed to he the length appear- 
 ing in her certificate of registry. 
 
 A vessel aground iu or near a fairway shall carry the atwve 
 light or lights and tlie two red lights prescribed by Art. 4 {ri). 
 
 This Article corresponds with Art. 8 of the Regulations of 
 1884. The provision as to a second riding light, and as to 
 ships ashore in a fairway, are new (s). 
 
 In The Saxonia {a), it was said by Dr. Lushington that, by 
 the general law of the sea, a vessel at anchor, or a fishing- 
 boat at work, is bound to carry a light, so as to enable vessels 
 under way, whose duty it is to avoid her, to liave an oppor- 
 
 (x) The Brcadalbane, ubi mpra ; uized in The IiidusirU', L. R. 3 A. & 
 
 The Patrodus, 1:5 P. D. 54. E. 303; Kichon v. McArihur, 6 Ct. 
 
 iy) 9 P. D. 124. of Soss. Cus. 4th ser. 930. 
 
 (z) But the principle was recojj- («) Lush. 410.
 
 362 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 "At anchor" 
 meaning of 
 the phrase. 
 
 Article 11. tunity of doing so. But as to ships under way, there are 
 decisions that by the maritime law they were not bound 
 always to carry a light. Probably it would be held that at 
 the present day the common law of the sea, in other words 
 ordinary care and seamanship, apart from the regulations, 
 requires a light in all cases. A riding light was first required 
 by law in the year 1852. 
 
 The exact meaning to be attached to the words " at anchor " 
 has been the subject of controversy. By the preliminary 
 Article of the regulations {supra, p. 333), "at anchor" is 
 opposed to " under way," and is also distinguished from 
 "made fast to the shore" and "aground." Various cases 
 have revealed circumstances in which vessels have been held 
 not to have been " at anchor " within the Article. 
 
 Thus a tug lashed alongside and towing a ^hip up to her 
 anchor {b) is not herself at anchor, nor a tug ready to hold a 
 ship if her anchor comes home (c), nor a vessel with her 
 anchor down which is not in fact being held to or controlled 
 by her anchor {d) , nor a ship dropping or dredging stern 
 foremost with her anchor a-trip {e) , nor a vessel riding to her 
 chains with the anchors unshackled ( /'), nor a tug lying 
 moored to a pontoon landing-stage in a river (//), nor a 
 trawler moored outside another trawler at a quay (h). It is 
 submitted, that in the Kght of these cases, the true meaning 
 to be attached to the words " at anchor," is the meaning 
 which they would appear naturally to bear, and that a 
 vessel " at anchor " is a vessel which is in fact being held to 
 an anchor (/), such anchor being effectively employed for its 
 normal purpose, that is, of keeping the ship in a fixed 
 
 {b) The Romance, (1901) P, 15. 
 
 (c) The Devonian, (1901) P. 221. 
 
 [0) The Esk and The Gitana, L. R. 
 2 A. & E. 350. 
 
 {e) See The Indian Ghief, 14 P. D. 
 24, for a decision to this effect under 
 the Thames Rules {infra, p. 531). 
 
 (/) The Faedrelandct, (1895) P. 205. 
 
 {g) The Titan, The Rambler, (190G) 
 10 Asp. M. C. 350. This decision is 
 under the Tyne Rules, see p. 528. 
 In this case an anchor light was in 
 fact exhibited. It is submitted that 
 where a vessel is made fast in a fair- 
 way, although she may not be "at 
 
 anchor" within the Rules, good sea- 
 manship may demand the exhibition 
 of an anchor light. See also The City 
 of Seattle, 9 Canad. Exchq. Rep. 146. 
 
 {h) The Turquoise, (1908) P. p. 149. 
 In America it has been held, that a 
 ship fast to another alongside a wharf 
 should show a light or make some 
 sound in fog. See The Kennebec, 108 
 Fed. Rep. 300. 
 
 (?) See The Esk and The Gitana, 
 L. R. 2 A. & E. 350. It seems a 
 vessel may be "at anchor" while 
 being towed up to her anchor. See 
 The Romance, supra.
 
 RIDING LIGHT. 
 
 363 
 
 relation to the ground (,/). It is probably unnecessary that Article 11. 
 
 the anchor should be of any ordinary pattern, and a vessel 
 
 made fast to a stone or other heavy object would probably 
 
 be considered to be "at anchor" within the Ai'ticle (/.•) . It 
 
 is submitted, however, that it woidd be placing an unduly 
 
 strained interpretation on the phi-ase to apply it to a vessel 
 
 moored to a landing-stage or buoy anchored to the ground. 
 
 It may be that such a situation is not provided for specifically 
 
 under the Eules, and that it must be regarded in the light 
 
 of the requirements of good seamanship. 
 
 A riding light should not be placed where it is obscured in Riding light 
 any direction by masts, spars, sails, or rigging. The forestay "|"^* ""* ^^ 
 is a usual, and probably the best, place for a riding light in 
 an open roadstead or river. The foreshrouds is not so good 
 a place (/). Care must be taken that sails and other gear 
 likely to obscure the light are stowed (w), and a schooner has 
 been held in fault because her mainsail was scandalised, 
 instead of being stowed, and would obscure her riding light 
 to a vessel astern [n). 
 
 The words of the second paragraph, " in the forward part 
 of the vessel," were held to be satisfied by a light which, on 
 a ship of 313 feet in length, was in the foreshrouds, 72 feet 
 from the stem (o) ; but a light in the main shrouds, 100 or 
 120 feet from the stern of a ship 455 feet long, was held not 
 to be " at or near the stern " (p). 
 
 It is assumed that .vessels at anchor are stationary (q), or Sheering 
 nearly so; ships, therefore, when at anchor, must not be ''^*^"*" 
 allowed to sheer about unnecessarily. 
 
 In America it has been held that a ship moored to a wharf American 
 out of the track of ships (r), and a man-of-war's launch in ^'''^^^^' 
 New York Harbour fast to a boom jDrojecting sixty feet from 
 
 {j) See judgment of Sir F. H. 
 Jeune, P., in The Faedrelandet, (1895) 
 P. 205, at p. 209. For cases in which 
 vessels have been found to be " under 
 way," see under Art. 2 at p. 338. 
 
 (/i) See The Uunelm, 9 P. D. 1G4, 
 at p. 171. 
 
 (l) The Para, Ad. Div. 4th March, 
 1886. 
 
 (m) See The Tlirondelle, Ship. Gaz., 
 Dec. loth, 190.'). 
 
 («) The Tulka, Ad. Div. Uth Dec. 
 
 1886. 
 
 (o) 
 262. 
 
 iP) 
 234. 
 
 (?) 
 
 (r) 
 
 584; 
 
 The Philadelphian, (1900) P. 
 The Gannet, (1900) App. Gas. 
 
 The Esk and The Gitana, supra. 
 
 Culbertson v. Shaw, 18 llow. 
 
 The Granite State, 3 Wall. 310 ; 
 The Express, 48 Fed. Rep. 323 ; The 
 Misehief, 39 Fed. Rep. CnO; The 
 Gipsy, 19 How. 56; dist. The 
 Alabama, 26 Fed. Rep. 866.
 
 364 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 lislits. 
 
 Article 11. the ship's side (.s), are not required to exhibit a light. But a 
 ^ tug fast to a boom anchored in a fairway was held in fault 
 
 for having no light (t) . 
 Special riding In many rivers and harbours local rules require special 
 riding lights ; those for the Thames, the Mersey, the Clyde, 
 and the Humber, will be found in the Appendix below. So 
 in foreign waters, as in the Suez Canal, the Elbe, and many 
 of the Canadian rivers and harbours, special riding lights are 
 required, and in some cases at specified heights. 
 
 The last paragraph of Art. 11 does not require steam 
 vessels under forty tons or other craft under twenty tons 
 to carry the " aground in or near a fairway " lights. See 
 Art. 7. 
 
 A vessel dragging through mud is not " aground " within 
 
 this Article (u). 
 
 "Wherever there is an open navigable passage used by 
 vessels proceeding up and down a river or channel, that may 
 be said to be a fairway " (.^•). A vessel lying at a wharf in a 
 part of an artificial channel, which dried at low water, was 
 held not to be " aground in or near a fairway " (j/). 
 
 The anchor lights to be exhibited by fishing vessels are 
 dealt with in Art. 9. 
 
 "Aground." 
 
 " Fairway. 
 
 Fishin<r boats. 
 
 Article 12. 
 
 Article 12. Ever;/ vessel may, if necessary in order to attract attention, 
 
 in addition to tin- lights rchich she is Ijy these rules required to 
 carry, show a flare-up light or use any detonating signal that 
 cannot be mistaken for a distress signal. 
 
 This Article first appeared in the Regulations of 1897. It 
 made no alteration in the law (s), and it was previously the 
 practice of seamen to use the flare under the circumstances 
 
 [s) The Dimitri Domskoi, 60 Fed. 
 Rep. Ill ; ahter, where the ship pro- 
 jected beyond the end of the wharf : 
 Shields V. Mat/or, 18 Fed. Rep. 748. 
 
 (t) The Willard Saulsburi/, cited, 
 1 Pars, on Ship. ed. 1869, 564. 
 
 (u) The Bellanoch, (1907) A. C. 
 269. 
 
 {x) Per Bruce, J., in The Blue Bell, 
 
 (1895) P. 242, at p. 246. See The 
 Clntha Boat 147, (1909) P. 36. 
 
 {y) The Turquoise, (1908) P. 148. 
 
 (2) See The Simla and The City oj 
 Lucknov:, Ship. Gaz. 8th March. 
 1884 : The Merchant Prince, 10 P. D. 
 139 ; The John Femvick, L. R. 3 A. 
 & E. 500, 502 ; The Lepanto, 50 Fed, 
 Rep. 234 ; The Nessmore, 50 Fed, 
 Rep. 616.
 
 FLARE MEN-OF-WAR S LIGHTS. 
 
 365 
 
 mentioned. Its insertion in the regulations was probably 
 due to a suggestion which was made in the Courts that the 
 use of the flare was contrary to the express prohibition (Art. 1) 
 of other lights than those mentioned in the earlier Articles. 
 
 The " flare-up " light intended by the Ai-ticle, presumably, 
 is that in common use ; and care must be taken that, if any 
 of the modern pyrotechnic liglits are used, they are such as 
 cannot be mistaken for other lights prescribed by the regula- 
 tions. The waving of a ship's lantern or globe liglit to 
 attract attention mio-ht be held to be illesral. 
 
 The permissive form of the Article is pecidiar. The flare 
 " may," the other light " shall," be used. Notwithstanding 
 the difference in wording, wilful omission to take some means 
 to attract attention, if necessary, would, it is submitted, be 
 negligence (a), though, probably, not an infringement of the 
 regulations. 
 
 In America, under former regulations, which contained no 
 provision for the "flare," it was held that a sailing ship was 
 in fault for burning a flare, and leading the other vessel, 
 which was burning blue liglits for a pilot, to think that she 
 was a pilot boat (b). 
 
 Article 12. 
 
 Article 13. 
 
 Nofhiiifi ill thm' ni/c.s Hhall interfere with the operation of any Article 13. 
 
 bipedal rules made 1)1/ tlie Government of any nation n:ith respect M.en-oi- 
 
 to additional station and signal liqhts for tiro or more .s/n'ps of "^^^'^ signal 
 
 , .,. , ' ■ bghts. 
 
 war or tor ress''l.s .sai/nif/ under eonroi/, or with the exhibition of 
 
 recognition signals adopted by shipowners, which have been autho- 
 rized by their respective Governments and duly registered and 
 piihlished. 
 
 This Article corresponds with Art. 26 of the Regulations 
 of 1884. The provision for recognition signals first appeared 
 in the present Article (c). 
 
 (a) American oases as to this are 
 conflicting : 'I'hc Algiers, 28 Fed. 
 Rep. 240 ; The Culumbin, 27 Fed. 
 Rep. 238 ; The Iloicard B. Peclc, 48 
 Fed. Rep. 384 ; The Oregon, 45 Fed. 
 Rep. (12 ; The Frank I'. Lee, 34 Fed. 
 
 Rep. 480 (under the regulations). 
 
 (A) The irinconsin. 23 Fed. Kep. 
 831. Cf. The Algiers, 38 Fed. Rep. 
 526. 
 
 (f) As to these .'signals, see 57 & 58 
 Vict. c. 60, s. 733.
 
 366 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 13. His Majesty's ships are not bound by regulations made 
 under the powers of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (//) ; 
 but identical regulations are issued by the Lords of the 
 Admiralty, and the question of negligence in case of a colli- 
 sion between two of his Majesty's ships, or between one of 
 them and a merchant or other ship, is substantially the same 
 as in case of a collision between merchant ships (e). 
 
 In the case of a collision between a foreign man-of-war or 
 public vessel and a merchant vessel, the foreign vessel, if she 
 submits to the jurisdiction of the Courts of this country, is 
 bound by the regulations (,/). 
 
 Article 14. 
 
 Steamship 
 under sail. 
 
 Akticle 14. 
 
 A fiteam vessel proceeding tinder sail only, hut having her 
 funnel up, shall carry in daytime, forward, where it can best he 
 seen, one hlack ball or shape two feet in diameter. 
 
 This Article first appeared in the Eegulations of 1897. It 
 appears to assume that the steam vessel is under command (g) . 
 
 Article 15. 
 
 Fog- signals. 
 
 Sound Signals for Fog, Sfc. 
 
 Article 15. 
 
 All signals prescribed by this Article for vessels under way 
 shall be given : 
 
 1. By " steam vessels ^^ on the whistle or siren. 
 
 2. By " sailing vessels and vessels towed" on the fog-horn. 
 The words '^prolonged blast " used in this Article, shall mean 
 
 a blast of from four to six seconds' duration. 
 
 A steam vessel shall he provided with an efficient n-histle or 
 siren, sounded by steam or some substitute for steam, so placed 
 that the sound may not be intercepted by any obstruction, and 
 with an efficient fog-horn, to be sounded by mechanical means, 
 and also with an efficient bell (h). A sailing vessel of twenty 
 
 (d) 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, s. 741. 
 
 (e) JI.M.S. Topaze, 10 L. T. 659; 
 H.M.S. Stifpli/, 12 L. T. 799. But 
 see H.M.S. Sans Fareil. (1900) P. 267, 
 and supra, p. 59, and cases under 
 Art. 27 at p. 458. And see Art. 1069 
 of the Queen's Regulations for the 
 
 Navy of 1899. 
 
 (/) See The Lord Bijron, Maude & 
 Pollock on Shipping, 4th ed. 607, 
 note (Z-) ; The Newbattk, 10 P. D. 33. 
 
 {g) Cf. Art. 4. 
 
 (h) The following note is appen- 
 ded : — In all cases where th: rules
 
 FOG SIGNALS. 367 
 
 fons gross tonnage or iipfcards shall he provided with a similar Article 15. 
 fog-horn and hell. 
 
 In fog, mist, falling snon; or hear;/ rain storms, whether hi/ 
 dai/ or night, the signals descrihed in this Article shall be used as 
 follows, viz. : 
 
 {a) A steam vessel having way upon her shall sound, at intervals 
 of not more than two minutes, a prolonged blast. 
 
 (h) A steam vessel under way, but stopped and having no way 
 upon her, shall sound, at intervals of not more than ttro 
 minutes, two prolonged blasts, icith an interval of about 
 one second betweoi them. 
 
 ((•) A sailing vessel under way shall sound, at intervals of not 
 more than one minute, xchen on the starboard tack one 
 blast, when on the port tack tnv blasts in succession, and 
 rvhen with the wind abaft the beam three blasts in 
 succession. 
 
 {d) A trssel, when at anchor, shall, at intervals of not more 
 than one minute, ring the bell rapidly for about five 
 seconds. 
 
 {e) A vessel, when towing, a vessel employed in laying or in 
 inching up a telegraph cable, and a vessel under way, 
 which is unable to get out of the way of an approaching 
 vessel through being not under command, or unable to 
 manoeuvre as required by these rules shall, instead of 
 the signals prescribed in sub-divisions (a) and (c) of 
 this Article, at intervals of not more than tivo minutes, 
 sound three blasts in succession, viz., one prolonged blast 
 followed by two short blasts. A vessel towed may give 
 this signal and she shall not give any other. 
 
 Sailing vessels and boats of less than twenty tons 
 gross tonnage sh'ill not be obliged to give the above- 
 mentioned signals, but if tJiey do not, they shall make 
 some other efficient sound signal at intervals of not 
 more than one minute. 
 
 This Article corresponds with Art. 12 of the Regulations 
 of 1884 ; it goes more into detail and is in some respects 
 
 require a bell to be used a drum may be a gong where such articles are used on 
 
 subxtitHted on board Turkish vcsfcts, or board small sca-goiiiff vessels.
 
 368 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 15. diiferent from the latter. Besides verbal differences, the 
 following points are new : — 
 
 (1.) The prolonged blast is defined to mean a blast of from 
 
 four to six seconds' duration. 
 (2.) A steamship in tow is to use the fog-horn, whether 
 under steam or not, and not her steam whistle or 
 siren ; and she may, but is not obliged to, use the 
 three blasts of paragraph (e) ; but she may not use 
 any other signal. 
 (3.) A sailing vessel under twenty tons is not required to 
 
 use the fog-horn. 
 
 (4.) The sound signals are to be used in heavy rain-storms. 
 
 (5.) A steam vessel under way, but not moving through 
 
 the water, is required to sound two prolonged blasts 
 
 with an interval of about a second between them. 
 
 (6.) A vessel at anchor is to ring her bell " rapidly for 
 
 about five seconds." 
 (7.) The signals of paragraph (e) for vessels towing, tele- 
 graph vessels, vessels not under command, and 
 vessels in tow are new. 
 With regard to the wording of paragraph (b), a vessel 
 " under way, but stopped and having no way on her," appears 
 to be in the same condition as the vessel described in Art. 4 
 as " not making way through the water." In neither Article 
 is the case of a vessel making stern-way expressly provided 
 for; the word "stopped" in Art. 15 (b) probably re femng 
 to the eugines and not the ship. The vessel described in 
 Art. 15 (e) as " unable to get out of the way of an approach- 
 ing vessel through being not tmder command, or unable to 
 manoeuvre as required by these rules," is in much the same 
 predicament as the vessel of Art. 4 which " from any accident 
 is not under command," whether moving through the water or 
 not. Notwithstanding the different wording of the two Articles, 
 the intention, and, it is submitted, the reasonable construction 
 of Art. 15 (e) is to supplement the balls and lights of Art. 4 
 with an equivalent sound signal to be used in thick w^eather. 
 
 Sound signals to be used in thick weather first received 
 statutory sanction by the Admiralty regulations of 1st 
 October, 1858; but beating drums, ringing bells, hammering 
 on the anchor, and horns were in common use amongst
 
 FOG SIGNALS. 
 
 369 
 
 seamen long before (/). A direction to indicate a sailing- 
 ship's tack by sound signal (a horn on the starboard tack 
 and a bell on the port) was also contained in these regula- 
 tions ; this was omitted in the Regulations of 1^63. 
 
 A ship is under way within the meaning of this Article 
 when she is not at anclior, or fast to the shore, or aground (/.■). 
 Therefore, a ship stationary in the water, making no war, in 
 a flat calm, must sound her fog-horn or steam whistle, pro- 
 vided her anchor is not down and holdinof. Under the Reo-u- 
 lations of 1863 it was held, in America, that a sailing ship 
 hove-to in a fog, with her helm lashed nearly hard down, but 
 with no sail aback, and forging ahead about a knot an hour, 
 was not in fault for sounding her bell (/) ; in another American 
 case it was held that a ship hove-to with her sails aback and 
 stationary shoidd sound her bell (w). Under the existing 
 regulations there is no doubt that a ship hove-to in a fog 
 must sound her horn {ti). 
 
 " The bell " which a ship at anchor is required to ring 
 appears to be the ship's bell. There is no provision as to its 
 size or sound capacity. 
 
 A barque heaving up her anchor failed to sound her fog- 
 horn directly the anchor left the ground. She was run into 
 by a steamship going at an excessive speed. The steamship 
 was (in America) held to be alone in fault (o). 
 
 It would seem that a vessel moored to a wharf or pier is 
 not required to sound her fog-horn or bell if she is wholly out 
 of the way of passing traffic [p) ; but if not, ordinary pru- 
 dence, and perhaps Art. 1 5, may require her to do so (q). But 
 a vessel in tow, fast to her tug, brought up for fog or other 
 reason, has, in America, been held in fault for not sounding 
 a fog signal (>•). A ferry boat manoeuvring to enter her slip 
 
 Article 15. 
 
 (i) The duty to u.sc a horn was 
 insisted iipou iu The (Jarron, 1 Sp. 
 91 ; and the otlier .vig-iuils are men- 
 tioned in a pleading of 1669. 
 
 {k) See nupra, p. 333. 
 
 (/) The Penmylvania, Ti L. T. 55. 
 And see 19 Wall. 125. 
 
 [m) The Alfredu, 32 Fed. Rep. 240. 
 
 («) 8o held in liarrotvn v. (Jowcr, 
 119 Fed. Rep. 61b. 
 
 (o) The Obdam, 60 Fed. Rep. 637. 
 
 M. 
 
 [p) The Expreiis, 48 Fed. Rep. 
 323; The Albany, 'dl Fed. Rep. b05 ; 
 The J. II. liutter, ;<o Fed. Rep. 365 ; 
 and see supra, p. 362. 
 
 [q) See The Kennebec, 108 Fed. Rep. 
 300, but of. The Tifan, 10 Asp. M. C. 
 350. 
 
 (»•) The Raleigh and The Niagara, 
 44 Fed. Rep. 781. Cf. The CUg of 
 Alexanaria, 31 Fed. Rep. 427 ; Lwl- 
 wig V. llolberg, 36 Fed. Rep. 914. 
 
 It H
 
 370 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 15. in New York harbour, within the line of the piers, was held 
 not to be in fault for not sounding fog signals (s). 
 
 By local rules in force in different waters ships are required 
 to sound their horns at various intervals. In America it has 
 been held gross negligence in a steamship not to be fitted 
 with a whistle {f). 
 What is fog ? What amount, or density, of fog must exist so as to make 
 the use of the fog signals neoessar}^ has not been decided hy 
 the Courts of this country. A definition arrived at by an 
 American Court is probably sufficiently accurate. It was 
 there said that, to give the Article a reasonable meaning, we 
 must suppose that its intent is to give to approaching vessels 
 a warning of which the fog would otherwise deprive them, 
 and that it applies where there is fog enougli to shut out 
 the view of the sails, or hull, by day, or of the lights bj^ 
 night, until the vessels are so close that there would be risk 
 of collision {a). 
 
 Where a vessel is in the neighbourhood of a fog bank, or 
 has reason to think that there may be other vessels near her 
 enveloped in fog, the fog signals should be sounded, though 
 she herself is not in a fog (.r) . This is a reasonable pre- 
 caution, but it does not appear to be expressly directed by the 
 regulations, and the omission to do so would probably not be 
 held to be an infringement of the regulations (//). 
 
 A vessel using a mouth-horn, and not provided with a 
 mechanical fog-horn, was held in fault under 86 & 37 Vict, 
 c. 85, s. 17 {z). Where, however, an efficient mechanical 
 fog-horn is provided, but fails to work from reasons other 
 than the negligence of the owners or theu^ servants, the 
 use of a mouth-horn will be held to be a " necessary depar- 
 ture " from the regulation within s. 419 (-4) of the Merchant 
 Shipping Act, 1894 (a). 
 
 (s) T/ie Frinceton, 61 Fed. Rep. 1 IH. 
 
 {t) The Electra, 1 Bened. 282. 
 
 \u) The MonticeUo, Dist. Ot. of 
 Mass. U.S. ; 1 Parsous ou Shipp. 
 566 (ed. 1869). 
 
 {x) The Uilanesc, 4 Asp. M. C. 
 318. Cf. The Bernard Hull, 71 L. J. 
 Ad. 72 ; The Prrkiomeu, il Fed. Rep. 
 o73. 
 
 {■i/) The ^'. Utroug, (1892) P. 105 ; 
 
 affirmed in regard to snow squalls, 
 The St. Paul, (1909; P. 43. 
 
 (c) The Lore Bird, 6 P. D. 80. Cf. 
 The Energy, 42 Fed. Rep. 301 ; The 
 Catalonia, 43 Fed. R,ep. 396 ; The 
 Bali via, 49 Fed. Eep. 169; The 
 Niagara, 84 Fed. Rep. 902. 
 
 («) The Chdian, 4 Asp. M. C. 473 ; 
 The Coogee, Victorian L. R. xxix. 
 874.
 
 FOG SIGNALS. 
 
 371 
 
 Art. 15 does not in terras require the fog-horn to be Article 15. 
 sounded by mechanical means. Some mechanical horns are 
 capable of being sounded by mouth, and there is reason to 
 think that they are sometimes so used. If it were proved 
 that the horn had been blown by mouth, and not b}"^ the 
 bellows or piston, when the ships were at such a distance 
 apart that the horn might have been heard earlier if it had 
 been sounded by the mechanism, the ship on board of which 
 it was blown by mouth would probably be held in fault for 
 the collision. 
 
 It appears to be the custom of Nova Scotia fishermen to 
 sound a fog-horn when at anchor. Such a practice is illegal, 
 and may mislead other ships and cause them to get ashore (A). 
 
 The question lias been raised whether a steamship at anchor 
 is justified in sounding her whistle under any circumstances. 
 In certain states of the atmosphere an approaching vessel may 
 sometimes be seen from the deck of another to which the 
 latter is herself invisible ; and a violent blast of the steam 
 whistle or siren might attract attention, when the ship's bell 
 had not been heard. Under such exceptional circumstances, 
 a blast of the whistle would probably be held to be justified 
 by Ai-t. 27. 
 
 Whether all or only the last of several craft in tow should 
 sound the fog signal allowed by Art. 15 has been much 
 discussed in America (c) . Tlie point has not arisen in this 
 country. 
 
 It is the duty of a sailing ship when going about in a fog 
 to make the signals for the tack she is on when she begins to 
 go about, and not to change the signal until she gets the 
 wind on the other side (d). 
 
 The Thames rules differ from Art. 15 in not requiring the 
 mechanical fog-horn {e). 
 
 Proof that a fog-horn was blown at proper intervals on 
 board ship A. will not always raise a presumption of negli- 
 gence on the part of tliose on board ship B., who swear that 
 
 (i) See The Barcduna, 10 Quebec Whitney, 77 Fed. Rep. 1001. 
 
 L. R. 305, and The Battler, 62 Fed. [d>i the Coiisfdiiciii, 6 Asp. M. C. 
 
 Hep. 012. 478. 
 
 (e) The Harold, 84 Fed. Rep. 698 ; {e) See infra, p. W6\. 
 The Raleigh, 44 Fed. Rep. 781 ; The 
 
 B b2
 
 372 
 
 Article 15. 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 they were listening and heard no fog-horn. Nor will such 
 evidence on the part of B. necessarily prove that no horn was 
 blown by A. (./'). 
 
 The fog signals required to be made by fishing vessels are 
 dealt with under Art. 9, supra, p. 355. 
 
 Speed of SJiipa to he moderate hi Fog^ 6^r. 
 
 Article 16. 
 
 Article 16. Every vessel shall, in a fog, mht, falling snon\ or heavij rain- 
 
 Speed in foo-. >itorms, (JO at a moderate speed, having careful regard to the 
 existing cireumstances and conditions. 
 
 A steam vessel hearing, apparenth/ foruard of her tjeani, the 
 
 fog signal of a vessel the position of irhich is not ascertained, 
 
 shall, so far as the circumstances of the case admit, stop her 
 
 engines, and then navigate with caution until danger of collision 
 
 is over (g) . 
 
 This Article corresponds with Art. 13 of the Regulations 
 of 1884. The words " heavy rain-storms," and the quali- 
 fication " having careful regard to the existing circumstances 
 and conditions," and the whole of the paragraph as to the 
 conduct of a steam vessel " hearing " a fog signal of a vessel 
 forward of her beam, are new. This Article demands the 
 careful attention of seamen, as a failure to stop the engines 
 under the circumstances mentioned will bring the vessel 
 within the terms of 57 & 58 Vict. c. 419, and almost certainly 
 cause her to be held in fault in case of collision. 
 
 Art. 16 is to be construed in conjunction with Art. 23, 
 and where the latter Article requires the engines to be stopped 
 and reversed, Art. 16 does not justify a breach of Art. 23 [h). 
 It is submitted, however, that where vessels are not in sight 
 of one another by reason of fog, a vessel will only be held at 
 fault under Art. 23 and other steering and sailing rules in 
 
 (/) See supra, p. 35. 
 {g) As to the application of this 
 to a tug with a ship iu tow, see 
 
 The Lord Bangor, (1896) P. 28. 
 
 {h) The Merthyr, 8 Asp. M. C. 475.
 
 SPEED IX THICK WEATHER. 
 
 373 
 
 cases where she has olear indications of the other vessel's Article 16. 
 position and probable course (/). 
 
 It would seem that Ai-t. 16 does not apply to a steamsliip 
 lying dead in the water, with her engines stopped. It neither 
 requires nor forbids her to move her engines ahead or 
 astern (k). Whether a heavy steamship in the track of 
 vessels is justified in placing herself in so helpless a condition 
 without reasonable cause is doubtful. Art. 15 (b) (/) requu-es 
 her to sound a special signal under such circumstances. It is 
 submitted that a sailing ship is justified in heaving-to for 
 safety in a fog (m) ; but she must be in readiness to do what 
 she can to clear another vessel suddenly coming into sight. 
 
 Apart from the regulations, the law requires a ship to be Excessive 
 navigated in or near a fog at a moderate speed (n) ; the n^t^o-ence 
 regulations make no alteration in the law in this respect. But 
 the eifect of an infringement of them, combined with the 
 operation of 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, s. 419, must not be over- 
 looked. A ship navigating at an improper rate of speed in 
 thick weather would almost inevitably be held guilty of 
 negligence contributing to the collision ; and, under the 
 existing law, without reference to the question whether the 
 rate of speed was a cause of the collision (o). 
 
 Vessels approaching a bank of fog {p) or snow (q), which 
 they are about to enter, should, as a matter of seamanship, 
 go at a moderate speed. Failure to comply with this duty 
 does not, however, amount to a breach of Art. 16 (r). The 
 fact there is a fog bank bearing upon her bow, which she is 
 not about to enter, does not impose upon a steamship a duty 
 to go at a moderate speed (.s). 
 
 It was said of Art. 13 of the Regulations of 1884, which 
 dealt with the speed of ships in fog, that it was impossible to 
 break that Article without also breaking Ai-t. 18 of those 
 
 (i) See Crawford and Another v. 
 Granite City U.S. Co., Sc. L. Rep. 
 xliii. 732 ; see also infra, p. 380. 
 
 [k) The Earl of Duiiifries and The 
 lioskenna Bay, o Asp. M. C. 329, n. 
 
 [l] H'lpra, p. 367. 
 
 (w) See The Attila, 5 Quebec L. R. 
 340. 
 
 (w) See The Juliet Erskine, 6 Not. 
 ot" Cae. 633 ; The Lord Haumarez, ibid. 
 
 600 ; The Milanese, 4 Asp. M. C. 438 ; 
 The X. Strong, (1892j P. 105. 
 
 («) As to the effect of improper 
 speed under the old law, see The Lord 
 Saionarez, 6 Not. of Cas. 600. 
 
 {p) The X. Strong, (1892) P. 105. 
 
 (q) The St. Taul, (1909) P. 43. 
 
 (>•) The N. Strong, .supra ; see also 
 The Oravia, 10 Asp. M. C. 436. 
 
 («) The liernard Rail, 9 Asp. M. C. 
 300.
 
 374 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 16. 
 
 What is 
 
 " moderate " 
 
 speed. 
 
 regulations, which imposed upon both ships, when approach- 
 ing with risk of collision, a duty to stop and reverse if neces- 
 sary (f) . It is submitted that this will not hold good as to 
 the present Arts. 16 and 23, which correspond with the old 
 Articles. 
 
 " Moderate " speed is a relative term. It cannot be defined 
 so as to apply to all cases ; what it should be in each case 
 depends on the circumstances of the particular case ; and the 
 terms of Art. 16 recognize this fact. It may be stated as a 
 general rule that speed such that another vessel cannot be 
 seen in time to avoid her is unlawful. " I think the rule of 
 law with regard to travelling at sea is identical with the law 
 of travelling on the high road. No one on a dark night has 
 a right to go at such a rate of speed as not to be able to 
 escape an accident, if he happens to follow immediately in 
 the wake of another, whether it be by sea or land "(?/). 
 Speed which is justifiable in an unfrequented part of the 
 ocean is unlawful, and even criminal, in a crowded roadstead 
 or fairway (x) ; and speed that would be moderate for a 
 handy paddle-wheel tug may be highly improper for a low- 
 powered, heavy, screw steamship (//) . A vessel's power of 
 stopping is also relevant in considering her speed in fog (s). 
 
 In the case of T/te SJurojja, it was said by the Privy 
 Council : " This may be safely laid down as a rule on all 
 occasions, fog or clear, light or dark, that no steamer has a 
 right to navigate at such a rate that it is impossible for her 
 to prevent damage, taking all precaution at the moment she 
 sees danger to be possible ; and if she cannot do that without 
 going less than five knots an hour, then she is bound to go at 
 less than five knots an hour" {a). 
 
 The Campania, a twin-screw ocean liner of 12,950 tons, 
 
 [t) Per Lord Esher, M. R., 11 
 P. D. 25. 
 
 [u] Fer Lush, J., llic City of 
 Brooklyn, 1 P. D. 276 ; The Smyrna, 
 2 Moo. P. C. N. S. 435 ; The Zadok, 
 9 P. D. il4; The Atiila, 6 Quebec 
 L. R. 340 ; The Oregon, 27 Fed. Rep. 
 751. 
 
 (.r) The Europa, 14 Jur. G27 ; The 
 Bordogne, 10 P. D. 6. 
 
 [y) See The Elysia, 4 Asp. M. C. 
 540. 
 
 (z) The Oceanic, 9 Asp. M. C. 378 ; 
 Thr Campania, (1901) P. 289. 
 
 [a) The passage in the text is cited 
 from 27ie Pennsylvania, 31 L. T. 103 ; 
 19 Wall. 125, 134. In the Court 
 below the case is reported 14 Jur. 
 627 : and in Pritch. Ad. Dig. the 
 date of the hearing before the Privy 
 Council is given as 6th Dec. 1851 ; 
 but the decision of the Privy Council 
 does not appear to be reported in the 
 books.
 
 SPEED IN THICK WEATHER. 
 
 375 
 
 "with a full speed of twenty-one knots, was going in the day- Article 16. 
 time, in a dense fog, twenty-six miles N.E. of the Tuskar, 
 between nine and ten knots. The fog was so dense that 
 another ship could not be seen more than GOO fecit off. All 
 the authorities were reviewed by Gorell Barnes, J., and he 
 held that The Campania was not going at a moderate speed, 
 and had infringed Art. 1(5. His decision was affirmed by the 
 Court of Appeal (/>). 
 
 A rate of speed which is " moderate " for vessels in the 
 open sea, and out of anchorage ground, would not necessarily 
 be " moderate " for a vessel navigating with a fair tide in a 
 river or roadstead, where vessels are likely to be brought up. 
 As regards danger to vessels at anchor, the speed of the other 
 ship over the ground, and not through the water, is that 
 which must be considered ; and in such cases the strength and 
 direction of the tide must be taken into account. As regards 
 danger to vessels under way the tide is immaterial. 
 
 The object of Art. IH is, not merely that vessels should go 
 at a speed which will lessen the violence of a collision, but 
 also that they should go at a speed which will give as much 
 time as possible for avoiding a collision when another ship 
 suddenly comes into view at a short distance (c). 
 
 Although it is not possible to state definitely, in knots, 
 what is •' moderate " speed for a steamship or for a sailing 
 ship, a long series of decisions has reduced the question within 
 narrow limits. In either case it must depend upon circum- 
 stances, which vary with every case. With regard to steam- 
 ships, the conditions of the atmosphere, wind, and weather, 
 the size, weight and handiness of the vessel, her available 
 steam and engine power, her equipment of single or double 
 propellers or paddle wheels ((^/), her steerage power, whether 
 by hand or steam, and lastly, the locality and the probability' 
 of falling in with other ships, are amongst the most important 
 matters to be considered. The following cases indicate the 
 tendency of modern decisions ; but each case has to be con- 
 sidered with reference to its own circumstances, and no one 
 
 (6) (1901; P. 289. to wtop the ship's w;iy \va.s insisted 
 
 (c) See per Sir J. Hanueii, The on in The State of Alahonia, 17 Fod. 
 
 /adok,9V.T). 114, 11.5. Rep. fi47 . The Aliehii/an, 63 Fed. 
 
 (dj The importance of the power Rej). 'J80.
 
 376 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 16. case can be relied upon as binding in any other. Seven knots 
 an hour was held by the Privy Council to be too high a rate 
 of speed for an ocean steamship in a fog in the track of ships 
 200 miles to the eastward of Sandy Hook {e) ; and even four 
 knots has been held too fast for a steamship in the sea in a 
 fog so dense that another ship could not be seen seventy yards 
 off (/). In the Clyde six or seven knots over the ground 
 was held too much for a steamer in a thick fog {g). Off 
 Cromer, with a whistle sounding ahead, three-and-a-half 
 knots {//), in the sea ten miles off Ushant four knots (/), iu 
 the Horse Channel, at the entrance to the Mersey, on a dark 
 night ten knots (A;), for a liner off the Tuskar six-and-a- third 
 knots (/), and in Gibraltar Straits on a course crosi>ing the 
 traffic five knots {m), have been held too fast. In America 
 four knots in a frequented part of the Atlantic, off the 
 American coast, with a bad look-out, was held too much (>?) ; 
 but for a small steamship and for a schooner off Cape Cod, 
 foui' or five was held to be moderate (o). The wholly un- 
 justifiable rate of fifteen knots has been repeatedly con- 
 demned (p) ; six (q), seven (/■), eight {.s), nine (/), ten (ti), and 
 twelve [V) have been held to be too fast. On the other hand, 
 where the steam power was such that the ship could be brought 
 to a standstill in two of her own lengths, five or six knots (x), 
 and in Gribraltar Straits two-and-a-half knots (//), was held to 
 
 (e) The PennxylvanUi, 23 L. T. 55. 
 See also The CJdng Kiang, (190Sj A. C. 
 251, and The City of Brooklyn, 1 P. D. 
 276. 
 
 ( f) The Magna Oharta, 1 As^p. 
 M. C. 153. 
 
 (g) Little v. Burns, The Owl and 
 The Ariadne, 9 Ct. of Sess. Cas. 
 4th ser. 118. 
 
 • (A) The Ebor, 11 P. D. 25. 
 
 \i) The Dordogne, 10 P. D. 6. 
 
 [k) The JJcspatch, Swab. 138. 
 
 [1) The Oceanic, 9 Asp. 378. 
 
 («) The Eesolution, 6 Asp. M. C. 
 363. 
 
 (w) The Pottsville, 12 Fed. Rep. 
 631. 
 
 (o) The Lorenzo D. Baker, 24 Fed. 
 Rep. 814 ; The Mount Hope, 84 Fed. 
 Rep. 910. 
 
 {p) The Britannic, 39 Fed. Rep. 
 395 ; The Trave, 68 Fed. Rep. 390 ; 
 The Saale, 63 Fed. Rep. 478 ; The 
 
 Rhode Island, 17 Fed. Rep. 554 ; The 
 Umhria, 166 U. S. Rep. 404. 
 
 {(/) For a schooner, The Harold, 
 84 Fed. Rep. 698 ; a tug and tow in 
 strong tide. The H. F. Bimock, 77 
 Fed. Rep. 226 ; In re Clyde S.S. Co., 
 131 Fed. 95. 
 
 (r) The Winooski, 162 Fed. 64. 
 
 [s) The Charlotte Webb, 43 Fed. 
 Rep. 151 ; The Vesper, 9 Fed. Rep. 
 569 ; The Patria, 92 Fed. Rep. 411 ; 
 The Cheruskia, 92 Fed. Rep. 683. 
 
 (;;) The Alberta, 23 Fed. Rep. 807. 
 
 [ti] The Peshtigo, '2b Fed. Rep. 488 ; 
 The City of New York, 35 Fed. Rep. 
 604 ; i'he Catalonia, 43 Fed. Rep. 
 396 ; The Bomgogne, 139 Fed. 434. 
 
 (r) The Pennland, 23 Fed. Rep. 
 551. 
 
 [x) The Michigan, 63 Fee. Rep. 
 280. 
 
 (//) The Resolution, ubi supra.
 
 SPEED IN THICK WEATHER. 377 
 
 be moderate ; aud where the ships were visible to each other Article 16. 
 from a half to a third of a mile apart, seven knots (in a snow- 
 storm) was held not to be too fast (z). In another American 
 case of two loaded steamships of about 2,000 tons burden, 
 seven- and-a-half knots was held too fast for the one, and 
 four-and-a-half not too muoli for the other (n), and in a river 
 four-and -three- quarters with the tide was held to be moderate, 
 whilst five-and-a-third against the tide was excessive (b). The 
 stringency of the law as to speed is illustrated by a case where 
 a steamship, hearing, as she thought, cries of distress from a 
 ship astern, turned round and made for the cries at a speed 
 of seven knots. Notwithstanding the praiseworthiness of her 
 motive in hurrying to assist the other vessel, slie was lield in 
 fault for a collision with her that followed (e) . 
 
 It has been held in America that it is not enough to 
 slacken until the speed is such as would enable the steamship 
 to avoid another vessel which is sounding her fog-horn (d). 
 And from the English decisions it appears that tlie rate must 
 be regulated by the thickness of the fog, and the probability 
 of falling in with other ships, rather than by the supposed 
 distance at which a horn or bell would be audible. 
 
 It is no excuse for excessive speed that the ship is carrying Excuses for 
 mails, and under contract to deliver them by a certain date [c) ; *oo great 
 or that it was desirable in order to get out of the fog ( /). A 
 steamship entering a fog bank at a speed of eight knots was 
 held in fault (g). 
 
 It is a common excuse that the ship Avas going as slowly as 
 she could ; that she would not steer, or that her engines would 
 not turn over, if she had tried to go slower. The answer to 
 this was given by Sir James Hannen : he said that if a 
 steamship is so constructed that she cannot go at a moderate 
 speed, she navigates at her own risk {//). And Butt, J., said. 
 
 (z) The Ama}icu,'69Yed.'Rep.476. P. C. 472 ; The Northern Indiana, 'i^ 
 
 [a) The Lepanto, iX Fed. Rep. (]o\ . Blatohf. 92. 
 
 {//) The Lurai/, 2-1 Foci. Rep. 701. (/) Thr Hau.sa, .') Bcued. oUl, ,')2l ; 
 
 {c) The Nacoochcr, 28 Fed. Rep. The Chancellor, \ Bened. \h'i, 164. 
 
 462. [g) The Ilarton, 9 P. D. 44. 
 
 {d) The Hanm, 5 Bened. 50 1 ; but \h) The Irrawaddi/, Ad. Div. l.Hli 
 
 see The Michigan, 63 Fed. Rep. 280, June, 1887 ; followed iu The Cain- 
 
 478. pania, (1901) P. 289. 
 
 («) The Vivid, Swab. 88 ; 10 Moo. 
 
 speed.
 
 378 
 
 Article 16. 
 
 Duty of 
 steamship 
 in fou. 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 in another case (/), that it was the duty of a steamer in such 
 circumstances to occasionally stop her engines. Inability to 
 steer under moderate speed is not a special circumstance 
 within the meaning of Art. 27 which will justify a departure 
 from Art. IG (/.•). 
 
 The duty of a steamship in a fog in relation to another 
 sliip, whose whistle she hears, formerly governed by Art. 18 
 of the Regulations of 1884, has now to be considered under 
 Art. 16. The duty of a steamship to "stop her engines" 
 under the article has frequently been insisted upon. One 
 of the reasons given for a firm insistence on this obliga- 
 tion is that the stopping of the engines gives a better oppor- 
 tunity of hearing the other vessel's fog-horn or whistle (/), 
 and so of ascertaining her whereabouts, always a matter of 
 extreme difficulty by reason of the capricious way in which 
 sound is conveyed in fog {m). Most of the cases, which 
 have dealt with this duty, have turned on the point, whether 
 the vessel, which has omitted to stop, can establish either 
 that the position of the other vessel was ascertained, or that 
 the circumstances did not admit of stopping. Such conten- 
 tions have usually failed [ti). Thus a steamship will not be 
 held justified in not stopping for a fog signal forward of her 
 beam because another vessel is sounding a fog signal some 
 distance away four points on her port quarter (o), nor because 
 she has a cargo of dynamite stowed aft which might render 
 her stopping dangerous to other vessels (>»). Nor will the 
 fact that a tug has a vessel in tow of itself excuse non-com- 
 pliance with a duty to stop {q). 
 
 The position of a vessel will not be regarded as ascertained 
 
 (i) IVie lienolutio)/, 6 Asp. M. C 
 363 ; see also /ler Hannen, P., iu IVie 
 Rusetta, ibid. 310 ; Gorell Barnes, J., 
 The Germanic, Ad. Gt. Feb. 1896. 
 
 {k) The H. F. Binwcl; 17 Fed. Rep. 
 226. Gf. The Cincinnati, 95 Fed. 
 Rep. 302. 
 
 (/) The Ronchme, 9 Asp. M. G. 106 ; 
 The Koning Willem I., (1903) P. 114. 
 Whether this is so iu view of the 
 noise made by blowing off steam may 
 be questioned. 
 
 [m) See The Chiny Kiang, (1908) 
 A. G. 2ol, at p. 259, and The Kvinug 
 Willem I., supra. See also The 
 
 liosetta, 6 Asp. M. C. 310. 
 
 {») For duty to stop on hearing 
 whistle or hailing apart from the 
 present Art., see The Frankland and 
 The Kestrel, L. R. 4 P. C. 529 ; The 
 Kirby Hall, H P. D. 71 ; The Dor- 
 dogne, 10 P. D. 6 ; and see The Teii- 
 tonia, 23 Wall. 77, and The Admiral 
 Schley, 142 Fed. 64. 
 
 (o) The Britannia, (1905) P. 98. 
 
 \p) The Star of New Zealand, Ship. 
 Gaz. Nov. 7th, 1899. 
 
 [q) The Challenge and The Due 
 d'Aninule, (1905) P. 198; The Lord 
 Bangor, (1896) P. 28, distinguished.
 
 SPEED IN THICK WKATHER. 379 
 
 by a steamship under a duty to stop and navigate with Article 16. 
 
 caution, apart from such ascertainment, merely because the 
 
 vessel seems to be far away. ''If this Court were to hold 
 
 that upon hearing a whistle which sounded to be distant a 
 
 vessel was justified in not stopping, although its position was 
 
 not ascertained, except that it sounded a long way off, every 
 
 case in this Court would be that the whistle sounded such a 
 
 long way off that the ship was justified in not stopping " (y). 
 
 The position of a vessel will only be regarded as ascertained 
 
 when the fog signals place the matter beyond reasonable 
 
 doubt. A question put to the Elder Brethren in the case of 
 
 The Aran (.s) illustrates what amounts to ascertainment. 
 
 " Were the indications such as to show her master, distinctly 
 
 and unequivocally, that if both vessels continued to do what 
 
 they appeared to be doing they would pass clear without risk 
 
 of collision?" it). A steamship has been held liable for not 
 
 stopping when she heard a fog signal proceeding from a fog 
 
 bank on her port bow, which she herself was not about to 
 
 enter {u). A steamship is not justified in maintaining her 
 
 speed in order the better to ascertain the position of a vessel 
 
 whose fog signal has been heard once apparently far off (.r) . 
 
 On the other hand a vessel proceeding down the Man- 
 chester Ship Canal was held excused for not stopping on 
 hearing a fog signal forward of her beam, on the ground that 
 the position of vessels ahead of her in the canal, which were 
 presumably on tlieir proper side of the canal, was ascertained. 
 It was also apparently considered in this case that the '* cir- 
 cumstances of the case " did not reasonably " admit " of her 
 stopping (y). 
 
 The case of The Omvia (s) may be regarded as throwing 
 some light on the steamship's duty to " stop. " Here The Nerem 
 saw The Oraviaat a distance of about three miles in a position 
 to pass her all clear port side to port side. As the vessels 
 proceeded a fog bank intervened. On entering the bank 
 
 (»•) ne BrUannia, (I90o) P. 98, at (y) Tlie Hun; (1904) P. 831. 
 
 p. 104, per Gorell Bamec, J. {z) The Uravia, 10 A.sp. M. C. o2.3. 
 
 («) The Aru>i, [VMljV.-li. See also T»e Oeelomj, 8hip. Gaz. 
 
 \t) Ibid, at p. o4. March Sch, 1908, where au uvurtokeii 
 
 («) The Bernard Hall, 9 Asp. M. C. sliip was lifld to have ascirtaiued 
 
 300. the position of a vessel which passed 
 
 {x) The Koniity Wilkm 1., (I90."l) from lier quarter on to her bow. 
 P. 114.
 
 380 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 16. The Nereu-s, which had been making about eight knots, put 
 her engines to slow. On hearing a port helm signal from 
 The Gravid she ported without stopping. She was held 
 justified in her mancBuvre, as the position of The Oravia was 
 known to her. It is submitted that had The Nerem, in 
 the circumstances, heard a fog signal from The Ore/via instead 
 of the port helm signal, she would still have been justified in 
 not stopping, the position of the other vessel having been 
 ascertained within the Article. What will amount to " navi- 
 gating with caution " within the Article must necessarily 
 depend on the circumstances of each case. In some circum- 
 stances the proper course of a vessel, which has stopped on 
 hearing the first fog signal forward of her beam, will be to 
 continue at slow speed, stopping her engines from time to 
 time (a). In certain circumstances the alteration of helm in 
 a fog by a steamship hearing the whistle of another vessel 
 forward of her beam maj^ not be an improper manoeuvre {h). 
 Such manoeuvre cannot, however, relieve a vessel of the duty 
 to " stop " under this Article. 
 
 In a fog so dense that it is not possible for a ship to see 
 others in time to avoid them, she is not justified in being 
 under way at all, except from necessity. Neither Art. 16 
 nor Art. 23 justifies her in being under wny under such cir- 
 cumstances (r). 
 
 An inward-bound ocean steamship of 2,435 tons register 
 was overtaken near the North- West Lightship in Liverpool 
 Bay by a very dense fog. She lay with her engines stopped 
 drivmg stern foremost in an E.S.E. direction towards Liver- 
 pool with the flood tide. It was held that she was not in 
 fault for not having brought up (d). In an American case {e) 
 it was held that a steamship in a fog was in fault for bringing 
 
 («) The Aras, (1907) P. 98; The 
 Bi/roM, Ship. Gaz. 9th Feb. 1905. 
 
 [b) cee The Castlevenlry, Ship. Gaz. 
 16th April, 1904, in which case a 
 vessel was held justified iu porting 
 to avoid a vessel t'rom which a signal 
 of two prolonged blasts had been 
 heard, apparently forward of her 
 beam. See also p. 373, supra, and 
 The Vlnduinora, 14 P. D. 172; (1891) 
 App. Gas. 1 : The Umbria, IGG U. S. 
 E.ep. 404. But see The Resolution, 
 
 6 Asp. M. C. 363. 
 
 ic) The Lancashire, L. R. 4 A. & E. 
 198 ; The Otter, ibid. 203 ; The Gtro- 
 lamo, 3 Hag. Ad. 169 ; The North 
 American and The Wild Rose, 2 iVIar. 
 L. G. O. S. 3 19; ^mith v. St. 
 Laurence Tow Boat Co., L. R. 5 P. G. 
 308; The Victoria, 3 W. Rob. 49; 
 The Perth, 3 Hagg. 414; and see 
 cases cited supra, pp. 236, 373. 
 
 [d] The Kirbij Hall, 8 P. D. 71. 
 
 {e) The Ailsa, 76 Fed. Rep. 868.
 
 SPEED IN THICK WKATHER. 381 
 
 up in the track of sliips, when she might have got into Article 16. 
 anchorage ground. 
 
 The dut}' of a steamship under way in a fog has been 
 thus stated by the Supreme Court of the United States: — 
 " The best precautions are bright signal lights ; very low 
 speed — ju&t sufficient to subject the vessel to the command 
 of her helm ; competent look-outs properly stationed and 
 vigilant in the performance of their duties ; constant ringing 
 of the bell or blowing of the fog-horn, as the case may be ; 
 and sufficient force at the wheel to effect, if necessary, a 
 prompt change in the course of the vessel " (./'). 
 
 It has been said in an American case that the meaning of Pre.ssure of 
 the rule that a steamship shall in a fog go at a moderate speed "^^^^ ^o^.° 
 is, not that she shall only have such a pressure of steam as 
 will enable her to go slow, but that she shall have her full 
 steam power, and still go slow, so that she may be able to 
 bring herself to a standstill as soon as possible (//). In another 
 case, it was said that in a dense fog a ship is bound to go as 
 slowly as possible, consistently with steerage way (//) . Though 
 not bound to lie-to (/), a sailing ship must put herself under 
 moderate sail in a fog and use extra caution (k). A schooner 
 carrying on at night, and racing with another vessel, was held 
 in fault (/). 
 
 The words of Art. 16 as to stopping engines cannot Speed of 
 apply to sailing ships {m) ; but undue speed is forbidden by hlVfo^*! ^^** 
 that Article both for sailing ships and for steamships. Where 
 a sailing ship had her studding sails set in a thick fog and 
 came into collision with another ship, Dr. Lushington said : 
 " It is unquestionably the duty of a master in intense fog to 
 exercise the utmost vigilance, and to put his vessel imder 
 command, so as to secure the best chance of avoiding all 
 accidents, even though suf-h precautions may occasion some 
 delay in the prosecution of the voyage" (u). But in this, and 
 
 (/) The Coloiado, 1 Otto, 092. (/) Thr Thoniis Martiv, 8 Blatclif. 
 
 Cf. The triDiconi-i, 4 Bened. 181. ;>17. 
 
 [g) The Hanm, 6 Bencd. oOl. (m) Thi- Durdorjnc, 10 P. D. 6, 12. 
 
 {h) Thr Westphalia, 4 Bcnei. 404. («) Thr Itinerant, 2 W. Rob. 236. 
 
 \i) The Moimmi Lujht, 2 Wall. In Thr f'r.s/jrr, 9 Fed Hep. ')()9. a 
 
 ooO ; 'The Colorado, 1 Otto, 692. Hailing whip going eight knots wart 
 
 [k) The Colorado, 1 Otto, 692. held in fault tor excessive speed.
 
 ;582 
 
 THE REGULATIONS, 
 
 Article 16. in another case (o), the sailing ship, though under a press of 
 sail in a fog, was not therefore held in fault for the collision. 
 So a brig in the Atlantic carrying all plain sail and going 
 five knots (/)), a large loaded sliip in the Channel track off 
 Folkestone going five knots (q), and a barque off the Land's 
 End going four knots in a fog (>■), were held free from 
 blame (p). 
 
 In T/if Zadol; (.s), a barque with nearly all the canvas set 
 which she could carry, going five knots or upwards in a fog 
 in a fi-equented part of the English Channel, was held in 
 fault for not going at a moderate speed. In the same case 
 Sir J. Hannen said that it is the duty of a sailing ship in a 
 fog, where she cannot see her way, to moderate her speed to 
 the point at which she has just way sufficient to have the 
 power of controlling her movements. A similar rule has 
 been laid down {obiter) in the Court of Appeal (/). 
 
 A sailing ship going six-and-a-half knots over a fishing 
 ground on a dark night, when vessels were visible only 100 
 or 200 yards off, was held in fault {u) ; also a sailing ship 
 going five or six knots up Swin on a dark and cloudy 
 night {x). 
 
 A schooner at night in a dense fog in the Bristol Channel 
 was held in fault for not going at a moderate speed. It does 
 not appear what her speed was ; but she had all plain sail 
 set, and it was held that she was going faster than was neces- 
 sary "to keep her under command " (//). It is submitted 
 that the decisions as to what is " moderate " for small sailing- 
 ships bear heavily upon such vessels, and that they should 
 not be carried any further. A small coaster with all plain 
 sail set, sailing by the wind, is seldom going more than four 
 or five knots, and it may be doubted whether she would be 
 less likely to do damage if she shortened sail (s). 
 
 (o) The Ebenezer, ibid. 206. 
 
 Ip) The Ehjnu, 4 Asp. M. C. 540. 
 
 {q) Tiie Milanese, 4 Asp. M. C. 
 318 ; reversed on another point. 
 
 (r) The N. Strung, (1892j P. 105. 
 
 (.s) 9 P. D. 114. Cf. The Wyanokc, 
 40 Fed. Rep. 702 (six knots) ; The 
 Chattahoochee, 173 U. S. Rep. o40 
 (six or seven knots outside Nantucket 
 shoals near the track oi Atlantic 
 liners). 
 
 (0 The Lordogne, 10 P. D. 6, 12. 
 
 [ti] The PeppereU, Swab. 12. Cf. 
 The Frank, 2 Quebec L. R. 295, a 
 barque on the banks of Newfound- 
 land. 
 
 {x) The Victoria, 3 W. Rob. 49. 
 
 [y] The Beta, 9 P. D. 134. 
 
 (s) Cf. The N. S.'roi/r/, (1892) P. 
 105 ; ]7ie Martello, 39 Fed. Rep. :>0h 
 (four knots not excessive).
 
 SPEED IN THICK WEATHER. 383 
 
 It has been said that where a sailing ship in a fog is aware Article 16. 
 of the proximity of another vessel, though unable to see her, 
 it is thft duty of the persou in oliarge to order his people to 
 stand by the sheets and braces, in order to manoeuvre the 
 sails, and assist the helm, at the first moment the otlier ship 
 is seen (a). 
 
 Article 16 overrides the steerins^ and sailing rules (Arts. 1 7 4'"*- ^'^ "^f"'"- 
 
 I'l 11 11 1-in ri<^^* ^^*'' 
 
 ■srq.) ; and a steamship that under those rules has the right of steerinfr and 
 
 way cannot, in case of collision, justify a departure from ^-^'""^ yulna. 
 
 Art. 16 upon the ground that she kept her course and 
 
 speed (Ij). This prolmbly is the meaning of the saying in 
 
 an American case that in a fog so dense that the course of 
 
 the other ship cannot be made out the steering and sailing 
 
 rules do not apply (c). 
 
 A vessel going at too great a rate of speed on a dark night, luevitable 
 
 or in tliick weather, cannot be heard to say that a collision ^peed oxces- 
 
 was the result of inevitable accident (c/). sive. 
 
 In some rivers the speed of ships is limited by local rules. Local rules as 
 
 which apply in all weathers, thick or clear. '^ '^^^^ 
 
 If a steamship has the wind aft, so that her own smoke is Steamship's 
 
 blown ahead, obscuring the lights or the view from her deck, "scirintj^ n'rhts 
 
 it is her duty to go at a moderate speed, and so that she may ^^^^ ^'"''w. 
 see and be seen by other vessels in time to avoid collision {<']. 
 
 The duty of a steamship approaching another vessel with 
 risk of collision, to slacken her speed, or to stop and reverse, 
 is considered below (Art. 28). 
 
 The ease of a steamship lying dead in the water in a thick Steamsliij) 
 fog, and hearing the whistle or horn of an api)roaching '^ "'° 
 vessel, is not provided for by the regulations. Art. 16 does 
 not, it is submitted, require her to "go at a moderate speed"; 
 nor, on the other hand, does Art. 28 require her not to move 
 her engines. The prudent course appears to be for her to 
 set her engines ahead and so to gather slight headway (./). 
 
 (a) Sep 'Hir Zm/o/r. P. D. 114, Cas. 633. 
 •17. {r) The Romi and The .Ira, 1 .Asp. 
 
 (*) ne Cath It,, 9 Asp. M. 0. 3;-). M. C. 182 ; Tlir livid, 7 Not. of Cas. 
 
 (c) T/ie Ormiidicr and T/te Auf/nst 127. 
 Korjf, 74 Fed. Rep. 9r4. (/) The Karl „f Duiiifncs aud Tin 
 
 {(l) The .Tulii't Erskinf, (\ Not. of l!nd-n»,a Bay, 6 Asp. M. C. 329, n.
 
 384 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 16. 
 
 Sailing ship 
 hove-to. 
 
 Being under 
 way in fog 
 unnecessarily. 
 
 Ferry boats 
 
 runn 
 
 a fos 
 
 American 
 cases as to 
 ferry boats 
 runnir 
 a fog. 
 
 It is submitted that a sailing ship would not be held in 
 fault for heaving-to for safety in a fog (g) . 
 
 In very thick weather, or great darkness, a ve.«sel is not 
 justified in running through a crowded roadstead, but should, 
 if possible, bring up (h). Nor is she justified in the Thames 
 in leaving a wharf in a dense fog for the purpose of going 
 up the river on a flood tide ; and it has been said that the 
 proper way to go up, under such circumstances, is stern first, 
 dredging with the anchor on the ground, so as to be able to 
 bring up at a moment's notice (/'). In a dense fog in New 
 York harbour a steamship ran into another vessel lying at 
 a wharf, by reason of her compass being out of order. She 
 was held to be in fault (k). 
 
 The Lancashire was a Liverpool and Birkenhead ferry 
 steamer. She left her landing-stage to cross tlie Mersey in 
 a dense fog, and ran into The Levant, a vessel brought up in 
 her track. It was contended for The LancaHhire that it was 
 the custom of the ferry boats to run in all weathers, and that 
 it was necessary for the convenience of the public that they 
 should do so. The LancasJiire was held in fault for the 
 collision, on the ground that she had no right to be under 
 way at all in such weather (/). 
 
 The law in America as to ferry steamers being under way 
 in a fog seems to be more favourable to the ferry boats than 
 that of this country, as laid down in The Lancashire. In Tlie 
 Exchange (m), it was held that while owners of ferry boats 
 have not any exclusive privileges of navigation over owners 
 of other vessels, nevertheless, since public convenience requires 
 the ferry boats to be running as constantly as possible, the 
 rules which are applicable to the running of such a boat are, 
 that while more than ordinary care, vigilance, and caution 
 are required on the part of the ferry boat, she is entitled to 
 more than ordiiiary diligence on the part of other vessels to 
 
 ((/) See 7'//*' Attilii, 5 Quebec L. R. 
 340. 
 
 (A) The Vtctoria, 3 W. Rob. 49 ; 
 The George, 4 Not. of Cas. 161 ; The 
 Lochlibo,^! Moo. P. C. 427. 
 
 (i) The Aquadilhua, 6 Asp. M. C. 
 390. 
 
 (Z-) The Mohau'k, 42 Fed. Rep. 189. 
 
 {/) The Lancashire, L. R. 4 A. & E. 
 19S. 
 
 (ni) lOBlatchf. 168. See also ^o/- 
 nian v. Union Ferry of Brookltjn, 68 
 N. York Rep X8;') ; ' Bru/gs v. The 
 Whitehall, 68 Fed. Rep. ' 1022 ; The 
 Orange, 46 Fed. Rep. 408.
 
 SAILING SHIPS CROSSING. 
 
 avoid her. And the cases show that where, as in the strong 
 tides of New York harbour, it is necessary for them to rim 
 at a speed of four or five knots, iu order to be under command, 
 they will not be held in fault for excessive speed yii). 
 
 In anotlier case {o), it was held that a ferry boat is not 
 bound to stop running in a dense fog. There are other 
 American cases to the effect that vessels are required to know 
 the usual track of ferry boats, and to take precautions accord- 
 ingly, and particularly not to anchor in their track {p). 
 
 385 
 
 Article 16. 
 
 Steering and Sailing Rules. 
 
 Pre/iminan/ — i?/.s/.- of Colli.mn. 
 
 RisJi of coUisioii cfiji, icJioi vircum^tancfH per)»if, he axccrfauied 
 1)1/ carefuUii iraichlmj the compasfi heariixj of an approavh'ntg 
 t'csscL If tlic heaving does not appreeiabl// change, sue// risk 
 sJionJd tie deemed to e.rist. 
 
 Article 17. 
 
 Article 17. 
 
 When tiro sailing vessels are approaching one another, so as '^^y^ sailin;,'- 
 to involve risk of collision, one of them shall keep out of the nrt// 
 of the other, as follows, viz. : — 
 
 (a) A vessel which is running free shall keep out of the irai/ of 
 
 a vessel which is close-hxmlcd. 
 
 (b) A vessel wJiieh is close-hauled on the jwrt tack shall keep 
 
 out of the vaij of a vessel n-Jiich is close-hauled on tlie 
 starl)oard lack. 
 ((') When hotli are running free, with tJie wi)ul on different 
 sides, t/ie vessel which has the irind on. the port side 
 s/iall keep out of the u:ay of tJie other. 
 
 (d) When hotJi are running free, with the nind on the same 
 
 side, the vessel icJiicJi is to vindward .sha/n,'e<'p out of 
 the W((// cf the vessel which is to Iceirard. 
 
 (e) A vessel which has the irind (ft shall keep out of tfie irag 
 
 of tlie (ifJier vessel. 
 
 This Article corresponds with Art. 14 of the Eegulations 
 of 1884. The preliminary paragrapli, as to risk of collision. 
 
 («) Thf Ophelia, 4 1 Fed. Rc]). Oil. 
 (o) The India, 11 IJlutclif. 11.'). 
 
 ( p) The HaiJxjii, 5 BoikhI. 'iOO ; 
 The Jiclcf, Olcott, 101. 
 

 
 386 THE REGULATION'S. 
 
 Article 17. first appeared in the present paragraph. If construed literally, 
 it would seem to make the regulations applicable when the 
 ships are at any distance apart. Perhaps it will be construed 
 as a mere warning to seamen to take an obvious method of 
 ascertaiuing, as early as possible, the approximate course of 
 the other ship (r/). See further as to "risk of collision," 
 supra, p. 323. 
 
 The steering and sailing rules can be applied with effect 
 only when the position and course of the one ship are 
 approximately known to the other. They are therefore 
 frequently inapplicable in a fog. In that case each ship must 
 comply with Art. 16. The steering and sailing rules will not 
 be used by the Courts merely to decide, upon facts made 
 known only by the event, which ship would have been in 
 fault if there had been no fog (r) . 
 "Running Xlic classification of sailing ships contained in this Article 
 
 ing of "the occasions some difficulty. It is probably intended to be an 
 term. exhaustive and not a cross classification. It is doubtful whether 
 
 it is either the one or the other ; the wording is at least am- 
 biguous. " Itunning free " appears to mean not close-hauled ; 
 but the phrase is not happily chosen to describe a ship that 
 has the wind a point or two free but forward of the beam (s). 
 The words "with the wind abaft the beam" occur in Art. 15 (c). 
 Again, the question arises, whether a vessel which " has the 
 wind aft" can at the same time be " running free " ; and, if 
 so, whether (d) or (e) prevails ; whether, if she is to leeward 
 of the other ship, she is required to keep out of the way under 
 Art. 17 (e), or to keep her course under the combined 
 operation of Art. 17 (d) and Art. 21. A further question 
 arises as to how the dividing line between " running free " 
 and having "the wind aft" is to be drawn ; whether, for 
 example, a ship with the wind on the quarter, say, three 
 points from dead aft, " has the wind aft." These difficulties 
 will be found discussed at length in The Privateer (t), an 
 Irish case. In that case the Court seems to have been of 
 
 {q) See The Cid/ of Berlin, (1908) countenanced by the Court : The Earl 
 
 P. 110. ' " IVemyss, 6 Asp. M. C. 407. 
 
 (r) See The Cathmj, 9 Asp.M.C. 31. {t) 7 L. R. Ir. 105 ; infra, p. 394. 
 
 (.v) A ship in this condition appears See also The Bufoyed Christennen, 4 
 
 to be treated as close-hauled in the A up. Cas. 669. 
 trades, though such a view was uot
 
 SAILING SHIPS CROSSING. 
 
 387 
 
 opinion that a ship may at the same time be " running free " Articb 17. 
 and have *' the wind aft " ; and it appears to liave been lieM 
 in the same ease that a ship with tlie wind about two points 
 free was close-hauled ; but the latter view receives no support 
 from the Master of the Rolls, who recently expressed the 
 opinion that a ship might be close-hauled when a little off the 
 wind, but doubted whether she would be so if she had the 
 wind a point and a-half free (it). 
 
 In T//e Siiif/aporc (x), decided under the Regulations of 
 1863, Lord Westbury appears to have used the pln-ase 
 " running free " as equivalent to " free " — the term used in 
 Art. 12 of the Regulations of 1863. But in tliat case the 
 ship heading E. with the wind at X.W. was clearly both free 
 and running. 
 
 In T/ie Spriiig (//) a smack with the wind from two to four 
 points from dead aft was held to have the wind aft within 
 the meaning of Art. 12 of the Regulations of 1863. 
 
 Under former regulations it was held that a vessel required A ship 
 to keep out of the way of another might do so in any way keep out of 
 she thouo^ht proper. She might go ahead or astern of the **^ ^^'^^ "'y***^ 
 
 ~ ^ , DO gQ uuder the 
 
 other, and she might put her helm to port or starboard, as other's stem. 
 
 she thought best (~). Art. 22 of the existing regulations 
 
 makes an important alteration of the law in this respect. If 
 
 the circumstances permit, she must avoid crossing ahead of 
 
 the other vessel — in other words, she must go under the other 
 
 vessel's stern. The effect of this alteration in the law is, that 
 
 if it is possible for her to go under the other ship's stern, and 
 
 she attempts to cross her bows, she will be inevitably held in 
 
 fault under the statute for a collision that may ensue. 
 
 It has been held in America {(t) that where two courses Alteration in 
 are open to a vessel required to keep out of the way, and she 
 selects the more hazardous, she is responsible for a collision 
 that would not have occurred if she had taken the safer 
 course. 
 
 Art. 17 is supplemented by, and must be read with. Arts. Art. 17 is 
 21 and 24 ; the former requires the overtaken ship to keep a,lf/,,lociii!t'a 
 
 {u) T/ic Tun-nrei>i>/s.<<,C>] h.T.'lSd, [z) The Nor, 2 Asp. M. C. 2G4 ; 
 
 •290; Asp. M. C. 407. Tkv Carroll, 8 Wall. a02 ; T/ir O'rnit 
 
 {x) L. R. 1 P. C. 378. Eaatern, 3 Moo. P. C. N. S. 31. 
 
 \ij) L. R. 1 A. k E. 99. {n) The L'lii/Are State, 1 Hcnod. rq. 
 
 vv2
 
 388 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Anicle 17. her course and speed [fj) ; the latter requires every vessel 
 by Art. 21 overtaking another to keep out of the way (e) ; which she 
 must do in the manner directed by Art. 27 (d). The diffi- 
 culty which arose umier the Rules of 186-'j, of drawing the 
 line between "crossing" and "overtaking" ships (rf), is 
 intended to be removed by the opening words of Art. 24. 
 It seems that under the existing regulations a sailing ship 
 wliich is travelling faster than another ahead, or anywhere 
 forward of her own beam, and coming up with lier, must 
 keep out of the way(p). The word "crossing," which 
 governed the corresponding Art. 12 of the Regulations of 
 186;), does not occur in the Article now under discussion. 
 
 Dnt.y of ship -phe duty of the ship close-liauled on the starboard tack, 
 
 required to I'l-i-i i i i 
 
 keephfr Under Art. 17, is strictly to obey the rule requiring her to 
 
 course to keeij her course. She can excuse a departure from that rule 
 
 stand on ; i _ ^ 
 
 only by showing that it was necessary to avoid immediate 
 danger (,/'). "Keeping her course" under Art. 22 means 
 keeping her course by the wind. If in so doing she comes to 
 or breaks off a little, she does not thereby infringe Art. 22 (r/) ; 
 tliouirh it is though it is an infringement if, alleging that she is close- 
 an mfringe- hauled, slie comes up as much as two and a-half points (//). 
 
 meut to come ' "^ ^ _ . . 
 
 up asmiichas But a vessel would not be justified by Art. 17 in standing on 
 iu\d a-'half. obstinately where it is clear tliat a collision may be avoided 
 if she alters her helm, and in no other way (/). 
 
 The rule requiring a ship close-hauled on the starboard 
 tack to stand on appeal's formerly not to have been so strict 
 as it is under the existing law. Formerly, where two vessels 
 on opposite tacks were approaching with risk of collision, it 
 was held to be the proper course for both to put their helms 
 to port (/.•). Such is not now the law. Before altering her 
 helm, a ship must ascertain what course the other ship is 
 upon, and how she has the wind. Her duty is to wait until 
 she knows what the regulations require her to do. A wrong 
 
 (/j) See infra, p. 409. Asp. M. C. 96 ; T/ie Emih, B. Mfix- 
 
 (c) See infra, p. 43.5. ^vell, 96 Fed. Rep. 999. 
 
 \d) See infra, p. 4 50. {//) The Earl If'cmi/ss, 6 Asp. M. C. 
 
 (c) See 77ie Scalon, infra, p. 439. 407. 
 
 (./■) See Art. 27. (i) The Lake St. Clair and The 
 
 ((/) The Marndim, 1 Asp. M. C. Z7«*y*rn7e;-, 2 App. Cas. 389. 
 
 412 ; Tlie ^liiJiu and The Amelia, 2 (/.■) The Seringapatam, 5 Not, of 
 
 Cas. 61, 65,
 
 BAILING SHIPS CHOSSIXG. "'^'"^^ 
 
 step taken by a ship in iguoranee of the other's course will ^'^^<'^" ^"- , 
 cause her to be hekl in fault if a collision ensues. 
 
 Hence arise cases of great perplexity to seamen. A ship, A hard case. 
 A., close-hauled on the port tack, sees a red light of another, 
 B., ahead, and a point or two on his starboard bow. He 
 cannot make out what is B.'s course. Not knowing which 
 Article of the regulations applies to his ease, A. stands on, 
 and at the last moment bears up, thinking, erroneously, that 
 B. is close-hauled on the starboard tack. At the same 
 moment, B., who has the wind free, bears up. A collision 
 follows, for which A. is probably held in fault, because he 
 did not keep his course. The temptation for A., on first 
 seeing B., to bear up, go about, wear, or to take other steps 
 which he thinks will avoid risk of collision, without regard to 
 the regulations, is strong. 
 
 The following illustration maybe suggested: — The wind 
 being north, a ship close-hauled on the port tack and heading 
 E.N.E., sees, wathin a quarter of a mile, and on her lee bow, 
 a red light. The vessel to which it belongs may be either in 
 stays, and heading N., or she may be close-hauled on the 
 starboard tack, and heading from X.W. to W.N.W. ; or, 
 again, she may have the wind free, and be heading from 
 W.N.W. to W. by S. In the first case supposed, the rapid 
 alteration in the bearing of the light as it crossed her bows 
 would assist her in arriving at the conclusion that the other 
 ship was close-hauled on the starboard tack and heading about 
 N.W., and in this case the duty of the first ship is clear — to 
 keep out of the way. On the other hand, if the ship to wlii -h 
 the red light belonged were light, under low sail, and making 
 considerable lee-w^ay, the alteration in the bearing of the light 
 would be yery slow, and it might easily be mistaken for the 
 light of a ship having the wind free. In this case it would 
 be very difficult for the ship on the port tack to appreciate 
 the actual circumstances of the situation in time to comply 
 ■with the regulations so as to avoid a cc^llision. 
 
 In The Theodore II. lioitd (/), the ship on the pcjrt tack was 
 held not to be in fault, although she bore up and so caused 
 
 1^/; 12 App. Can. 247 ; The Killvoiii, Ad. Div.. Nov. 1H'.)1, was a similar 
 case.
 
 390 
 
 THi: REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 17. 
 
 Meaning' of 
 
 " close- 
 hauled. 
 
 the collisiou, because she could not, with reasonable care, have 
 known that the other ship was running free. 
 
 A vessel may be close-hauled within the meaning of Art. 17, 
 although she is not lying so close to the wdnd that she cannot 
 luff a trifle without throwing herself in stays {m). In The 
 Bn'adalbane{u), a brig, heading six points from the wind, 
 and a ship, with her fore-topsail carried away, heading seven 
 and a-half points from the wind, were held to be both close- 
 hauled. A ship sailing full and by, and being kept " a good 
 full," would be close-hauled within Art. 17. 
 
 A ship with the wind free must keep out of the way of a 
 
 ship hove-to, by virtue, it seems, of Art. 17 (a) or Art. 17 (e) ; 
 
 for a ship hove-to is close-hauled within the meaning of this 
 
 Article (o). 
 
 Whether a It has already been stated {p) that Art. 4, relating to ships 
 
 tvithin Art.°n not Under command, probably does not apply to a ship hove-to 
 
 and required {^^ ^he Ordinary course of navigation. Art. 17, therefore, 
 
 to keep out • i j. i t. £ 
 
 of the way. applies to a ship lymg-to, so as to require her to keep out ot 
 the way, notwithstanding her comparatively helpless condi- 
 tion. In a case {q) decided in 1847 the facts were as follows : 
 The Lavinia, a schooner close-hauled on the starboard tack, 
 came into collision in broad daylight with The London, a 
 schooner hove-to on the port tack. The crew of The London 
 were engaged in reefing her topsail. The helm of Tlie 
 Lavinia, which had been lashed a-lee, was put over to port 
 shortly before the collision. The Lavinia kept her course up 
 to the moment of collision, and hailed The London to port. 
 It was held that TJie London was solely in fault. 
 
 In the case of The Young Alonso, a dandy-rigged smack, 
 hove-to on the port tack, was held in fault, under Art. 12 of 
 the Regulations of 1868, for a collision with The EosaHc, a 
 three-masted schooner, close-hauled on the starboard tack. 
 
 (»() The Singapore and The Eehe, 
 Holt, rJ4 ; L. R. 1 P. C. 378, 383 ; 
 Chadwick v. The Clti/ of Dublin Steam 
 Facket Co., 6 Ell. & "BI. 771; The 
 Earl Wemyss, 6 Asjj. M. C. 407. 
 
 («) 7 P. D. 186. So The Queen 
 Elizahelh, 100 Fed. Rep. 874, a ship 
 going 65 points from the wind, with 
 yards braced sharp. 
 
 (0) The Eleanor v. The Alma, 2 
 Mar. Law. Cas. 0. S. 240 ; The 
 
 Romlie, P. D. 245 ; The James, 
 Swab. 60 ; The London, 6 Not. of 
 Cas. 29 ; The Blenheim, 1 Sp. 285 ; 
 The Ada A. Kennedy, 33 Fed, Rep. 
 (523. But cee The Alfredo, 32 Fed. 
 Rep. 240, where it was held that a 
 sailing ship, hove-to and making no 
 way ahead, should sound a bell and 
 not a horn. 
 
 {})) Supra, p. 345. 
 
 (7) The London, 6 Not. of Cas. 29.
 
 SAILING SHIPS CROSSING. ^^^ 
 
 The collision was in the daytime in clear weather, and Th'' ^^^''^^ ^'^- 
 
 Rosalie (/•) was held to be also in fault. It does not appear 
 
 that either vessel did anything to avoid the collision. On 
 
 the other hand, in a recent Canadian case, a ship hove-to on 
 
 the port tack was held not to be in fault for a collision, on the 
 
 ground that she was practically helpless and could do nothing 
 
 to avoid it (s). 
 
 The following American case is instructive upon a point ^I*^*'''"";*'' 
 whicli does not appear to liave been sufficiently considered m of ships, 
 the English eases. A schooner, with the wind free, was in 
 collision with a pilot boat lying-to with her helm lashed a-lee. 
 The pilot boat was forging ahead at the rate of about a knot 
 an hour, as she kept coming to and falling off. Both vessels 
 were, in 1866, held by the District Court of the United States 
 to be in fault for the collision : the schooner for not keeping 
 out of the way of a vessel which was " close-hauled," and the 
 pilot boat for not keeping her course. The Court said that 
 the proper course for those on board the pilot boat to have 
 taken was to get way on her, so as to keep a steady course (0- 
 This seems a reasonable decision as regards the duty of the 
 pilot boat. It may well be doubted whether heaving-to in 
 the track of ships and lashing the helm a-lee {u), in order to 
 save the trouble of a hand at the helm, is not in itself negli- 
 gence for which the ship should be held liable in case of 
 collision {x) . A vessel so situated is practically helpless to 
 keep out of the way herself ; and her lights are misleading 
 to other ships because of her unsteady course and the lee- way 
 she makes. It is a common practice for shrimpers in tlie 
 Thames, and trawlers in the North Sea, to leave their vessels 
 to drive with the tide in the manner described above. Line 
 fishermen in the Channel and in the North Sea lower their 
 head sails and ease off the main sheet. A vessel so handled 
 is wholly out of control, and in case of collision she could 
 hardly be heard to say that she was not in fault {ij). It is 
 
 (>■) 5 r. D. 245. ix) 'Hgq The Ehanor, tibi xH)))-(i. Cf. 
 
 (*) The raramatla, Stockton's V. T/>c Admirtil tichley, 115 Fed. Rep. 
 
 Ad. Dig. Canada, 192. ;i78. lu The ColumbiKU, 100 Fed. 
 
 (t) yVic 2V«».si^ SBened. 192. Cf. Rep. 991, it was not held to bo 
 
 The Uaverton, 31 Fed. Rep. 563. nefrligence. 
 
 (/() See The General Gordon, 7 Asp. (y) Sec uote (x), supra. 
 M. C. 317.
 
 392 tHE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Ar'.icie 17. submitted that a ship hove-to is required to exercise more 
 than ordinary care, so that she may not be an obstruction to 
 navigation (c). A tug drifting about in the track of ships 
 without sufficient steam to get way upon her has been held in 
 fault (a) . 
 
 A ship that is bound to keep her course fails in her duty if, 
 
 befoi'e the risk of collision is determined, she starts to reef, 
 
 and thereby goes into collision by reason of the lee-way she 
 
 makes before her canvas is full again (i^). 
 
 Application The steering and sailing rules are framed primarily for 
 
 and saihirtr ships that are moving through the water ; and it has been 
 
 rules to ship (loubted whether they apply to a ship lying dead in the 
 
 dead 111 the ^ ^ "^ ;' i • i i 
 
 water. water, and unable effectually to comply with them (c). it 
 
 would seem, however, that, so far as they can, they must 
 do so. 
 Sailing Whether a sailins: trawler at work is within Art. 17 seems 
 
 at work. doubtf ul. By Art. 26, " sailing vessels under way " are re- 
 
 quired to keep out of the way of " sailing vessels .... fishing 
 with .... trawls." This would probably be held to apply 
 as between a sailing ship, other than a trawler at work, and a 
 trawler at work. 
 
 The following cases, decided under the Kegulatious of 
 1863, illustrate the application of Art 17, and the circum- 
 stances under which it may be departed from : — 
 CuK's illub- Two ships were turning to windward in a narrow channel. 
 
 Art. \7. both on the starboard tack, and one following in the wake of 
 
 the other. The leading ship, having stood as far towards the 
 side of the channel as was prudent, went about. There was 
 ■ risk of collision if the other ship stood on. It was held that 
 it was the duty of the following ship, although on the star- 
 board tack, to go about when the leading ship did so (d). 
 
 Where, however, two sailing flats were beating to wind- 
 ward clown the Mersey, and in the process of tacking back- 
 wards and forwards across the river the one gradually over- 
 took the other, but before she had quite done so, and while 
 
 (;:) See T/ic Attila, 5 Quebec L. R. [c) See The James T. Eaiston, 27 
 
 340. Fed. Rep. 464. 
 
 {a) The B>/rcn,2 New South Wales {d) The PriseiUa, L. R. 3 A. & E. 
 
 L. R. Ad. 1. vfd ; and see The Lake St. Clair and 
 
 {b) The Robert H. Rathbiin, 88 The Underwriter, 3 Asp. M. C. 361 ; 
 
 Ped. Rep. 549. infra.
 
 SAILING SHIPS CkOSStXG. 393 
 
 the vessels were still on oiiposite tacks, they eariie into follisiou, Article 17. 
 it was held that the present Art. 17 applied, and tbat the 
 overtaken vessel, whioli was close-hauled on the port tack, was 
 at fault for not keeping out of the way of the overtaking 
 vessel, which was close-hauled on the starboard tack {e). 
 
 In a case where the courses of the two ships were within a 
 point of being directly opposite (W.N.W. and S.E. by E.), 
 the Privy Council held that they were " crossing," and not 
 "meeting," ships (./'). 
 
 Where two vessels close-hauled on opposite tacks sighted 
 each other at so short a distance that it was not possible for 
 the ship on the port tack to avoid the other if tlie latter stood 
 on, it was held that it was the duty of the latter to port and 
 let go her head sheets (g) . 
 
 Where a ship close-hauled on the port tack was unable to 
 bear up owing to her head-gear being carried away, and the 
 other ship, in ignorance of her disabled condition, kept her 
 course, a collision which followed was held to be an inevitable 
 accident {//). 
 
 Two heavy full-rigged ships were turning to windward in 
 the St. Lawrence. One of them, T//e L-i/ic Sf. Clair, whilst 
 in stays, was struck by the other, The Undcncrlter, nearly at 
 right angles on the starboard side. Those on board The 
 Undcncrlter could not see that The Lake Sf. Clair was in stays 
 in time to avoid her ; but they might have avoided her if 
 they had ported their helm when hailed to do so. The TJnder- 
 tcritcr was held in fault for not porting, and The Lake St. Clair 
 for not having braced her head yards aback, and for having 
 hauled her fore-yard (/). 
 
 The wind being somewhere from S. to S.S.E., the sloop 
 Coitddutine, heading N.N.E., fell in with the cutter Sj/rin;/ 
 heading W. by S., and to leeward. It was hold that it was 
 the duty of The Coustantlne to keep out of the way, and tliat 
 the duty of 77ie Spring was to keep her course (/.•). 
 
 (e) The Annie, (1909) P. 17G ; The Asp. M. C. 9G. 
 
 I'riscilla {.supra} distinguished. (i) Wil.son v. Canada Shippiiif/ Co., 
 
 if) The Constitution, 2 Moo. P. C. The Lake Sf. Clair and The Unihr- 
 
 453. writer, 2 A])p. Cus. 389. 
 
 (f/) The L.(hi Amie, lo Jur. IS. (/■) The Sprimj, L. K. 1 A. & E. 
 
 (/() The Aimo and The Amelia, 2 99.
 
 394 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 17. A full-rigged ship, with the wind free, crossing a brig and 
 a schooner close-hauled on the same tack, was held in fault 
 for approachiag them so close that, upon the schooner going 
 about, a collision with the brig was inevitable (/). 
 
 A ship just gathering way on the port tack, after going 
 about, was held free from blame for a collision with another 
 close-hauled on the starboard tack, which had approached her 
 too near whilst in stays {>n) . 
 
 A collision occurred between the barque Sf. Jean and the 
 barque Primtecr. The >S(. Jean had the wind on the port 
 side about two points free. The Pn'rateer had the wind 
 somewhere between dead aft and three points on the star- 
 board quarter. It was held (in Ireland) that it was the duty 
 of The Privateer to keep out of the way {n), either by virtue 
 of the Regulation of 1880, corresponding to Art. 17 (a), or 
 Art. 17 (e). The case of The Singapore (o) was relied on as 
 an authority for the pro^^osition, that a vessel heading as much 
 as eight points from the wind is " close-hauled " within the 
 meaning of the regulations. In that case a laden barque was 
 heading seven points from the wind, and was held to be close- 
 haulel. It is submitted that The Singapore is an extreme 
 case, and that a vessel heading more than seven points from 
 the wind cannot be properly said to be close-hauled. 
 
 A brig was heading E. by N. on the starboard tack, close- 
 hauled, and a ship, also on the starboard tack, and said to be 
 close-hauled {i>), heading N.E. by E. half E., was to wind- 
 ward of her. Each vessel pleaded that the other, when first 
 seen, was about four points abaft her own {i.e., the com- 
 plainant's) beam. It appears to have been held that the 
 allegation of the brig was proved— that the ship was over- 
 taking the brig ; and that her duty, therefore, was to keep 
 out of her way. But the case is not satisfactory, for the 
 Court appears to have been of opinion that the ships were, in 
 fact, not within the overtaking rule, but within Art. 17 [q). 
 
 Two ships, close-hauled on opposite tacks, were crossing 
 
 [1] The Mobile, Swab. 69 ; on app. [n] The Prirafeer, 7 L. R. Ir. 105. 
 
 ibid. 127 ; this case was under a (o) L. R. 1 P. C. 378. 
 
 former Act. (j)) She had carried aw<iy her fure- 
 
 {in) The Charluttc liaabj'Brjwu, Ad. topsail shortly before the collision. 
 453. i'j) The Breadalbane, 7 P. D. 186.
 
 STEAMSHIPS MLlEriN'G — THE '* END ON " RULE. ^95 
 
 each other. The ship on the starboard tack was lield in fault Ai tide 17. 
 for not keeping out of the way when the other, being ahead 
 and to windward, coukl not bear up witliout risk of collision, 
 and could not go about because of a shoal (r). 
 
 A sloop, with the wind free, was running tlirough a narrow 
 channel against a strong tide close to the shore. Two 
 schooners, the combined length of which was equal to half 
 the breadth of the channel, were beating to windward in the 
 opposite direction. It was held that the sternniost of the 
 schooners was in fault for standing on when under the stern 
 of the leading schooner, so that when she was obliged to go 
 about she ran into the sloop, which could not avoid her 
 without going ashore (-s). , 
 
 Artici.e 18. 
 
 When' two steam voxels are meetiwj end on, or lu-arl;/ out on, Article 18. 
 
 6-0 r/.s to invoice ri-sk of eolliaio)!, each ^^Indl alter Iter cuitr.se to Two steam 
 
 starboard, .so that each may pass on, the port side of the other. vessels 
 
 ' meeting. 
 
 Ihis Article only applies to cases where vessels are meetimj end 
 
 on, or nearly end on, in such a manner as to involve ris/i of 
 
 collision, and does not apply to two vessels which must, if Ijoth 
 
 heep on their respective courses, pcc'is clear of each other. 
 
 The only ca.^es to which it does apply are ichen each of the two 
 ves-Hcls is end on, or nearly end o)i, to the of Iter ; in other words, 
 to cases in wJiich, t)y day, each vessel sees the masts of the oilier 
 in a line, or nearly in a line, with her own ; and, by night, to cases 
 in which each vessel is in such a position ax to see both the side 
 lights of the other. 
 
 It does not apply, by day, to cases in which a vessel sees another 
 ahead crossing her ou-n cour.se ; or by night, to cases where the red 
 light of one vessel is opposed to the red light of the other, or wliere 
 the green light of one vessel is opposed to the green light of the 
 other, or where a red light without a green light, or a green light 
 without a red light, is seen ahead, or where both green and red 
 lights are seen anywhere hut ahead. 
 
 This Article is almost identical with Art. 15 of the licgu- 
 
 {}■) The Ann OirofiHC, 2 Wall. .53<S. (,v) The Mark Eveline, 1(3 Wall. 
 
 Op. The Mafjyie J. Smith, IG Davis, 348. 
 319, 354.
 
 396 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 18. 
 
 lations of 1884. It contains the substance of Art. 13 of the 
 Eeo-alations of 18(53, and of au Order in Council of the 
 30th of July, 1868, explaining the meaning of "end on. 
 The interpreting order is said to have been made in conse- 
 quence of the decision in Tlic Ckopatva {t), by which the 
 port helm rule of a former Act {/() was held to apply where 
 the ships were on parallel courses green to green, each being 
 on the starboard bow of the other (.r). 
 
 As to Art. 16 overriding the steering and sailing rules, see 
 supra, p. 383. 
 
 The words " each sliall alter her course to starboard " are 
 exactly equivalent to " the helms of both shall be put to 
 port "of the Regulations of 1863 (//). The words " so that 
 each may pass on the port side of the other" appear to be 
 merely explanatory. 
 
 [1) Swab. 135. The case was 
 followed in The Arabian, 2 Stuart's 
 V -Ad. Kep. 73. 
 
 [n] 17 & IS Vict. c. 101, s. 296. 
 
 {.v) See T/ie Odessa, 4 Asp. M. C. 
 493.' 
 
 (y) The alteration in the wording 
 of the regulations was probably 
 made with a view to a possible 
 uniformity of system amongst the 
 seamen of all nations as legards 
 orders to the helm. In English 
 ships the order which sends the 
 ship's head to starboard is " port ! " 
 In France the equivalent order is 
 " tribord ! " — the literal translation 
 of which is " starboard." In Zoiidoii. 
 School Board v. Lardiivr, Times, 2flth 
 Feb. 1881, a Thames pilot was held 
 liable for a collision caused by his 
 giving the order in French, ''tii- 
 borJ !'" with the intention of sending 
 his ship's head to port. The man 
 at the helm, a Frenchman, carried 
 out the order in the French custom, 
 by putting his helm to port, and 
 thereby caused the collision. Some 
 nations, including America, Austria, 
 and Italy, adopt the English system, 
 others the French; with the Scan- 
 dinavian nations, the practice is said 
 to vary in different ships. Since 
 pilots of one nation are frequently 
 in charge of ships of another nation, 
 it is manifest that a uniform system 
 is very desirable. The apparent 
 paradox involved in the English 
 system originated with the use of 
 
 the tiller, the movements of which 
 are oppositD to those of the ship's 
 head. M'.st vessels beiug now 
 steered by a wheel, and the tiller 
 being frequently aft of the rudder - 
 head, the orders to the helm are 
 altogether anomalous. With a wheel, 
 and a tiller aft of the rudder-hedd, 
 the order to send the ship's head to 
 starboard is still "port 1 " whilst the 
 wheel, the tiller, and the ship's head 
 all move together in the same direc- 
 tiou, to starboard. It is stated that 
 in most French ships the tiller chains 
 are so rove that the wheel turns to 
 port as the ship's head goes to star- 
 board. From Sir H. Manwayring's 
 Seaman's Dictionary (164 4), it 
 appears that the existing practice 
 is at least as old as the early part of 
 the seventeenth century. Probably 
 it has been the same since rudders 
 and tillers were invented. It must 
 be remembered that, when going 
 asteru, the action of the rudder is 
 reversed, and that the order '• port I " 
 and corresponding- movement of the 
 rudder to starboard, send the ship's 
 head to port. 
 
 Another source of confusion exists 
 in the absence of a uniform system 
 of orders to the helm given by the 
 hand of the pilot or officer on the 
 bridge. In some waters, the order 
 to starboard the helm is given by 
 extending the right hand, in others 
 by extending the left.
 
 STEAMSniPS MEETING THE " END <^N " V.VLE 
 
 397 
 
 
 As to the meauiug of *' so as to involve risk of eollibion," Article 18. 
 see above, p. 323. 
 
 In the existing regulations vessels approaching each other Classification 
 
 .,-... ;• ij / \ ic • V ] u of ships into 
 
 are described as " meeting " (~), "crossing, and over- „,^.pti,',^,^ 
 taking," or being overtaken. It appears that this classification ^^^.g^^J'^jg;^""^ 
 is intended to include all eases of ships approaching or being ships. 
 approached by others. It is a cross classification, for although 
 no ship that is a '' crossing " sliip can at the same time come 
 within the rule for " meeting " ships, yet a " crossing " ship 
 may at the same time be an "overtaking" ship, and be 
 bound by Art. 24 {a). 
 
 1 ship is " crossing " another whenever the lines of theii' Ship heading 
 
 ^ ■, ■ I i ii.j-11 straitrht for 
 
 courses, being prolonged, intersect ; and not tlie less so ti.e other. 
 because one ship is heading for the midships, or some other 
 part of the hull, of the other {b). 
 
 This and the following Articles which deal with steamships Does Att. is 
 under way assume that both have way through the water, ^h/p dcaYi 
 Whether they apply at all to a steamship l}'ing dead in the the water" 
 water seems doubtful. Apart from the regulations, a vessel 
 so situated has no right to put her engines ahead, so as to 
 cross the bows of. or so as to embarrass, another obviously 
 intending to pass her on one side or the other (t). 
 
 The rule contained in Art. 18 is not identical with the Abolition of 
 "port helm" rule of former Acts, or with the older practice fl'poVt L'im " 
 of seamen mentioned in a former page ((/). The existing except in one 
 regulations limit the application of the "port helm" to one 
 case only, namely, where both the ships are steamships (r), 
 and they are proceeding in directly opposite directions on the 
 same line, or nearly so. In every other case the " poit helm" 
 rule is inapplicable, and the two ships must act as required by 
 
 (c) "Meets," in 17 & IS Vict. Seaton, 9 P. D. 1; 'jyw Columbia, 
 
 c. 1U4, s. '29(), had a wider mcaiiin'r 10 Wall. 246. 
 
 than "meeting" in the existing (i) 'J'hc (hrttnic, 01 Fed. Hc-p. -VSS. 
 
 regulations, ^ee T/ie Clfopatr(i,iiwa.h. [f] The Bristol, 11 Fed. Kep. loG. 
 
 135; see also The lojtexihle. Swab. [d) Page 3 14. As to the applica- 
 
 32, as to the application of sect. tion of tbe " port helm " rule of the 
 
 296. Merchant Shipping Act, 18o4, see 
 
 (a) See Arts. 17, 1'.), and '24. As Thr Artlnir (Inrdoii and The Inde- 
 
 to the distinction between "meet- jxtuhiicc, Lush. 270; and see cases 
 
 in"" and "crossing" ships, see cited, n. («), and p. :599, J///'/v/. 
 
 The Franconia, 2 P. D. S; Thr Tcclc- [v, 1 7 A: IS Vi.t. c. 101, s. 20G, 
 
 forloa f.astle, 3 P. D. 11: The applied to a steamship and also to a 
 
 Jireadalbane, 7 P. !> -ISU; Thr sailing ship : T/fe yi//M, Lush. ;';.').
 
 398 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 18. 
 
 Case of 
 steamship 
 making over 
 the ground 
 a course 
 clifFerent from 
 the direction 
 of her head. 
 
 Both ships 
 mu!-t port ; 
 neither need 
 slacken after 
 risk is deter- 
 mined. 
 
 the particular Article applicable to the case. There is reason 
 to think that the important alteration of the law effected by 
 the Eegulations of 1863, and continued by those of 1880, has 
 not produced a corresponding change in the practice of sea- 
 men. The proper application of the " port helm " rule in 
 its existing shape requires the careful attention of seamen. 
 Its indiscriminate application has been a fruitful source of 
 collision. 
 
 It appears from the explanatory part of Art. 18 that the 
 application of that Article is determined, not by the direc- 
 tions in which two ships are approaching each other over the 
 ground, but by the directions in which their heads are 
 pointing. The case of a steamship crossing a tideway, of a 
 vessel dropping up stern foremost with the tide and guiding 
 herself with her helm and anchor ( /'), or of a tug with a 
 heavy ship in tow making considerable lee-way, so that she 
 is approaching another vessel upon a course over the ground 
 directly opposite to that of the other, but in a direction 
 different from that in which her head is pointing, does not 
 seem to be expressly provided for. It will be noticed that 
 under the existing regulations there is no " end on " rule for 
 sailing ships, as there was under the Regulations (Art. 11) 
 of 1863. 
 
 "Altering her course to starboard" under Art. 18 means 
 altering sufficiently to take her clear if the other ship does 
 not starboard (f/). The law is that both ships are to alter 
 their courses to starboard, and the neglect by one to obey the 
 law will be no excuse to the other, although there would have 
 been no collision if one had ported {//). Where a ship is in a 
 position to which Art. 18 applies, and she alters her course 
 sufficiently to determine the risk of collision, she is not neces- 
 sarily required at the same time to slacken her speed under 
 Art. 23 (/), There is, however, some obscurity as to tlie 
 circumstances under which Art. 23 applies. It has been held 
 
 ( f) As in The S»n/r»a, mentioned 
 arguendo in The George Arkle, Lush. 
 382. 
 
 {g) The Jesmond and The Earl of 
 Elgin, L. R. 4 P. C. 1. 
 
 \h) See The America, 2 Otto, 432 ; 
 The Black Prince, infra; Little v. 
 
 Burns, 9 Ct. of Sess. Cas. 4th ser. 118; 
 The Man/ C. Elphicke, 115 Fed. Rep. 
 37.5. 
 
 (j) The Earl of Elgin, supra ; 
 Wilson V. Ciirrie, (1894) App. Cas. 
 UG.
 
 STEAMSHIPS MEKTINTt — THE '* END OX " RULE. 399 
 
 to apply where there will be risk of collision if the vessels Article 18. 
 continue to approach each other (X). 
 
 If two steamships sight each other nearly right ahead, but 
 so that each is a little on the starboard bow of the other, the 
 law requires each to put her helm to port, although a collision 
 would be avoided if each were to starboard, and that appears 
 to be the safer and more convenient course. " It is essential 
 that the law should be universally observed. If one obeys 
 and the other does not, the utmost confusion and danger Avill 
 be introduced. A vessel which obeys the law has a ri"'ht to 
 trust that the vessel which she meets . . . will obey it too, 
 and she acts accordingly " (/). 
 
 The meaning of " nearly end on " has not been exactly What is 
 defined. Vessels upon parallel and opposite courses, each "",^'y'y"<J 
 with the other nearly right ahead, and vessels upon courses 
 making with each other an angle of two, or even three, points, 
 were, before the interpretation of the term by Order in 
 Council of the 30th July, 1868, held to be meeting "nearly 
 end on." But in a case where the courses of the two ships 
 were within a point of being directly opposite (W.N.W. and 
 S.E. by E.) the Privy Council decided that the ships were 
 "crossing," and not "meeting" {ui). In a case subsequent 
 to the Order in Council, vessels upon courses within oue-aud- 
 a-half points of being directly opposite (S.S.W. and N.E. 
 ^ N.) were held to be not end on (;/). In another case (1870), 
 two steamships going {scmhie) N.N.W. and S.E. were held to 
 be "nearly end on " {o). And in a Scotch case, two vessels 
 proceeding up and down the Clyde were held to be end on, 
 each being about half a point on the starboard bow of the 
 other [p). 
 
 It would seem that Art. 1(S cannot apply to two sliips 
 rounding in opposite directions a promontory or a bond in a 
 
 (/t) See per Brett, M. R., The (m) The Coiistifiitioii, 2 Moo. V. C. 
 
 Utri/l, 9 P. 1). V.il, 141, iiifrn, 453. yiitter in T/ic Mi/rt/e, U Fed. 
 
 p. 410 ; and see supra, p. 324. Rep. 770- 
 
 (/) I'er Lord Kiiigsdown in 77ic (w) T/ie Itunn and The Aia, 2 Asp. 
 
 Araxen and The Black Trince, 15 M. (J. 18_'. 
 
 Moo. P. C. 122; and see The {u) The Jcsmond and The Juirl of 
 
 Cleopatra, Swab. 135. These cases El(jin, L. R. 4 P. C. 1. 
 
 were under 17 & 18 Vict. e. 104, [/j) Lath v. Bitmx, The Owl and 
 
 8. 29G. See also Lilllc v. Bunm, ubi The Ariadne, 9 Ct. of Sess. (Ja.s. 
 
 mpra. 4th ser. U.S.
 
 400 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 18. 
 
 winding channel, and in such a position that the red light of 
 one is opposed to the green of the other. But it is difficult 
 to say how, in such a case, the ships are required to pass each 
 other, and by what Article of tlie regulations they are 
 governed. It seems that the " crossing " rule does not apply 
 them {)'). 
 
 It should be noticed that there is no " end on " rule in 
 force in the River Thames. The corresponding Article of 
 the Thames rules has a wider application than the Article 
 under consideration (s). 
 
 Article 19. 
 
 Two st«am 
 
 vessels 
 
 crossiiiaf. 
 
 Overtaking 
 ship ; defini- 
 tion. 
 
 Article 19. 
 
 Wlirti ttro sffrim rcsxc/t^ air crornDfj, -so as to invohr rish of 
 coUmO)!, flic rcHsel irliicli lias the other on her oini startioard 
 side shall heep out of the icay of the other. 
 
 This Article corresponds with Art. 16 of the Eegulations 
 of 18S4, from which it differs only verbally. 
 
 Vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, " if at 
 any time two vessels, not end on, are seen, keeping the courses 
 to be expected with regard to them respectively, to be likely 
 to arrive at the same point at or nearly at the same moment 
 . . . but they are not so crossing if the course which is 
 reasonably to be attributed to either vessel would keep her 
 clear of the other" (;'). 
 
 As to the moaning of " risk of collision," see above, p. 323 ; 
 as to the distinction between ships " meeting," " crossing," 
 and " overtaking," p. 435 ; as to how a ship is to " keep out 
 of the way," pp. 385, 415 ; as to tlie duty of the ship, whicli 
 has the other on her port side, to keep her course, p. 409 ; 
 and as to Art. 10 overriding the steering and sailing rules, 
 p. 383. 
 
 A vessel astern, or on tlie quarter of, another, and over- 
 taking her, is an '' overtaking" vessel within the meaning of 
 Art. 24, and not a " crossing " vessel within Art. 19; she 
 
 (;•) See TJie Vrloc'Uy, L. R. ;5 P. C. [t) Fn- Sir Francis Jetine in The 
 
 44; infra, pp. 4 02 .s«y. JW,«/^ (18^7) A. C. 5.j2 at p. 536; 
 
 (a) See cases under Thames rules, approved in llie Albano, (1907) A. C. 
 
 infra, pp. 402 seq. 193.
 
 STEAMSHIPS CROSSING. 401 
 
 must therefore keep out of the way, whatever the position of Article 19. 
 the other may be, whether on her own port or starboard side. 
 This was so under the Reguhitions of 1884 (n), and the 
 definition of an " overtaking " vessel in the existing regula- 
 tions (Art. 24) removes any doubt which formerly existed 
 upon the point. On the other hand, a vessel coming up with 
 another from any direction less than two points abaft the 
 beam of the latter is " crossing " and not " overtaking " her, 
 and must comply with Art. 19 (x). 
 
 The words " shall keep out of the way " do not prevent 
 the application of Art. 28. 
 
 Art. 19 must be read with Art. 24. The principle of 
 Art. 24 is " once an overtaking ship, always an overtaking 
 ship " ; in other words, if a ship once comes within the 
 obligation of Art. 24 — if she is overtaking another ship with 
 risk of collision — it is her duty under that Article to keep 
 clear of the ship ahead, not only so long as she is two points 
 or less abaft her beam, but after she di-aws up to her, so that, 
 if she were not going faster than the other, she would be 
 crossing her within the meaning of Art. 19. For the purj)ose 
 of determining whether or no Art. 19 applies, the relative 
 speed of the two ships is immaterial. 
 
 " Steam vessel " is defined by the preliminary Article 
 {.supra, p. 333). A tug or other steam vessel with a ship in 
 tow must comply with Art. 19, as with the other steering or 
 sailing rules {//) . 
 
 Art. 19 does not override, but must be read together with, 
 Art. 25 (s). In a winding river, the relative headings of two 
 vessels may be such that they would be " crossing so as to 
 involve risk of collision " if they were in the open sea, but, 
 by reason of Art. 25, which requires them to navigate on the 
 starboard side of the channel, the " crossing " rule of Ai't. 19 
 is not applicable, and the vessel which has the other on her 
 starboard side must keep clear of the latter by keeping on the 
 
 (m) The Sealnv, 9 P. D. 1, infra, {y) See supra, p. 167. 
 
 p. 439 ; The }Micrc, (1893) P. 217. (s) The Levern.gton, 11 P. D. 117 ; 
 
 (x) See The Main, 11 P. D. 132; dist. The Fekin, (1897) App. Cas. 
 
 The Iinhro, 14 P. D. 73, 77 ; both 532 ; also The Ashton, (1905) P. 21. 
 cases under the Regulations of 1884. 
 
 M. D D
 
 402 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 19. 
 
 Application 
 of Art. 19 in 
 a winding 
 river. 
 
 starboard side of the channel, and not by crossing the course 
 of the other ship. 
 
 There have been some important decisions as to the 
 application of the " crossing " rule in winding rivers. The 
 steamship Carbon, coming up the Thames on the flood tide, 
 and rounding a point where the river turns to starboard, 
 under a port helm, saw a little on her starboard bow the 
 masthead and red lights of The Velocity, a steamship coming 
 down the river. In that part of the river it is usual for ships 
 bound down to keep near the north shore. It was held that 
 the ships were not " crossing " ships, and that Thf Cnrhon 
 was WTong in porting and attempting to pass to the north of 
 The VelocUy. It was held by the Privy Council that the 
 duty of each ship was to continue her course round the point 
 in the usual track, in which case they would have passed 
 clear {a). 
 
 The case of The Velocity was decided upon the general or 
 sea Regulations of 1863, and before any special rules for the 
 Thames were in force. According to this case, it appears 
 that in winding rivers, and channels where no special rules 
 are in force, two ships on opposite sides of a point, and 
 rounding the bend, are not always, or for that reason alone, 
 " crossing " ships. But it is not clear that this decision 
 would be followed where the "crossing" rule has been in 
 terms enacted for the regulation of navigation in a winding 
 river. In The Oceano, decided under a Thames rule, prac- 
 tically identical with the present Art. 19, a steamship 
 proceeding up the river, against an ebb tide, and in a reach 
 of which the direction is S.W., was crossing the channel 
 obliquely in order to clear a ship in her path. Whilst so 
 doing, there w^as, on her starboard side, and in the reach 
 above her, of which the direction is about W.N.W., another 
 steamship coming down. The collision occurred about the 
 meeting of the two reaches. It was held by the Court of 
 Appeal that the ships were crossing ships, and that it was the 
 duty of the vessel bound up the river to keep out of the way {h) . 
 
 {a) The Velocity, L. R. 3 P. C. 44. (1897) App. Cas. 532 ; and the ob- 
 
 See also The Cologne and The Ranger, servations of James, L. J., on The 
 
 L. R. 4 P. C. 519 ; The Esk and 'The Felociti/ in The Oceano, 3 P. D. 60. 
 iVwjY/, L. R. 3 P. G. 430 ; The Pekin, [b) The Oceano, 3 P. D. 60. See
 
 STEAMSHIPS CROSSING. 
 
 403 
 
 The Pohiu [c] raised the same question, as to the operation Article 19. 
 of the crossing rule in a winding river, and The Velocifij was 
 followed. Probably The Oeeano was considered to be 
 inapplicable, because, for the Whangpoo river, where the 
 collision occurred, no crossing rule had been expressly 
 enacted. 
 
 A steamer bound for Penarth Dock, and showing the usual 
 docking signal, was held not to be relieved from the duty of 
 keeping out of the way of another steamer which was coming 
 down Cardiff drain on her starboard bow (d). 
 
 Some difficulty has been found in the application of Art. 19 Rounding a 
 to cases, in which two steamships are approaching from P°"**- 
 different directions, and on intersecting courses, a buoy, 
 lightship, headland or otlier point, at which each must in the 
 ordinary course of navigation alter her course. It now 
 appears that Art. 19 does apply to such cases. Thus in 
 the case of T/ie Leverington (e), where The Rapid, which was 
 proceeding down the entrance channel to Roath Basin, 
 having The Leverington, which was proceeding up Cardiff 
 drain, on her port bow, was held at fault for not keeping her 
 course and speed, and The Leverington was held to be under 
 the correlative duty of keeping out of the way. The same 
 principle was adopted in The Asliton {f), and the crossing 
 rule was held to apply in the case of two vessels, which were 
 approaching Clee Ness Buoy, the one being on a voyage to 
 and the other on a voyage from Grimsby. 
 
 Where two vessels are approaching a pilot cutter, with a 
 view to picking up a pilot, there is a duty upon that vessel 
 which has the other on her starboard side to keep out of 
 the way {g). 
 
 The crossing rule does not apply as between vessels Vessels 
 navigating in a river and vessels leaving docks, situated at 
 
 leaving dock. 
 
 also as to the duty of two ships 
 rounding a bend in a river, one 
 outside the other, The Bywell Castle, 
 4 P. D. 219. 
 
 [c] (1«97) App. Cas. 532; followed 
 in The Vicion/ and The I'lymothian, 
 168 U. S. Rep. 410; The L. C. 
 Waldo, 100 Fed. Rep. 502. 
 
 (d) The Si. Audnes, 5 Asp. M. C. 
 552; cp. 7'hf: Winstanley, (lr>ll(i) P. 
 297. 
 
 (e) The Lnm-ingfon, 11 P. D. 117; 
 Tht Chittaging, (1901) A. C. 5:»7 ; 
 dist. The I'ekm, aiipyi ; but see The 
 Red Crns^, 10 Asp. M. C. 521. 
 
 (/) (1905) P. 21. 
 
 {(/) The Ada, The Sappho, (1873) 
 2 Asp. M. C. 4 ; The Albano, (luOT) 
 A. C. 193; The Ronuoke, (1908) P. 
 231. As to correlative duty to keep 
 course and speed, aee under Art. 21, 
 p. 409. 
 
 DU2
 
 404 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 19. the river side. Thus there was held to be no duty under 
 Art. 19 upon a tug and tow, proceeding down the Mersey 
 and having the Prince's Dock entrance on her starboard side, 
 to keep out of the way of a vessel emerging from that 
 
 Dock(/0. 
 
 In America, under very similar circumstances, a vessel was 
 held at fault for not keeping out of the way under Art. 14 of 
 the Ilegulations of lb 63 {i). This decision, however, seems 
 to be inconsistent with other American decisions (/.•). 
 
 For cases relating to the duty of a merchantman to keep 
 out of the way of a fleet of warships, see under Art. 27, p. 458. 
 
 Article 20. 
 
 Article 20. 
 
 Where a sfeain vessel and a sailing vessel are proceeding in 
 Sailing ship" such directions as to invoke risk of collision, the steam vessel shall 
 ^nder'steam ^'^^P ^"^ of tlic nxiij of the sailing vessel. 
 
 This Article corresponds with Art. IT of the Regulations 
 of 1884, from which it differs only verbally. 
 
 As to " risk of collision," see above, pp. 323 seq. ; as to 
 how to " keep out of the way," pp. 385, 414 ; as to the duty 
 of the sailing ship to keep her course, see Art. 21 ; and as to 
 Art. 16 overriding the steering and sailing rules, see p. 383. 
 
 A steamship hove-to under canvas, or steaming head to 
 sea, but practically stationary, would probably be held to be 
 " proceeding " (/) ; also a sailing ship in a flat calm (w)- 
 
 The fact that a steam trawler is lying with engines 
 stopped, and more or less stationary in the water, will not 
 excuse her from performing a duty to keep out of the way 
 under this Article («). 
 
 What is 
 " proceed - 
 
 Stationary 
 vessel. 
 
 [h) ThcSnnUcjht, (1904) P. 100. 
 
 (i) The Cayuga, 14 Wall. 270. As 
 to thi.s ease, see The Non Pareille, 33 
 Fed. Rep. 524; The Commodore Jones, 
 25 Fed. Rep. 506, and see The Seaton, 
 9 P. D. 1. 
 
 {k) See The Oceamm, 5 Bened. 545 ; 
 The Governor, Abbot, Ad. 108; The 
 Rhode Idavd, Olcott, 505 ; 1 Blatchf. 
 363. 
 
 {I) See The Jennie S. Barker, 3 
 Asp. M. C. 42 ; The Sunmjside, 1 
 Otto, 208 ; The Bijron, supra, p. 392. 
 Aliter, where encumbered while haul- 
 iiigtrawl: The Gladys, fl910) P. 13. 
 
 [m) The Colorado, 59 Fed. Rep. 
 
 300. 
 194. 
 
 The Broomjield, 10 Asp. M. C. 
 The trawler was not fishing.
 
 STEAMSHIP MUST KEEP OUT OF WAY OF SAILING SHIP. 'iOo 
 
 The reason of the rule of Art. 20 is said to be that a steam- Article 20. 
 ship is more completely under command than a sailing ship. Reason of the 
 She can go ahead in the teeth of the wind, and she can stop steamship 
 or go astern, as she pleases (o). This, however, is true only must keep 
 
 . . . . , . out of the 
 
 to a limited extent in the case of a tug with a ship in tow ; way. 
 and in approaching her the other ship must take her encum- 
 bered condition into consideration (p). In America a schooner 
 was held in fault for not holding herself in stays to allow a 
 tug with a fleet of barges in tow to pass (y). But the tug is 
 a steamship within the meaning of Art. 20 ; and must comply 
 with that Article, so far as she can (r). In narrow waters it 
 is frequently dangerous for a long and heavy steamship to 
 keep out of the way, where the sailing ship can do so without 
 difficulty. But, if it is possible, the law requires the steam- 
 ship to keep out of the way. 
 
 The duty of the steamship under Art. 20 is the same, Duty of a 
 
 whether the sailing: ship is close-hauled or free, and whether •'steamship 
 
 . . meeting, 
 she is on the port or starboard tack. If the steamship is crossinp:. and 
 
 crossing the course of the sailing ship, and at the same time gaain*^ ship* 
 
 overtaking her, she is required to keep out of the way by 
 
 Art. 24 as well as by Art. 20. If she is meeting the sailing 
 
 ship end on, or nearly end on, she is not required by the 
 
 regulations to pass on one side rather than the other ; she 
 
 may " keep out of the way," under Art. 20, as she thinks 
 
 best. If she is being overtaken by the sailing ship, by 
 
 Arts. 24 and 22 she is required to keep her com'se and 
 
 speed (.s). 
 
 The difference between the rule contained in Art. 20 and The old rule 
 the old rule of " port helm " should be observed. In the P^," P,"^"* 
 case of a sailing ship with the wind free meeting a steamship 
 end on, her duty is to keep her course, and not, as has been 
 supposed, to put her helm to port (i). 
 
 The obligation which Art. 20 throws upon a steamship in Heavy obli- 
 every case where there is risk of collision with a sailing ship fteamsliips 
 
 (o) The Arthur Gordon and 77;'? (s) Under the Regulations of 1863, 
 
 Independence, Lush. 270. there was a doubt as to the duty of 
 
 {p) The Arthur Gordon, supra ; The a steamship being overtaken by a 
 
 Gala a,Tid The Zenohia, Holt, 112. sailing ship. See The PliUntd.rr, 3 
 
 {q) The W. C. Redfield, 4 Bened. Asp. M. C. 512. 
 
 227. (/) The Boxgainville and Th, Juf. 
 
 (r) See nupra, p. 167. C Stevenson, L. R. 5 P. C. 31C.
 
 406 THE KEGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 20. is heavy. " It is the duty of a steamer where there is risk of 
 collision, whatever may be the conduct of the sailing vessel, 
 to do everything in her power that can be done, consistently 
 with her own safety, in order to avoid collision " («). At the 
 same time, " When a steamer is condemned for having omitted 
 to do something which she ought to have done, it seems just 
 to require proof of three things : first, that the thing omitted 
 to be done was clearly in the power of -the steamer to do ; 
 secondly, that, if done, it would in all probability have pre- 
 vented collision ; and, thirdly, that it was an act which would 
 have occurred to any officer of competent skill and experience 
 in command of the steamer " {x). It follows from this that 
 the mere fact that a ship required to keep out of the way 
 has been in collision is not evidence of negligence on her 
 part(y). 
 
 The duty of the steamship has been thus defined by the 
 Supreme Court of the United States : " The rules require, 
 when a steamship and sailing vessel are approaching from 
 opposite directions or on intersecting lines, that the steamship, 
 from the moment the sailing vessel is seen, shall watch with 
 the highest diligence her course and movements, so as to be 
 able to adopt such timely measures of precaution as wiU 
 necessarily prevent the two boats coming in contact " (s). 
 And of a tug ^he fact of a tug having a heavy ship in tow, and a strong 
 ship in tow. head wind against her, does not justify the tug in departing 
 from Art, 20, and neglecting to keep out of the way of a 
 sailing ship {a). A steamship of l,'4b6 tons was held in fault 
 for not keeping out of the way, although she had in tow a 
 disabled vessel of 1,495 tons, with a long scope of tow-rope, 
 so that the towage was a service of difficulty (b) . But very 
 exceptional circumstances may throw the obligation of 
 keeping out of the way upon the sailing ship. Thus a 
 sailing ship running ten or twelve knots before a strong 
 wind, and crossing the course of a tug going two or three 
 
 («) Per Westbury, C, in Inman v. {z) The Carroll, 8 WaU. 302, 306 ; 
 
 Heck, The City of Antwerp and The The Lmille,lbVf&l\.&16. The Falcon, 
 
 Friedrich, L. R. 2 P. C. 25, 30, 34. 19 Wall. 75, is to the same effect. 
 
 {x) Per Westbuiy, C, ibid. («) The Warrior, L. R. 3 A. & E. 
 
 [y) In America a different view as 553. 
 
 to the burden of proof seems to be {b) 'Thi- American and The Syria, 
 
 taken. See The R. R. Kirkland, 48 L. R. 6 P. C. 127. 
 Fed. Rep. 760 ; and supra, p. 32.
 
 STEAMSHIP MUST KEEP OUT OF WAY OF SAILING SHIP. "^^"^ 
 
 knots with a long aud heavy fleet of barges in tow, has, in ^''^^'^^^ ^^- 
 America, been held in fault for not keeping out of the way ; 
 probably upon the ground that it was not possible for the tug 
 alone to avoid collision (r). 
 
 A steam trawler, as such, will not be held excused for Duty of 
 failure to eoraidy with this Article ; and as a steamship she trawler 
 will be held subject to all rules appliciible to such a vessel. ^J^.^fJig'"' 
 She can only be held excused for non-compliance with these 
 rules provided that either (1) she was powerless by reason of 
 her trawl to take action ; or (2) she used to the best of her 
 ability such power as she possessed. If either of these 
 conditions be complied with, it appears that such "special 
 cii'cumstanees " will be deemed to have arisen as to justify a 
 departure from the rules under Art. 27 {d). 
 
 Thus in T/ic Tiveedsdale (e), a steamship with trawl down 
 and making one or one and a half knots through the water 
 was held excused for not taking steps till the last moment to 
 keep out of the way of a saiHng ship. On the other hand a 
 trawler, wdiich with her trawl in was proceeding with her 
 engines at full speed (,/), and a trawler, which with her trawl 
 down was making two and a half to three knots, were both 
 held in fault for not taking steps to keep out of the way of 
 sailing vessels ((f/). It may be noted that the exhihition of 
 trawier lights does not in itself justify non-compUance with 
 this Article {h). 
 
 The duty of a sailing vessel approaching a steam trawler 
 is by no means clear. Under the Order in Council which 
 governed trawler lights until the present Art. H was promul- 
 gated, a steam trawler was justified, wlien at work, in 
 showing either the ordinary lights of a steamship under way 
 or else certain extraordinary lights indicating the nature of 
 her employment. Where the trawler was exhibiting the extra- 
 ordinary Hghts, it was held that there was a duty upon a 
 
 Ic) The Itose C'ulkin, 52 Fed. Rep. .statute than of Art. 27. See p. 450, 
 
 328 • The A. I'. Cmnmcr, 8 Fed. Rep. infra, and The Gladys, (1910) P. 13. 
 523.' The Howard Carroll, 41 Fed. (e) nUe supra. 
 
 Rep. 159, Hhows the limit of this (_/) The Upton Castle, (1906) P. 
 
 indulirence to the tufj. 14'. , ,, ,,„„„,,, , 
 
 (d)The Taeedsdale, 14 P. D. 164 {g) The Craif/ellachie, {VM9) 1 . I. 
 
 at p. 169. PoHsibly the trawler is (/') The Upton Castle, vide supra. 
 
 exempt by vii-tue rather of the
 
 408 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 20. 
 
 Sailing 
 trawler at 
 work. 
 
 Duty of the 
 sailing ship. 
 
 sailing ship approaching to keep out of her way {i). Where, 
 on the other hand, the trawler was exhibiting the ordinary 
 underway lights, it was held that sailing ships might regard 
 this as an intimation that the trawler was capable of acting 
 " as the regulations require an unencumbered vessel to 
 act"(i). 
 
 Under the present Art. 9 no option is given to those in 
 charge of a trawler, engaged in trawling, as to the lights or 
 signals to be exhibited in such circumstances. A vessel 
 approaching has consequently no indication as to the capacity 
 for complying with the regulations, which the trawler deems 
 herself to possess. 
 
 In the circumstances it is submitted, that a sailing ship, 
 although a steamship exhibiting trawler lights may at times 
 be fully capable of keeping out of her way {k), will be justified 
 as a rule in keeping out of the way of all steamships exhibiting 
 such lights. 
 
 A sailing trawler at work would probably be held to be 
 a "sailing vessel" within Art. 17; although in Art. 26 she 
 is distinguished from a " sailing vessel." There can be no 
 doubt that, either by virtue of Art. 17 or by the rules of 
 ordinary seamanship, a steam vessel must keep out of the 
 way of a sailing trawler. 
 
 The duty of the sailing vessel is to keep the com-se upon 
 which she was when the other vessel was sighted ; but where 
 a sailing ship, when at a distance of two miles fi'om the 
 steamship, altered her helm slightly, it was held that she 
 was not therefore in fault for the collision (/). The mere 
 fact that a steamer is taking no 'step to keep out of the way 
 wall not cast upon the sailing ship the duty of manoeuvring, 
 for the steamer is able to manoeuvre and keep out of the way 
 even when the sailing ship is very close to her {m). But in 
 the Thames, in a case where it was unsafe and impracticable 
 for a steamer to keep out of the way of a sailing barge, and 
 the steamer gave the signal prescribed by r. 21 of the 
 
 (i) Per Butt, J., in The Tweeds- 
 dale, vide supra at p. 171. 
 
 (^■) The Upton Castle, vide supra. 
 
 {I) The Norma, 3 Asp. M. C. -272. 
 {m) The Highgate, 6 Asp. M. C. 
 512.
 
 STEAMSHIP MUST KEEP OUT OF WAY OF SAILING SHIP. 409 
 
 * 
 
 Thames Byelaws, the barge was held to blame for not Article 20. 
 keeping out of the way (a). 
 
 A sailing ship in a fog, being aware of the proximity of 
 a steamship under way, will not be held free from blame if 
 she simply keeps on her course and does nothing. It is her 
 duty to be on the alert, with her people stationed at the 
 sheets and braces ready to let them fly and haul the yards, if 
 necessary, so as to assist the helm in case the steamship 
 comes into view at so short a distance that a collision can be 
 avoided only by action on the part of the sailing ship (o). 
 
 A sailing ship turning to windward in the Thames went Cases 
 about when she got to the edge of the tide without giving ^^^^^^oo*'"^ 
 any notice to a steamship astern of her. The steamship was 
 held solely in fault for a collision which followed {p). 
 
 A barque, rounding-to before coming to an anchor, was 
 held not to be in fault for a collision with a steamship, 
 although the steamship alleged that she was baffled by the 
 rapid change of the barque's lights, and that the collision 
 was caused by the barque's departure from the rule requiring 
 her to keep her course (q). But a steamship rounding-to in 
 the Clyde was held in fault for not warning a ship astern of 
 her intention to bring up (r). 
 
 But a sailing ship must not go about at an improper time 
 or place so as to embarrass the steamship (s). 
 
 Article 21. 
 Where by any of them rules one of two vessels is to keep otit of Article 21. 
 
 the nriy, the other shall keep her course and speed. 
 
 Note. — When in consequence of thick weather or other 
 causes, such vessel finds herself so close that collision cannot he 
 avoided by the action of the giving-umy vessel alone, she also shall 
 
 (w) The Longnewton, 6 Asp. M. C. (>•) The Queen Victoria, 7 Asp. 
 
 302. M. G. 9. 
 
 (o) The Zadok, 9 P. D. lU, 118. (,v) The General Lee, 19 L. T. 750 
 
 [p) The Palatine, 1 Asp. M. C. (IriHh case) ; The Fo/omac, S Wall. 
 
 468. 590 ; The Mary Aim, 1 1 Fed. Rep. 
 
 {q) The Monsoon v. The Neptune, 336 ; and see infra, pp. 41G, 488, as 
 
 2 Mar. Law Gas. O. S. 289 ; Holt, tu a sailing ship boating out her 
 
 186. tack.
 
 410 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 21. take such action as irill bed aid to avert collision. [8ee Arts. 27 
 aial 29.) 
 
 This Article corresponds with Art. 22 of the Regulations 
 of 1884 ; but there is a notable alteration. The words " and 
 speed " are new. The note is also new, but so far as it only 
 calls attention to the subsequent Arts. 27 and 29, it makes 
 no alteration in the law. Whether the effect of the words 
 " take such action as will best aid to avert collision " is 
 limited by the reference to those Articles is not clear. 
 
 The regulations which require one of two vessels to keep 
 out of the way are Arts. 17, 19, and 20, These Articles are 
 supplemented by, and must be read together with Art. 21. 
 Art. 16 overrides all the steering and sailing rules including 
 Art. 21 {supra, p. 383). 
 
 Art. 21, so far as it requires a sailing ship to keep her 
 speed, appears to be superfluous, since without altering her 
 course (/) she could hardly alter her speed. Setting or 
 shortening canvas, whilst there is risk of collision, might 
 possibly be held to be an infringement of the Article. But 
 with reference to steamships, the words " and speed " make 
 an important alteration in the law («) when read together 
 with the existing Art. 23. Under the Regulations of 
 1884 {x), a steamship approaching another with risk of 
 collision was required to slacken her speed, or to stop and 
 reverse her engines ; under the present regulations. Arts. 2 1 
 and 23, being mutually exclusive of each other, cannot apply 
 to the same ship at the same time ; and a ship, whose duty it 
 is to keep her course, is under no obligation to slacken 
 her speed or to stop and reverse under Art. 23. The 
 obligation upon her, under the present regulations, is to 
 " keep her com'se and speed." This does not mean that, 
 after the Article has come into operation, she must make no 
 
 [t) The decisions show that the 
 word applies to a ship that is by the 
 wind. 
 
 [u) It was doubtful under the 
 Regulations of 1884 whether a ship 
 required to keep her course (Art. 22) 
 was at liberty to alter her speed. In 
 The Beryl, 9 P. D. 4, Brett, M. R., 
 said that the rule had nothing to do 
 with speed ; and in The Levering ton, 
 
 11 P. D. 117, the ship required to 
 keep her course " went on faster," 
 and was not held in fault. On the 
 other hand, in American cases, The 
 Britannia, 34 Fed. Rep. 54t) ; 46 
 Davis, 130 ; The Norge, 55 Fed. Rep. 
 347, tnfra, p. 417 ; The Nutmeg State, 
 1)2 Fed. Rep. S47, the contrary view 
 seems to have been taken. 
 
 {x) Art. 18 of those regulations.
 
 KEEP HER COURSE. ^^^ 
 
 alteration either iu compass course or in the mode in which ^ticie 21. 
 her eno-ines are being worked. " Course and speed " in this Meaning of 
 Article" " mean course and speed in following the nautical '^^^Jf? ^""^ 
 manoeuvre in which, to the knowledge of the other vessel, 
 the vessel is at the time engaged "(y). Thus where two 
 steamships were each making for a pilot cutter to pick up a 
 pilot, it was held that the vessel upon whom the duty lay to 
 keep her course and speed was justified in slowing down in 
 order to follow the nautical manoeuvre in which she was, to 
 the knowledge of the other vessel, engaged, that is to say, 
 to pick up the pilot (2). Similarly it has been held in a 
 winding river that the direction to " keep her course " does 
 not mean that the ship is to continue going ahead in the 
 direction in which her head happens for the moment to be 
 pointing, without regard to other circumstances, but that she 
 is to continue the course she would pursue if the other vessel 
 were not in sight {a). Thus, a vessel rounding a point in a 
 river, and approaching another under circumstances which 
 require her to keep her course under Art. 21, must continue 
 her course round the point in the usual track (b). 
 
 The rule requiring a ship to keep her course and speed Art. 21 must 
 must be observed strictly (c) . So long as there is a possibility observed?" 
 of the other ship clearing her, she must stand on. Thus 
 Sir James Hannen refused to find a sailing ship to blame 
 for taking no step, until the last moment, to avoid collision 
 with a steamer which she saw was taking no measures to 
 keep out of the way : " The guide of the steamer's action is 
 the presumption that the sailing vessel will keep her 
 com-se" (d). With reference to the same rule under a 
 previous Act, Dr. Lushington said :— " I wholly deny that 
 danger would be averted, or that infinitely greater danger 
 would not occur, if a vessel close-hauled on the larboard tack, 
 
 (y) Per Alverstone, C. J., The and The Morel L. R. 3 P. C. 436 ; 
 
 Roanoke, (1 908) P. 23 1 , at p. 239. The Cologne and 1 he A««i/r;; L. li 4 
 
 Iz) The Roanoke, supra; of. The P. C. 519. See also J he John 
 
 Aureole, lOS Fed. Rep. G99. ^7('":>„ o - A.« M O 
 
 («) The Velocity, L. R. 3 P. C. 44. {c) The Saragassa, i Asp. M. O. 
 
 In The Banshee, 6 Asp. M. C. 221, 289. „,.,.. -m n 
 
 different opinions upon this point [d] I he Highgaie, 6 Asp. M. O. 
 
 were expressed by members of the 512. supra, p. 408; The Ne,r I oik, 
 
 Court of Appeal. S2 Fed. Rep. 819. 
 {b) The Velocity, supra; The Esk
 
 circum- 
 stances. 
 
 412 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 21. qq descrying a steamer, were to take upon herself to deviate 
 from her course for the purpose of getting out of the way ; 
 because I am of opinion that hy so doing it would lead to 
 the chance of infinitely more collisions than at present" (e). 
 The Supreme Court of the United States is equally strict in 
 its interpretation of the rule, and for the same reasons. " The 
 negligence of one (ship) is liable to baffle the vigilance of the 
 other ; and if one of the vessels, under such circumstances, 
 follows the rule, and the other omits to do so, or violates it, 
 a collision is almost certain to follow " ( /'). 
 But subject to But, like the other steeriug and sailing rules. Art. '21 is 
 of^sp3*'°'' subject to the exception (Art. 27) of special circumstances. 
 Thus, a ferry-boat just entering her dock in New York 
 harbour is not required to keep her speed to the danger of 
 herself and her passengers {(/). A ship that was being over- 
 taken stopped to allow a third ship to cross her bows, and 
 then went ahead. She was held to be free from fault (h) . 
 
 A tug(/), with craft in tow, was being overtaken by 
 another tug and tow. The former had to alter her course to 
 avoid an approaching steamship, and before doing so, whistled 
 and got an answering whistle from the steamship; both 
 which whistles the overtaking tug might have heard. The 
 overtaking -tow collided with the tow ahead. The overtaking 
 tug was held alone in fault. 
 
 It has been held by the Privy Council that "if a ship 
 bound to keep her course undertakes to justify her departure 
 from that rule, she takes upon herself the obligation of 
 showing both that her departure was, at the time it took 
 place, necessary in order to avoid immediate danger, and 
 also that the course adopted by her was reasonably calculated 
 to avoid that danger " {k) ; and the alteration must be no 
 
 {e) The Vivid, 7 Not. of Cas. 127 : York Ferry Co., 68 Fed. Rep. 507. 
 
 The Immaganda Sara CTasiM«, 7 Not. ha The Mesaba, 111 Fed. Rep. 
 
 of Cas. 582 : The Test, 5 Not. of Cas. 215. 
 
 276. [i) The Whiteash and The Winnie, 
 
 (/) New York and Liverpool U. S. 64 Fed. Rep. 893. 
 
 Hail. Co. V. Riimball, 21 How. 372, (;;.) xhe Ayra v. The Elizabeth 
 
 384 ; Belden v Chase, 150 U. S. Rep. Jenkins, L. R. 1 P. C. 501 ; and see 
 
 674 ; The Britannia, 46 Davis 130. ^he observations of Dr. Lushington 
 
 [g) Walsh v. Brooklyn . and New in The Test, ubi supra.
 
 KEEP HER COURSE. 
 
 413 
 
 more than is necessary (/). There are decisions of the Article 21. 
 Supreme Court of the United States to the same effect (m) . 
 
 This rule is perhaps the most difficult of all the regulations 
 for seamen to adhere to. The stringency with which it is 
 applied by the Courts makes it necessary for an officer to take 
 his ship into close proximity to another, where it may appear 
 that risk of collision would be at once determined by directing 
 her course away from the other ship. On the one hand is 
 the law which says that a ship must not keep her course after 
 it becomes manifest that she can, by altering hor course, avoid 
 collision (n) ; on the other hand is the arbitrary enactment 
 which throws upon her the burden of proving that her altera- 
 tion of course was made at and not before the necessary 
 moment (o). To determine that moment is one of the most 
 difficult tasks imposed upon the seaman by the law ; to define 
 it in terras is impossible, and the Legislature makes no 
 attempt to do so. To stand on as long as it is possible to do 
 80 without immediate and manifest danger seems to be what 
 the Courts require. By a judge of the Supreme Court in 
 America, it was said that a vessel " will not be held in fault 
 for maintaining her course and speed, so long as it is possible 
 for the other to avoid her .... at least, in the absence of 
 some distinct intimation that she is about to fail in her 
 duty "(;;). 
 
 In the case of a sailing ship, A., (;lose-hauled on the port 
 tack, approaching another, B., having the wind free on the 
 starboard tack within the crossing rule, unless there are 
 exceptional circumstances, and it is certain that B. will not 
 keep out of the way, A. has no choice but to stand on (q). 
 
 Where the vessel required to keep her course is hove-to, How a ship 
 
 it appears to be the duty of those on board to fill on her and "keep her 
 
 course" ; 
 
 [l) The Saraffossa, 7 Asp. M. C. 289. 
 
 (;«) Tfie Scotia, 14 Wall. 170 ; T/i^ 
 Potomac, 8 Wall. 590. 
 
 (w) T/ic Underwriter, 3 Asp. M. C. 
 361 ; The Itosa/ie, 5 P. D. 215 ; The 
 Sunnyside, I Otto, 208 ; The City of 
 Hnriford, 7 Bened. 350. 
 
 {o) Sco The JlrKXc/lesville, Ship. 
 Gaz., 23rd Nov. 1907. 
 
 (;;) Cf. The Ranza, Ship. Gaz., 
 I3th Deo. 1898 ; The Omen, in Ct. 
 
 App., 23rd Jan. 1900; The Albnno, 
 (1907) A. C. 193; The Delmrore, 54 
 Davis, 459 ; The Britannia, 4 6 Davis 
 130 ; The New York, 82 Fod. 
 Rep. 819. 
 
 [q) See The Jiyfoged Christiansen 
 and The jn/llam Frederick, 4 App. 
 Cas. ()f;y ; The llUnoin, 13 Otto, 298 ; 
 The llujhgnte, 6 Asp. M. C. 512. 
 See also xupra, p. 389, for a "hard 
 case."
 
 414 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 21. 
 
 and a ship by 
 the wind. 
 
 Cases illus- 
 trating the 
 application 
 of Art. 21. 
 
 get Jier under command without altering her course more 
 than is necessary (r). 
 
 A vessel hove-to with her helm lashed to leeward, forging- 
 ahead as she comes to and falls off, does not fulfil the require- 
 ments of Art. 21 (s).- 
 
 A vessel close-hauled does not by luffing a little, and so 
 that she does not lose her headway, break the rule requiring 
 her to keep her course (t) ; nor, it is submitted, does she 
 infringe Art. 21 by breaking off if the wind heads her (?<). 
 But a vessel which luffed to the extent of two and a-half 
 points was held to have infringed the regulation {x) . And it 
 has been held that a vessel does not, by altering her course so 
 as to give an overtaking ship more room to pass, infringe 
 the rule (//) . If a close-hauled ship departs from the rule 
 requiring her to keep her course, as a general rule she should 
 luff rather than bear up, as she thereby lessens her way, 
 and, if a collision takes place, its effect is hkely to be less 
 disastrous (;:). 
 
 The following cases illustrate the application of Art. 21 : 
 
 A sailing ship, with the wind aft, meeting a steamship 
 nearly end on, was held in fault for porting (a). But a 
 slight alteration in the helm of a sailing ship, when an 
 approaching steamship was two miles distant, was held not to 
 be an infringement of the rule requiring her to keep her 
 course [b). And a steamship, with another a quarter of a 
 mile astern on her port quarter, and overtaking her, was held 
 not to be in fault for porting half a point {e). 
 
 A sailing ship must not go about close ahead of a steam- 
 ship, so as to embarrass the latter and make it difficult for 
 
 (r) The General lee, 19 L. T. 750. 
 
 {s) The Transit, 3 Bened. 192 ; 
 and see further, p. 390, above, as to 
 the duty of a ship hove-to. 
 
 {t) The Marmwn, 1 Asp. M. C. 
 412 ; The Aimo and The Amelia, 2 
 Asp. M. C. 96 ; The Great Eastern, 
 3 Moo. P. C. N. S. 31 ; The Singapore, 
 L. E. 1 P. C. 378. 
 
 (u) She would be in fault if she 
 broke off more than necessary ; as in 
 The Elizabeth Jones, 5 Davis, 514. 
 
 {x) The Earl Wemyss, 6 Asp. 364, 
 
 407. 
 
 [y) The Franconia, 2 P. D. 11; but 
 see The Corsica, 9 Wall. 630 ; infra, 
 p. 417. 
 
 {z) The Agra and The Elizabeth 
 Jenkins, L. R. 1 P. C. 501 ; The 
 Great Eastern, tibi supra. 
 
 (a) The Bougainville and The James 
 a. Stevenson, L. R. 5 P. C. 316. 
 
 (b) The Norma, 3 Asp. M. C. 272 ; 
 of. The Banshee, 6 ibid. 221 ; and The 
 Roanoke, (1908) P. 231. 
 
 (c) The Franconia, 2 P. D. 8.
 
 KEEP HER COURSE. 
 
 415 
 
 Article 21. 
 
 her to keep out of her way {d). But a steamship, attempting 
 to pass a sailing ship turning to windward in a narrow 
 channel, must be prepared for the sailing ship going about, 
 and the latter is under no obligation to give notice of her 
 intention to go about {e). 
 
 It seems that where risk of collision exists, a sailing ship is 
 not entitled to go about until compelled to. Then Art. '27 
 applies, and excuses her for not keeping her course. A three- 
 masted schooner was standing in towards the Goodwin Sands 
 on the port tack, heading W. by S. Approaching her was 
 a steamship on a S.S.W. course, having the schooner about 
 one point on her starboard bow, and under such circumstances 
 that there was risk of collision. The schooner went about, 
 and there was a collision. The question was, whether the 
 schooner had infringed Art. 2] . The opinion of the Trinity 
 Masters was asked by Butt, J., in these terms :— Would 
 there have been any risk to the schooner, having regard to 
 the tide (running to the westward) and all the surrounding 
 circumstances, if she had stood further in towards the sands ? 
 The answer to this question being in the affirmative, it was 
 held that Art. 27 applied, and that the schooner had not 
 infringed the regulations by going about (/'). 
 
 In a Canadian case a sailing ship in tow with sail set was 
 struck on the quarter by another vessel in tow of the same 
 tug, and was forced against an overtaking steamship {(/). 
 She was held in fault for not keeping her com-se ; sed qu. as 
 to the reason of the decision. 
 
 A smack hove-to on the port tack, with her helm lashed, 
 was heading so as to cross the course of a three-masted 
 schooner close-hauled on the starboard tack. Neither vessel 
 did anything until the collision was inevitable. The 
 schooner, as well as the smack, was held in fault, because she 
 did not bear up in time {h). 
 
 In America it is held to be the duty of a ship working to American 
 
 oases. 
 
 (d) The Saucy La-.x v. Thr Boldcraa, the sailing ship to go about when 
 Holt. 20.5; The Mary A>in, 11 Fed. she did. 
 
 Rep 3:36. (/; 77/<^r«Y//, Ad. Div. 17th Dec. 
 
 (e) The I'dUuine, 1 Asp. M. C. 1887. 
 
 468. It is not quite clear in this (g) The Fareuell, 8 Quebec L,. K. 
 
 case whether it was necessary for 87. . ^ t^ ,.r 
 
 . (li) The Rosalie, 5 P. D. 245.
 
 416 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 21. windward, in company with other ships, to "beat out her 
 tack." If she goes about in a narrow channel before the 
 shoaling of the water or other dangers of navigation require 
 it, and thereby embarrasses another ship which would have 
 cleared her if she had stood on, she was held to be in fault for 
 the collision (i). In a case of collision between a sailing 
 ship turning to mndward and a steamship, the Circuit Court 
 said : " What the law requires for a sailing vessel in a narrow 
 channel is, to beat out her tack, and, having beat it out, to 
 come about with all proper despatch upon the other, leaving 
 to the steam vessel the responsibility of being in a position to 
 enable her to do so without danger " (k). But this rule does 
 not require a ship to be held in fault merely because she goes 
 about before she is obliged to, provided she does not thereby 
 embarrass the other ship (/). 
 
 In a case where it was proved that there was, at the time 
 of the collision, a flat calm, it was held by the Supreme Court 
 that the sailing ship, whose duty it was to keep her course, 
 could not be in fault (?w). 
 
 The rule requiring a vessel to keep her course is strictly 
 enforced by the Courts in the United States. A sailing ship 
 approaching a steamship, admitted that so soon as there was 
 risk of collision she kept away two or three points. She was 
 held to be in fault. The Court said {n) : " A vessel whose 
 duty it is to keep her course has no right to change it as soon 
 as she apprehends a collision. In this case the duty of the 
 tug to keep out of the way of the lighter arose only when the 
 two vessels were proceeding in such directions as to involve 
 risk of collision ; and it was under the same circumstances 
 that the duty arose on the part of the lighter to keep her 
 com'se. Therefore, under the statute requiring the lighter to 
 keep her com-se, her apprehension of a collision could not 
 justify her in changing her course. Moreover, it is the 
 
 (t) The Empire State, 1 Bened. Rep. 167. 
 57 ; The Harrishurg, 71 Fed. Rep. hn) The Commerce, 16 Wall. 33. 
 
 894 ; The Relhf, 63 Fed. Rep. 169 ; (n) The General U. S. Grant, 6 
 
 The A. W. Thompson, o^:i YeA.'Re:^. Bened. 465, 467: and see The 
 
 115; The Clara Davidson, 24 Fed. Adriatic, 17 Otto, 512, as to the 
 
 Rep. 763. duty of a sailing ship to keep her 
 
 [k) The Empire State, ubi supra. course. See also The Stephen Morgan, 
 
 {I) The Coe F. Toung, 49 Fed. 4 Otto, 599.
 
 KEEP HER COURSE. ^^' 
 
 actual risk or danger of collision that determines the duty of Article 21. 
 
 both vessels, and not the apprehension merely. The rule 
 
 was made and is administered for the ver}^ purpose of 
 
 preventing the vessel charged with the duty of avoiding the 
 
 other from being embarrassed by a change of course on the 
 
 part of the other into danger, on the apprehension that such 
 
 duty of avoidance will not be fulfilled." 
 
 A schooner seeing the mast-head light of a steamship, and 
 mistaking it for a light ashore, hove-to to get a cast of the 
 lead, thereby presenting her red light to the steamship. The 
 steamship ported. The schooner, on discovering her mistake, 
 got under way, and crossed the course of the steamship, 
 showing her green light. It was held that the schooner was 
 solely in fault for not keeping her course (o). 
 
 The danger of departing from Art. 21 is illustrated by an 
 American case, where a vessel, A., starboarded in order to 
 assist another, B., whose duty it was to keep out of her way, 
 in an attempt to cross her bows. Finding that she could not 
 cross A.'s bows, B., at the last moment, stopped. In conse- 
 quence of B.'s stopping and A.'s starboarding, a collision 
 occurred. A. was held to be solely in fault {/>). 
 
 On the other hand, a sailing ship has been held in fault for 
 bringing about a collision between herself and a steamship 
 by premature action {q). 
 
 A dredger at work in New York harbour, driving with the 
 tide about one knot an hour over the ground, in fear of 
 a steamship which was shaping to pass between her and 
 another dredger at very close quarters, got up her gear and 
 steamed ahead, thereby making it impossible for the steam- 
 ship to avoid her. She was held alone in fault (/•). It was 
 proved that ocean steamships often passed such craft within 
 a few feet. 
 
 A steamship crossing another on her starboard side gave 
 two blasts witli lier whistle and got a two-blast answer 
 back. She starboarded her helm and slowed her engines. 
 
 (o) The Virgo, 7 Bened. 49.'i. 173; but see The Enert/ia, .56 Fed. 
 
 [p) The Corsica, 9 Wall. OHO. Rep. 124. 
 
 {(/) The Kirkwall, 11 Asp. M. C. (r) The Norge, ftS Fed. Rep. 347. 
 
 M. E E
 
 418 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 21. She was held in fault for causing the collision by slowing' her 
 engines (s) . 
 
 Article 22. 
 
 Article 22. Every vessel which is directed hy these ru/es to keep out of the 
 tvay of another vessel shall, if the circumstances of the case ((d)nif, 
 avoid crossing ahead of the other. 
 
 This Article is first found in the present regulations. To 
 cross another ship's bow unnecessarily, where collision is 
 probable or even possible, is an unseamanlike manoeuvre, and 
 apart from the regulations would be held to be negligent in 
 fact and in law. The insertion of the Article is probably 
 due to the fact that under former regulations a ship, whose 
 duty it was to keep out of the way, was not, in the Courts, 
 held to be in fault, merely because she attempted to cross 
 the bows of the ship with which she came into collision [t). 
 Expressions were used in these cases, which were capable of 
 being misunderstood by seamen, as meaning that a ship had 
 as much right to cross the bows of another as to go under 
 her stern, and it was thought necessary to put the matter 
 beyond doubt («). 
 
 One effect of the insertion of this elementary proposition 
 of seamanship in the regulations is, to make it difficult for a 
 ship that is struck by the stem of another to escape being 
 held in fault under o7 & 5S Vict. c. 60, s. 419. For sailing 
 ships working to windward the rule is now clear, that the 
 ship on the port tack must bear up and not luff, unless the 
 circumstances are such that to bear up is impossible or certain 
 to cause collision. 
 
 Article 23. 
 
 Article 23. Every steam vessel which is directed hy these rules to keep ont 
 of the way of another vessel shall, on approaching her, if neces- 
 sary, slacken her sjjeed or stop or reverse. 
 
 (s) The Nutmeg State, 62 Fed. Rep. 
 847. 
 
 (t) See TJie Nor, '2 Asp. M. C. 
 264 : The Carroll, 8 WaU 302 ; The 
 Great Eastern, 3 Moo. P. C. N. S. 31. 
 
 (?/) ' ' Give way ' ' in the Triuit.y 
 House rule of 1840 meanf, "0:0 
 astern of." See The Mose, 2 W. 
 Rob. 1.
 
 RULE AS TO STOPPING AND REVERSING. 
 
 419 
 
 This Article corresponds with Art. 18 of the Eegulations A rticle 23. 
 of 1884, but the wording and effect of it are different. It 
 applies only to one of the ships, namely, the ship whose duty 
 it is to keep out of the way ; Art. 18 of the Regulations of 
 1884 applies to both ships. The duty of the other ship, in 
 the absence of special circumstances, is to keep her course and 
 speed. The Article cannot, presumably, apply to a steam- 
 ship lying dead in the water with her engines stopped. 
 
 Apart from the regulations, it would be negligence in a 
 steamship which failed to slacken her speed, or to stop or 
 reverse, if such a manoeuvre were " necessary " to avoid 
 collision (.r) ; and Art. 23 appears to be little more than a 
 declaration of the law in this respect (//) . But in this, as in 
 the other cases provided for by the regulations, the statutory 
 effect (::) of not complying with the Article must not be 
 overlooked. 
 
 In T/iP Ehor (a) Lord Esher said that Art. 1 8 cannot be 
 broken without at the same time breaking Art. 13 of the 
 Regulations of 1 884. This cannot be said of the corresponding 
 Articles (Art. 16 and Art. 23) of the existing regulations, 
 by reason both of the additional paragraph now contained in 
 Art. 16 and also of the limitation of the duty to stop and 
 reverse to the vessel which is directed to keep out of the way. 
 It may be observed, however, that a vessel, hearing a fog 
 signal apparently forward of her beam, the position of which 
 is not ascertained, does not in all circumstances fulfil her 
 duty by complying with Art. 16 alone. Thus a steamship 
 was held in fault for not reversing as well as stopping on 
 hearing a single blast of a fog-horn apparently on the port 
 bow, since it was considered that those in charge of her 
 should have realised, having regard to the wind, that a 
 sailing ship was likely to cross ahead of them on the star- 
 board tack (h). This rule, however, will, it seems, only apply 
 to cases in which the indications of the position and probable 
 course of the vessel, in respect of which the Rules would in 
 
 (z) See The mr/cenhead,^ W. nob. (z) Under 57 & 58 Vint. c. 60, 
 
 75 ; The Jamm JVatt, 2 W. Rob. 270 ; s. 419. 
 The Vivid, 7 Not. of Chh. 127. {a) 11 P. D. 25. 
 
 (if) See per Lord Ilalsbury, C, iu (h) The Merlhyr, 8 Asp. M. C. 
 
 Th Ceto, 14 App. CuH. 670, lu'i ; per 475. 
 Lord Bramwell, ibid. p. 689. 
 
 E E 2
 
 420 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 23. clear weather require some course to be taken, are reasonably 
 clear, and where they were not so reasonably clear a steam- 
 ship was held in fault for keeping her course and speed under 
 the crossing rule (c) . 
 
 The wording of Art. 23 differs from that of Art. 18 of 
 the Regulations of 1884, as regards the position of the words 
 " if necessary." There was formerly doubt whether these 
 words governed the whole Article, or whether they applied 
 only to stopping and reversing (rf) . It is clear that the 
 present Article does not require a ship to stop and reverse in 
 every case where there is risk of collision, but only where it 
 is " necessary." The necessity which the Article speaks of 
 is the necessity of avoiding risk of collision (e). " Necessary" 
 does not mean that the situation is such that without stopping 
 and reversing a collision would take place ; it means, rather, 
 prudent or expedient (/'). Necessity exists, if " the circum- 
 stances are such as to convey to the mind of a skilled seaman 
 that risk of collision is so imminent as to make it indispensable 
 to stop and reverse " (g). 
 
 A steamship in a fog so dense that a vessel could not be 
 seen her own distance off, hearing the whistle of another 
 continually approaching, was held in fault for not reversing 
 until the other vessel was seen (h). But the decisions cited 
 below show that the direction to " reverse if necessary " is 
 not confined to cases of imminent danger such as this. 
 
 In America it has been held that the duty to stop and 
 reverse does not arise until it becomes clear that the other 
 ship, whose duty it is to alter her course, does not intend to 
 do so (/). The precise effect of the " stop and reverse " rule 
 does not appear to have been so fully considered in the 
 American as in the English cases. 
 
 In The Ceto {ubi mpra), Lord Fitzgerald seems to have 
 been of opinion that, where risk of collision exists, for a ship 
 
 [c] The Cathay, iJ Asp. M. G. 3.5. (/) Per Lord Bramwell, 14 App. 
 
 See also Graivford and Another v. Gas. 689. 
 
 Granite City S.S. Co., Sc. L. Rep. (;/) Per Lord Fitzgerald, ibid. 
 
 xliii. 732. p. 690; and see jy^'r Lord Herschell, 
 
 {d) See The Ceto, 14 App. Gas. ibid. p. 694. 
 
 670, 684; The Beryl, 9 P. D. 137, (//) The Dordogne, 10 P. D. 6. 
 
 145. {() Th" John King, 49 Fed. Rep. 
 
 (<■) Per Lord Watson, The Ceto, 14 469. 
 App. Gas. 670, 684.
 
 RULE AS TO STOPPING AND REVERSING. 
 
 421 
 
 "without necessity to stop and reverse so as to bring lierself to Article 23. 
 a standstill is negligence (/.•). It is submitted that no such 
 general rule can be laid down, though under certain circum- 
 stances the manceuvre may be wi'ong. 
 
 In The Beryl {1), Bowen and Fry, L. JJ., questioned The necessity 
 whether the words " if necessary '' mean " if it is actually ^"^^g^t 
 necessary," or, " if the oflScer in charge should reasonably 
 think that a necessity has arisen." In The Ceto (m), it was 
 held that the latter interpretation is the correct one. 
 
 "The necessity must not be such as to become manifest 
 only when all the facts are ascertained. It must be such as 
 would be apparent to a seaman of ordinary skill and prudence 
 with the knowledge which he possesses at the time"(;<). 
 Lord Esher had previously expressed the same opinion : 
 " When you speak of rules that are to regulate the conduct 
 of people, those rules can only apply to circumstances which 
 must or ought to be known to the people at the time. You 
 cannot regulate the conduct of people as to unknown 
 circumstances" (o). 
 
 Like the rest of the regulations, Art. 23 probably applies in what 
 in rivers, harbours, and other tidal waters, as well as at waters it 
 sea {p). The corresponding Article of the Eegulations of 
 1884 was held to apply in the Clyde, where local rules are in 
 force {q). 
 
 In consequence of the decision of the House of Lords in EfPect of 
 The Khedice{r), it is of the highest importance that the ^^^^nplJance 
 construction and application of Art. 23 should be properly 
 understood. Like the other steering and sailing rules, it 
 must be read in conjunction with Art. 27 ; but although that 
 Article has been held to justify a steamship in not stopping 
 and reversing where going ahead is the one only chance of 
 avoiding collision, the officer who elects not to stop and 
 
 non- 
 
 {k) 14 App. Gas. 670, 693. 
 
 \l) 9 P. D. 137, 144. 
 
 {in) 14 App. Gas. 670; followed 
 in The Knarwater, 63 L. J. Ad. 65 ; 
 and distinguished in The Lord Banyor, 
 nupra, p. 167. 
 
 («) Per Lord Herschell at p. 694. 
 See also dicta of Lord Watson at 
 p. 686. 
 
 (o) Tlie Beryl, 9 P. 1). 137, 138. 
 These words were quoted with ap- 
 
 proval by Lord Herschell in The 
 Theodore U. Rand, 12 App. Gus. 'irjO ; 
 and by Lord Fitzgerald in lite Ceto, 
 14 App. Gas. 670, 6')1. See also 
 The Dordoyne, 10 P. D. 6. 
 
 {p) Hee supra, jj. 316. 
 
 (q) Little v. Burns, The Owl and 
 The Ariadne, 9 Gt. of Soss. Gas. 
 4th ser. 118. 
 
 (>•) 5 App. Gas. 876 ; see below, 
 p. 424.
 
 422 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 The Jesmond 
 and The Earl 
 of Elgin. 
 
 Article 23. reverse his engines, where there is risk of collision, takes 
 upon himself a heavy responsibility. The requirements of 
 the law in this matter can only be appreciated by a careful 
 examination of the cases. 
 
 It was held by the Privy Council that the corresponding 
 Article (Art. 16) of the Eegulations of 1863 applied only 
 " when there is a continuous approaching of the two ships ; " 
 that the " stop and reverse " and " crossing " rules were to 
 be read together ; that, so reading them, it was evident that 
 the duty to slacken or stop and reverse did not necessarily 
 arise at the moment at which the " crossing " rule became 
 applicable ; and that if two ships, approaching each other 
 under circumstances such that the "meeting" rule is 
 applicable, port their helms so that there is no longer risk of 
 collision, there is no duty on either ship to slacken, or to stop 
 and reverse (s). 
 
 This seems to be the effect of the decision in The Jesmond 
 and The Earl of Elgin. The facts in that case were as 
 follows : — The Jemiond was a screw steamship of 589 tons 
 register, in water ballast. The Earl of Elyin was a screw 
 steamship of 608 tons register, with a cargo of coals on 
 board. Each ship sighted the other in the open sea at a 
 distance of a mile and a half. They were approaching each 
 other at a joint speed of eight or nine miles an hour, on 
 courses nearly opposite, and nearly end on. The Jesmond 
 put her helm to port and brought red to red. She did not 
 slacken her speed, or stop or reverse her engines. It was 
 contended that she ought at the moment when she ported to 
 have slackened her speed. It was held by the Privy Council 
 that, having ported and brought red to red, the original risk 
 of collision was determined, and that she was under no 
 obligation then or afterwards to slacken hei speed. This 
 ease was followed by the Privy Council in TJte Rhondda (t). 
 The Rhondda. The circumstances of that case were as follows : — The 
 steamship Rhondda rounding Faro Point from the westward, 
 to enter the Straits of Messina, saw the mast-head and red 
 lights of The Alsace Lorraine on her starboard bow, distant 
 
 (s) The Jesmond and The Earl of 
 Elgin, L. R. 4 P. C. 1 ; and see 
 The Milwaukee, Brown Ad. 313 ; 
 
 The Baltimore, 34 Fed. Rep. 660. 
 (0 8 App. Gas. 549.
 
 RULE AS TO STOPPING AND REVERSING. 423 
 
 about a mile. Her helm was put hiU'd-a-port. No order Article 23. 
 
 was given to the engines, which were going full speed aliead. 
 
 The vessels were approaching each other at a combined rate 
 
 of fifteen miles an hour. Owing to a current, or eddy tide, 
 
 taking the ship on her starboard bow, she did not properly 
 
 answer her helm. As soon as this was perceived her engines 
 
 were stopped and reversed. It was held by the Privy 
 
 Council that The Rhomlda was not in fault by the rule laid 
 
 down in The Khedive [u), for not stopping and reversing, 
 
 when the other ship was first seen. If The Rhondda had 
 
 answered her port helm, the risk of collision would have been 
 
 determined, and she was under no obligation to slacken her 
 
 speed or to stop and reverse. It was only when the failure 
 
 of her port helm manoeuvre became apparent that the duty 
 
 to stop and reverse arose. She did then stop and reverse, 
 
 and was therefore free from blame. In the words of Lord 
 
 Watson in The Khedive, it was a case where the " crossing " 
 
 rule " could not reasonably be held to apply before the 
 
 moment at which it was actually obeyed " {x). 
 
 There is some difficulty in reconciling The Beryl, decided 
 by the Court of Appeal, with the decisions in The Jesmond 
 and The Rhondda. In TJie Jesmond it was held that the 
 " meeting " and " stoj) and reverse " rules were to be read 
 together ; in The Beryl, Brett, M. R., held that the corre- 
 sponding Regulations of 1880 (Arts. 16 and 22) were wholly 
 independent of the " stop and reverse " rule (Art. 18), which, 
 he said, " does not in any way modify, clash with, or require 
 to be construed at the same time as, the other rules," but is 
 a wholly independent rule. It applies, like the other rules, 
 at the moment before risk of collision exists, when tlie 
 position and action of two steamships is such as to involve 
 risk of collision. " It must apply if the circumstances are 
 such that an officer of ordinary skill and care would be bound 
 to come to the conclusion that, if the ships continue to 
 approach each other, there will be risk of collision " (//). 
 It does not appear that either The Jesmond or The Rhondda 
 was cited in The Beryl ; and it may be doubted whether the 
 
 (k) 5 App. Gas. 876. {x) 5 App. Gas. 902. 
 
 (y) I'er Brott, M. R., 9 P. D. 141.
 
 424 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 23. 
 
 The Beryl. 
 
 The Voor- 
 waarts and 
 The Khedive. 
 
 interpretation placed upon the " stop and reverse " rule in 
 The Jesniond is not preferable to that adopted in The Beryl. 
 The latter case has, however, been followed in the Court of 
 Appeal and House of Lords (s). 
 
 In The Benjl it was not held that the duty to stop and 
 reverse, on the part of the one ship, arose at the same moment 
 as the duty to take steps to keep out of the way on the 
 part of the other ship. Thus, Brett, M. R., held that, 
 after it became the duty of The Abeona to take precautions. 
 The Beryl was not wrong in continuing her course. But 
 before the vessels came within 3U0 yards of each other (when 
 the collision was inevitable) the " stop and reverse " rule 
 came into operation, and The Beryl was in fault for not 
 having stopped and reversed. 
 
 The distinction between The JeHiiiond and The Khedive, 
 subsequently decided by the House of Lords, should be noted. 
 The facts in The Khedive were as follows : — The Kliedive and 
 The Voorwaarts were two ocean steamships of 3,740 and 3,000 
 tons register respectively. They were proceeding off the 
 coast of Penang at full speed upon nearly parallel and 
 opposite courses, each having the other on her starboard bow, 
 green light to green light. When they were from half to 
 three-quarters of a mile apart The Voonvaarfs suddenly 
 ported, showing her red to Tlie iLhedire, and thereby caused 
 risk of collision. The helm of TJie Khedive was put hard-a- 
 starboard. This was held to be a right manoeuvre. At 
 the same time the order was given to stand by her engines ; 
 a minute and a-half afterwards the engines were stopped 
 and reversed ; one and a-half minutes after this the collision 
 occm^red. By not slackening her speed or stopping and 
 reversing when the red light of The VoorwaarU came into 
 view The Khedive infringed the crossing rule. The House of 
 Lords held her in fault under 37 & 38 Vict. c. 85, s. 17. 
 The Court of Appeal had gone into the question whether, 
 having regard to the suddenness of the peril caused by 
 The Voorwaarts' change of course, the captain of The Kliedive 
 had shown want of proper care, skill or nerve in not giving 
 the absolutely right order to the engines for a minute and 
 
 (z) The Bordogne, 10 P. D. 6 ; The Memnon, 6 Asp. M. C. 488.
 
 RULE AS TO STOPPING AND REVERSING. 
 
 425 
 
 a-half after The Voonca arts' red light came into \'iew ; the ^ticle 23. 
 
 House of Lords held that, having deliberately elected to 
 keep his engines going ahead full speed, and not to stop 
 and reverse, he had infringed the regulations, and was there- 
 fore to be deemed in fault under the statute (a). 
 
 There is difficulty in reconciling the decision in The ThcBmares. 
 Benares (b), a ease subsequently decided by the Court of 
 Appeal, with some of the dicta of the learned lords who 
 addressed the House in The Khedive, and even with the 
 principle upon which the decision in the latter case appears 
 to be founded. But The Khedive was before the Court of 
 Appeal in The Benares, and the intention of the Court was to 
 decide nothing contrary to The Khedive. That case was dis- 
 tinguished as depending upon special and different circum- 
 stances. The circumstances differed in this : that in The 
 Khedive the not stopping and reversing was wrong, as matter 
 of seamanship, and probably contributed to the collision (see 
 5 App. Cas. 898, 899) ; whereas in The Benares the departure 
 from the regulations was " the one chance still left of avoiding 
 danger which was otherwise inevitable." The manceuvi'e 
 adopted — keeping on at full speed— though unsuccessful, was 
 held to be " necessary," and therefore in accordance ^\\i\\ 
 Art. 23 of the Regulations of 1884. 
 
 At first sight The Khedive seems to decide that a steam- 
 ship will always be held in fault if, having an opportunity to 
 stop and reverse, and not being compelled to keep on by 
 danger other than that of collision, she does not stop and 
 reverse before the collision occurs. But although there are 
 dicta in that case pointing to such a conclusion, the decision 
 as applied to the facts of the case does not go so far. If the 
 circumstances are such that departure from the " stop and 
 reverse " rule was necessary within the meaning of the regu- 
 lations, a ship will not be held to be in fault though she does 
 not stop or reverse before the collision. Such circumstances 
 existed in The Benares. A steamship. The Gcrardu, going 
 seven knots, saw a green light a point on her port bow distant 
 about three-quarters of a mile. Her helm was put to star- 
 
 (a) 5 App. Gas. 876. Asp. M. C. 289, seems n similar 
 
 [b) 9 P. D. 16. The aaruyoina, 7 case.
 
 426 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 23. board, and very shortly afterwards The Benare>i was seen with 
 her port side open and showing no red light. The helm of 
 The Gerarda was put hard-a- starboard and the engines kept 
 on full speed. The Benares struck The Gerarda on her star- 
 board side. It was found that the first starboarding of The 
 Gerarda was not wrong, and that after seeing TJte Benares' 
 port side the only chance of escaping collision was for Tlie 
 Gerarda to hard-a-starboard and keep on at full speed, as 
 she did. It seems, therefore, that not to stop and reverse 
 when a collision is in fact inevitable, but in the reasonable 
 opinion of the person in charge may possibly be avoided by 
 keeping on full speed, is not an unnecessary departure from 
 the regulations. 
 
 The Beryl. The case of The Beryl was as follows: — The Abeona and 
 
 The Beryl were steamships crossing at right angles, The 
 Abeona having The Beryl on her starboard hand. The Beryl, 
 when some considerable distance off, whistled twice, and, 
 when from a quarter to half a mile off, eased her engines. 
 At this time The Abeona ought to have, but had not, stopped 
 or reversed her engines, or altered her course. Then she 
 eased her engines. If she had not eased there would have 
 been no collision ; but by easing she '' counteracted The 
 Beryl's manoeuvre." When the vessels were so close that a 
 collision was inevitable — about 300 yards apart (f) — both 
 stopped and reversed. It was held by Butt, J., that The 
 Abeona had been WTongly manoeuvred from first to last, and 
 that The Beryl had been " properly navigated according to 
 the regulations " (^/) . It will be observed that The Beryl 
 did not reverse her engines until the collision was inevitable. 
 Upon appeal the decision of Butt, J., as to The Beryl, was 
 reversed. The Court of Appeal held unanimously that the 
 duty of The Beryl, under Ai't. 18, was not fulfilled by 
 slackening her speed at the time of her whistling the second 
 time ; and that her duty was to have stopped and reversed 
 her engines at some time between the second whistling and 
 the moment at which the collision became inevitable. 
 
 The Memnon. In the case of The Memnon {e),\h'dii vessel was held to 
 
 [c] See the report of the case ou 
 appeal, 9 P. D. 137, 142. 
 
 {d) 9 P. D. 4. 
 
 {e) 6 Asp. M. C. 317, 488. As
 
 RULE AS TO STOPPING AND REVERSING. 427 
 
 blame for a collision with The Sau Salvador. They were Article 23. 
 
 steamships crossing nearly at right angles. Tlir San Sa/rac/or, 
 
 though she had T//e Meninon on her own starboard bow, took 
 
 no step to avoid collision until she was within three ships' 
 
 lengths of her, when she starboarded. The course and speed 
 
 of The Memnon were such that, had The San Salvador kept her 
 
 course, The Memnon would have passed ahead of her without 
 
 collision, and The Memnon stopped her engines as soon as The 
 
 Sail Salvador starboarded. It was held that The Memnon, as 
 
 well as The San Salvador, was to blame ; that those on board 
 
 her were not justified under the circumstances in assuming 
 
 that The San Salvador would do what was right ; that they 
 
 ought to have seen that the courses of the two vessels involved 
 
 risk of collision, and accordingly that they ought to have 
 
 slackened her speed or stopped and reversed earlier. Under 
 
 the present regulations The Memnon would, it seems, have 
 
 been free from blame. 
 
 A steamship, A., by porting to another, B., that was ^^^^ An-atoon 
 approaching her with all her lights showing, shut in the " ^'^' ' 
 green light of B. ; but B. by perverse starboarding brought 
 her green again into view ; thereupon A. again ported and 
 shut in B.'s green ; B., continuing to starboard, again brouglit 
 her green into view, and a collision followed. It was held, 
 under the Act of 1873, that A. was in fault for not having 
 stopped and reversed before the collision ( /'). 
 
 In The Stanmore the duty to stop and reverse, and not to The Staumore. 
 stop only, was insisted upon. There the alteration of the 
 other ship's course at the distance of a quarter of a mile was 
 indicated by the apparent closing of the masthead and side 
 light (^). 
 
 In The Tliamea and The Latetia a vessel was held in fault The Thames 
 for not having stopped and reversed " when the risk of ^^^iJI^" 
 collision must have been apparent " iji). 
 
 to assuming that the other vessel oatiug a chauge of coiu-se, see above, 
 
 will do the right thiiisr, di.st. TFilxmiv. p. 385. 
 
 C'urrie, (1894) App. Cas. 116. (A) The Thames miA The Lutctia, 'J 
 
 (/) The Arratoon Apcar, 15 App. App. Cas. ()40, 651. Cp. The Nord 
 
 Gas. 37. Kap and The Safidhill, (1894) App. 
 
 iff) The Stanmore, 10 P. D. 134. Caf<. 646. 
 As to the closing' of the lights indi-
 
 428 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 23. 
 
 The Librit. 
 
 Application 
 of Art. 23 in 
 a fog. 
 
 So, in America, where two steamships, The C. and Tlie M., 
 were approaching one another on nearly parallel o})posite, 
 but slightly converging lines, and in a position to pass clear, 
 T//(' C. ported and ran across The M., rendering collision 
 imminent, and The 31. did not slacken, signal, or reverse till 
 after the porting of The C. It was held that The M. as well 
 as The C. was to blame, the Court saying that there was such 
 uncertainty in the movements of The C. as called for the 
 closest watch and the highest diligence («). 
 
 A., a steamship rounding Tilbury Ness in the Thames, 
 under a port helm, was approaching another, B., on the other 
 side of the point in such a position that, if she had not been 
 under a poi't helm, there would have been risk of collision ; 
 it was held by Brett, L. J., that it was not the duty of A. to 
 stop and reverse under one of the Thames Rules, which is 
 very similar in terms to Art. 2-i {k) . 
 
 Under former regulations there are many decisions as to 
 the duty of a steamship in a fog, hearing the whistle of 
 another which she cannot see. The question will arise, how 
 far are these decisions applicable under the existing Art. 23 ? 
 It has been already pointed out that the corresponding 
 Article of former regulations (cf. Art. 18 of 1884) applied to 
 both ships ; the present Art. 2'i applies only to the ship 
 " which is directed by these rules to keep out of the way." 
 It has been held that the obligation to stop and reverse does 
 not arise until the circumstances are known and the necessity 
 is apparent (/) ; and the reasoning upon which these decisions 
 were founded is applicable to the existing Ai-t. 23. It 
 would seem, therefore, that under the present law the duty 
 to stop and reverse does not arise {m) until the ships are in 
 sight of each other, or until the course of the shijj, whose 
 duty it is to keep her course, is clearly indicated to the 
 other by the different directions in which her whistle is 
 haard. 
 
 The application of the " stop and reverse " rule of former 
 regulations to a steamship hearing the fog-horn or whistle 
 
 97. 
 
 {i) The Manitoba^ 15 Davis, U. S. 
 
 (/t) 6 P. D. 139. 
 
 [l) Supra, pp. 46, 47. 
 
 {ni) Except, possibly, in the case 
 of a steamship hearing the fog-horn 
 of a sailing-ship close to her and 
 forward.
 
 RULE AS TO STOPPING AND REVERSING. 
 
 429 
 
 of another ship in a fog has been the snhject of many impor- Article 23. 
 tant decisions in the past. It is, in view of the present 
 Ai't. 1 6 and decisions thereon, unnecessary to do more than 
 summarise the result of these older decisions. 
 
 Thus, according to these older cases, a steamship in a fog, 
 hearing the whistle of another steamship approaching, was 
 hound to bring herself to a standstill, at the latest when the 
 ships were within hailing distance, though she was not bound 
 to stop and reverse her engines as soon as she heard the 
 whistle of another (//). Wliere two steamships were approacli- 
 iug each other with the risk of collision, and one of them, by 
 altering her course, determined the risk, the regulations did 
 not require her to stop or reverse (o) ; but if the risk was not 
 in fact determined, although the course might have been 
 altered, then it became incumbent upon her to stop and re- 
 verse (p). Wliere an omission to stop and reverse might by 
 possibility have contributed to the collision, then the guilty 
 of such omission was in fault, though those on board showed 
 no want of ordinary skill, care, or nerve (q). On the other 
 hand, failure to stop and reverse was not deemed a fault 
 unless the officer knew, or ought to have known, that the 
 regulation in question was applicable {r). Where to keep 
 going ahead was the one and only chance of escaping collision, 
 a circumstance was considered to exist which justified the not 
 stopping and reversing {■•<). A vessel was liable to be held at 
 fault where, although she slackened her speed, she did not stop 
 and reverse until collision was inevitable, if she had had an 
 opportunity of doing so {f). It was considered the proper 
 course for a vessel hearing the fog signal of another forward 
 of her beam, the position of which was not ascertained, to 
 
 (») The Franklatid and The Kestrel, 
 L. R. 4 P. C. 59.9 ; The Jesmond and 
 Thr Earl of Elgin, L. R. 4 P. C. 1 ; 
 The Love Bird, 6 P. D. 80 ; The Dor- 
 doym, 10 P. D. 6; The Kirby Hall, 
 8 P. D. 71 ; The Ceto, 14 App. Cac. 
 G70, 695; The Ebor, 11 P. D. lb \ 
 The Barton, 9 P. D. 44. 
 
 (o) The Jemnond, mpra. 
 
 [p) The Ceto, mipra ; see also The 
 John M'Intt/>e, 9 P. D. 135, 139 ; 
 The Martello, 40 Davis, 64 ; Fabre v. 
 Cunard S.S. Co., 53 Fed. Rep. 288 ; 
 
 The Britannic, 39 Fed. Rep. 395; 
 Donnell v. Boston Toivboat Co., 89 
 Fed. Rep. 757 ; The City of Atlanta, 
 26 Fed. Rep. 456. 
 
 {q) The Khedive, 5 App. Gas. 876. 
 
 [r) The Khedive, supra ; The Bert/l, 
 9 P. D. 4; The Celo, supra; The 
 Theodore H. Rand, 12 App. Gas. 24 7 ; 
 The Mrmnon, 6 Asp. M. G. 48S ; The 
 Emmy Ilaase, i" P. D. 81. 
 
 (.s) Thr Rosetta, 6 Asp. M. G. 310. 
 
 [t] The Ceto, supra ; The Beryl, 
 supra.
 
 430 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 23. 
 
 Art. 23 is not 
 infringed 
 unless there 
 is ;m oppor- 
 tunity of 
 obeying it. 
 
 Object of 
 Art. 23 is to 
 minimize 
 damage as 
 well as to 
 prevent 
 collision. 
 
 Compliance 
 with Article 
 by trawler at 
 work. 
 
 stop and proceed with caution, although not enjoined to do so 
 by the rules {h). 
 
 Art. 23 does not require a steamship to slacken and reverse 
 at the very moment when danger arises. " A man must have 
 time to consider whether he should reverse or not. The 
 Court is not bound to hold that a man should exercise his 
 judgment instantaneously. A short, but a very short, time 
 must be allowed him for this purpose" (r). But it is, of 
 course, not an excuse for non-compliance with Art. 23 that 
 the time which elapsed between the risk of collision becoming 
 apparent and the collision was so short that the engines could 
 not reasonably have been stopped and reversed, if the short- 
 ness of the time was due to want of a proper look-out. Thus, 
 where it was proved that more than half-a-minute must have 
 elapsed from the red light of an approaching steamship. A., 
 coming into view on the starboard bow of the other, B., had 
 a good look-out been kept on board B., B. was held in fault 
 for not having reversed before the collision. If the red light 
 had, in fact, been visible for only half-a-minute before the 
 collision, it seems that the vessel would not have been held in 
 fault for not stopping and reversing in so short a time (.r) . 
 
 It appears that neglect to obey Art. 23 will cause a ship to 
 be held in fault, if the omission, though it could not have 
 contributed to the collision, might have caused or contributed 
 to the damage (//). And in The Voonmarts and The Khedive, 
 Lord Watson said that the rule (Art. 16 of the Eegulations 
 of 1863) was enacted " mth a view to obviate the risk and 
 minimize the results " of a collision (s). 
 
 A paddle-wheel steam trawler, going through the water (a) 
 one or one-and-a-half knots with her trawl down, saw a sailing 
 ship approaching her with both her side lights open for ten 
 or twelve minutes. She stopped without reversing her engines 
 as soon as danger became imminent. It was assumed by 
 
 («<) The Rosetta, 6 Asp. M. C. 310. 
 
 {v) Per Bult, J., The Emmy Haase, 
 9 P. D. 81 ; followed in The Ngapootn, 
 (1897) App. Cas. 391 ; see also Wind- 
 ham (Did Others v. Robertson, Sc. Law 
 Rep. xlii. 602 ; and see per Brett, 
 M. R., The Beri/l, 9 P. D. 137, 
 138; The Rubbuck, Ad. Div. 28th 
 
 June, 1887. 
 
 [x) The Emmy Haase, supra. 
 
 [y) The Thames and The Lutetia, 
 9 App. Cas. 640, 649, 652. 
 
 [z) 5 App. Cas. 903, 90 1. 
 
 (a) The Tweedsdale, 14 P. D. 164. 
 That she was going through the 
 water is clear from the facts.
 
 RULE AS TO STOPPING AND REVERSING. 
 
 481 
 
 Butt, J., that the " stop and reverse " rule applied to her (h), Article 23. 
 and he held that she had complied with it. 
 
 Though Art. 2-3 does not apply to sailing ships, it has 
 been said that a sailing ship in a fog, or under circumstances 
 similar to those in which Art. 23 applies, is under a cor- 
 responding obligation to shorten sail and reduce her speed as 
 much as possible {c). 
 
 Where a steamship that is required by the regulations to The burden is 
 keep out of the way has been in collision, and it is proved or "hat°doeTnot; 
 admitted that slip did not before the collision stop or reverse, "W Art. 23 
 it seems that the burden is on her to show why she did not she did not 
 comply with Art. 23. This burden she may discharge by ^^ ^^• 
 showing that she was unable, or had not the opportunity, to 
 stop and reverse (d), or that the omission to do so was the 
 only chance of escaping collision (c). 
 
 In America, it has been held by the Supreme Court that 
 the rule requiring a steamship to slacken does not apply 
 where, if both ships continue their courses, they will pass 
 clear, although, if either deviates from her course, there will 
 be risk of collision (./'). 
 
 A steamship being overtaken by another vessel is not Overtaken 
 " approaching " the overtaking ship within the meaning of " 
 Art. 23. Her duty, therefore, is to keep her course and 
 speed under Art. 21, and not to slacken under Art. 23, for 
 that Article does not apj)ly to her (.17). 
 
 To comply with Art. 23, a vessel must not only slacken or Engines not 
 stop, but she must not set her engines ahead again until the ahe.ad^'untn 
 risk of collision is past (h). I'isk is over. 
 
 If a steamship sights another, and cannot make out what Duty to stop 
 course she is upon, it is her duty at once to slacken until she engines where 
 can ascertain what the stranger's course is, so that she may *^? V*'^?'", 
 
 '^ ^ ship 8 hghts 
 
 (6) At leant as regards st<)i)piug. (/) The Free State, 1 Otto, 200 ; 
 
 As to reversing, jjrobalily she could Brown, Adm. 2-51. See, however, 
 
 not with safety, because of her trawl The MdnUoba, I.*) Davis, 97. 
 
 warp. [g) The Frauconin, 2 P. D. 8. 
 
 (c) See per Brett, M. R., The (h) In Dowell v. GemrnJ Steam 
 
 TJordogne, 10 P. D. 6, 12, and see A'a/ir/ffifiow Co.. .5 Ell. & B. 195, under 
 
 Kupra, p. 381. the old law, it was held that a sliip 
 
 'd) See The Khedive, h App. Cas. was in fault if she did not nontinuc 
 
 876, '102. to exhibit a light ho long as danger 
 
 (/) The Benareii, 9 P. D. 10. of collision existed.
 
 432 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 23. 
 
 or f'ourse 
 cannot be 
 made out. 
 
 Speed of a 
 steamship 
 approaching 
 other craft. 
 
 Stopping and 
 reversing not 
 always a 
 prudent 
 measure. 
 
 be able to take the measures required by the regulations (/) ; 
 and she must do so before altering her helm, or taking any 
 decisive stpp ; for if she does not, and by altering her helm 
 without knowing the other ship's position and course, causes 
 a collision, she will be held to be in fault (A^). 
 
 Apart from the regulations, where there is probable danger 
 iu clearing other craft, it is negligent for a steamship to 
 approach them, without slackening, at a high rate of speed. 
 In America it has been held by the Supreme Court that a 
 large steamer approaching a tug with a number of barges in 
 tow, aud surrounded by other vessels, was bound to slacken, 
 and not " hurl herself like a projectile in the midst of them " 
 at the rate of seventeen miles an hour, taking the chance of 
 clearing them (/). And in another case it was held by the 
 same Court that a large steamer entering a harbour or narrow 
 channel was bound to go at such speed as is consistent with 
 the safety of other vessels {ni). 
 
 A steamship in the North Sea on a clear night, going eight 
 or nine knots over trawling ground, and running into a 
 smack which showed no light astern, was held not to be in 
 fault for going too fast (n). In an early case (o), it was held 
 that, on a dark night in the Bristol Channel, ten knots was 
 an improper speed for a steamship. 
 
 In applying Art. 23 it must be borne in mind that 
 reversing the propeller, whilst the ship has headway through 
 the water, always diminishes the turning power of the helm. 
 In the case, therefore, of a screw steamship stopping and 
 reversing her engines it is not always a necessary, or even a 
 prudent, step for her to take when at close quarters with 
 another ship. On the other hand, the common excuse that 
 the engines were not stopped and reversed because of the 
 deadening effect of the reversed propeller upon the port 
 helm is viewed by the Court with suspicion (p). 
 
 (i) The Bona and The Ava, 2 Asp. 
 M. C. 182 ; The General Lee, 19 L. T. 
 750. 
 
 [h) The BoiigainrUle and The Jns. 
 n. Stevenson. L. R. 5 P. C. 316. As 
 to ships in a fog, see The Franldavd, 
 L. R. 4 P. G. 5'29 : Th<' Eirby Hall, 
 8 P. D. 71. 
 
 {I) The Syracuse, 9 "Wall. 672 ; 
 
 followed in The Lucy, 74 Fed. Rep. 
 o72. 
 
 [m) The City of Paris, 9 Wall. 634 ; 
 and see The Corsica, 9 Wall. 630. 
 
 {n) The Pacific, 9 P. D. 124. 
 
 (o) The Rose, 2 W. Rob. 1. 
 
 1 2j) As in The Arratoon Apcar, 15 
 App. Gas. 37.
 
 EFFECT OF PROPELLER REVERSING. 
 
 433 
 
 It may be convenient here to state shortly the effect, imder Ar ticle 23. 
 ordinary circnmstances, of reversing the propeller, whilst the Effect of 
 ship has headway through the water, an effect which must screw whilst 
 alwaj's be taken into consideration in determining the appli- t^i*^ f^^'P ^^^ 
 cation of Art. 23. The behaviour of a steamship under these 
 circumstances was not so generally known in th^ year 18fi2, 
 when the *' stop and reverse " rule was framed, as it is at the 
 present day. The propeller exerts considerable turning power 
 on the ship, whether going ahead or astern, but more par- 
 ticularly when going astern (q). The effect is most strongly 
 marked when the propeller is going astern and the ship has 
 headway through the water, the circumstances under whicli 
 Aii. 23 is usually applicable. The turning effect is in the 
 one direction or the other, according as the screw is right or 
 left-handed. A right-handed screw revolves, when the 
 engines are going ahead, viewed from astern, from left to 
 right ; a left-handed screw from right to left. When the 
 screw is not deeply immersed, and froths air into water, it 
 exerts, when reversed, considerable power to turn the ship's 
 head independently of the rudder, the ship turning to star- 
 board or port, almost irrespective of the helm (r), according 
 as the screw is right or left-handed. This effect is produced 
 even whilst the ship has headway through the water; it 
 increases as the ship's way is stopped. It sometimes nearly 
 disappears when the screw is so deeply immersed that it does 
 not churn air into water (s). Under the same circumstances 
 — that is to say, whilst the ship has headway through the water, 
 and the engines and screw are working astern — the action of 
 the rudder is the reverse of that which it has whilst the 
 engines and screw are going ahead. This reverse action of 
 the rudder is always feeble, and is different for different 
 ships, and even for the same ship under different conditions 
 of loading. When there is wind sufficient to heel the ship, 
 
 (q) This Heems to depend upon the p. 323. 
 fact that the lower blades of the (a) This is not the case with all 
 
 propeller being more immersed have ships. The writer ban .•■een a loaded 
 
 a greater turning power than the steamship backed out from alongside 
 
 upper. a wharf and turned at right angles 
 
 (r) See an account of experiments to it almost entirely by the action of 
 
 with The labor, Nautical Mag. 1880, her reversed propeller. 
 
 M. V V
 
 434 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 23. 
 
 the advancing end of the ship, whether head or stern, will 
 always seek, or fly up into, the wind. 
 
 The combined influences of (1) the reversed screw, (2) the 
 wind, and (3) the rudder, severally acting in the manner 
 above described, determine the course of the ship until her 
 way is stopped. Their utmost effect, when all acting in the 
 same direction (e.g., screw, right-handed; helm, starboard; 
 wind, on the starboard side), is small compared with the 
 influence which the rudder exerts when the ship and engines 
 are going full speed ahead. A circle of at least double the 
 radius of that in which the ship will tuin, when going ahead, 
 is required for her to turn in when the engines are going 
 astern under the circumstances above described. So marked 
 is this diminution in the tiirning capability of a ship with 
 her screw suddenly reversed from full speed ahead, that, 
 under some circumstances, a vessel running at right angles 
 upon a straight coast at full speed might avoid going ashore, 
 by keeping on full speed ahead with her helm hard over, 
 when she could not keep off the shore by stopping and 
 reversing her engines. 
 
 It follows from the general rules above stated that, with 
 engines going astern whilst the ship has headway through the 
 water, the position and direction of the rudder with reference 
 to the ship's keel is of paramount importance. Under such 
 circumstances, a vessel with a right-handed screw will turn 
 her head much quicker to starboard (her helm being to port, 
 and her .engines reversed) than it is possible for her to turn 
 her head to port; and lice versa with a left-handed screw (t). 
 
 (t) The authority for mo.st of the 
 statements in the text is the Report, 
 published in 1875, of a. Committee 
 (J. R. Napier, Esq., Sir W. Thomp- 
 son, W.Froude, Esq., J.T. Bottomly, 
 Esq., and Professor Osborne Eey- 
 noids) appoint* d by the British Asso- 
 ciation to investigate the effect of 
 propellers upon the steering of 
 vessels. Further information upon 
 the subject will be found in Naval 
 Science, 1873, p. S9 ; Nautical Maga- 
 zine, 1»79, pp. 52!), 608; iMd. 188(i, 
 p. 323 ; Transactions of the Institute 
 of Naval Architects, 1879, a paper 
 by A. J. M«ginnis, Esq. In con- 
 nection with this subject, the follovp- 
 
 ing facts, collected from the above 
 sources, may be not without interest : 
 A screw steamship usually answers 
 one helm quicker than the other, 
 whether going ahead or astern ; but 
 different ships behave differently in 
 this respect When jiist starting, a 
 steamship will answer her starboard 
 helm quickest if her screw is right- 
 handed, and her port helm if her 
 screw is left-handed. When going 
 ahead at a moderate or full speed slie 
 answers her port helm quickest with 
 a right-handed, and her starboard 
 hebn with a left-handed screw. In 
 a note to The Normandie, 43 Fed. 
 Rep. 161, 162, are given the results
 
 OVERTAKING SHIP. 435 
 
 ■J 
 
 Article 24. 
 
 Noticithdnndiuri anythinq contained /'» these rules, everi/ Article 24. 
 vessel, overtah'np any other, shall keep out of the tray of the Overtaking 
 overtaken vessel. ^^^P- 
 
 Every vessel coming up irith another vessel from any direction 
 more than two points abaft her beam., i.e., in such a position, ?vith 
 reference to the vessel irhich she is overtaking, that at night she 
 would be unable to see either of that vessel's side lights, shall be 
 deemed to be an overtaking vessel ; and no sribsequent alteration 
 of the bearing between the two vessels shall make the overtaking 
 vessel a crossing vessel within the meaning of these rules, or 
 relieve her of the duty of keeping clear of the overtaken vessel 
 until she is finally past and char. 
 
 As by d'ly the overtaking vessel cannot ahcays knotv Ucith 
 certainty tchether she is forward of or abaft this direction from 
 the other vessel, she should, if in doubt, assume that she is an 
 overtaking vessel, and keep out of the way. 
 
 This Article corresponds wdth Art. 20 of the Regulations 
 of 1884. The wording is slightly different, but the effect 
 seems to be precisely the same. The opening words of the 
 Article, " Notwithstanding . . .," were originally {u) inserted 
 in order to make it clear (1) that Arts. 20 and 24 do not con- 
 flict; that a sailing ship overtaking a steamship is to keep out 
 of the way of the latter ; and also (2) that the overtaking 
 vessel is to keep out of the way of the other, although she is 
 crossing the course of the latter (.r). The definition of an 
 " overtaking " ship is new ; but, although never before stated 
 in the regulations, it merely formulates the dicta of the judges 
 and decisions of the Courts (y). 
 
 of experiments as to the stopping forton Omtle, 2 P. D. 222 ; 3 P. D. 
 
 and turning capabilities of an Atlantic 11; The Franconia, 2 P. D. 8; The 
 
 li^er. Aiirania and The Republic, 29 Fed. 
 
 {•() In the Regulations of 1880. Rep. 98. 
 
 {x) In these cases there was an (y) See The Franconia, 2 P. D. 8, 
 
 apparent conflict bf^tween Art. lo 12 ; per Lord Hersi^holl, The Main 
 
 and Art. 17 of the Regulations of IIP. D. 132, 1 .Si). The observations 
 
 1863. See The Fhilotaxe, 3 Asp. of Sir R. Philliniore in The Jirendal- 
 
 M. C. 512 ; The Wheatuhcaf and The bane, 7 P. D. ISC, as to the " cross- 
 
 Zw^nyyiVy^-, 13 L T. 612; and between ing " rule prevailing over the 
 
 Art. 12 and An. 17. See The Tech- overtaking rule, and of membora of 
 
 F F 2
 
 436 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 24. The overtaking ship must, if circumstances permit, under 
 Art. 22, pass astern and not ahead of tlie other. The latter 
 must, under Art. 21, not alter her course or speed. 
 
 Article 10 (supra, p. 358) requires a ship that is " being 
 overtaken " to show a light astern. The phrases " over- 
 taking " and "being overtaken" appear to be correlative (s). 
 The Mo/ierr (a) is a recent decision showing that under the 
 Regulations of 1884 the duty of the overtaking vessel to 
 keep out of the way did not oease until, in the words of the 
 present Art. 24, " she is finally past and clear." 
 
 Under a provision of the Tyne bye-laws, that " when 
 steam vessels are proceeding in the same direction, but with 
 unequal speed, the vessel which liteams slowest shall, when 
 overtaken,'' take certain steps to enable the other to pass, it 
 was held by the Privy Council that this rule applied only to 
 a vessel overtaking and passing another actually on the same 
 course as herself (b). 
 
 In T//e Cayuga (c), the Supreme Court of the United 
 States expressed an opinion that a vessel was " overtaking " 
 another within the meaning of Art. 17 of the Regulations of 
 1863 only when astern of the other and pursuing the same 
 general direction. In that case it was held that two steam- 
 ships on intersecting courses (S. by E. and S.S.W.) were 
 crossing ships, although one was abaft the beam of, and 
 going faster tlian, the other. As stated above (p. 404), tliis 
 case would not be followed in this country, and is inconsistent 
 with other American decisions (c/). 
 The rule, that The rule, that an overtaking ship must keep out of the 
 ship^must "^^ ^^3 °^ ^ ^^^P ^lisad, was a rule of the maritime law, and was 
 keep out of merely formulated by the Regulations of 1863 (r). It 
 
 rule of the clashed, however, with the other equally Wf 11- established rule, 
 maritime law. 
 
 the Court of Appeal in The I\ckfortoti takeu " is wider. 
 
 Castle, 3 P. D. 11, doubtiug the («) (1893) P. '217 ; cf The Nurra- 
 
 correctness of the above definition of gnnxett. 10 Blatchf. 475. 
 
 " overtaking," may now be set yb) The Henry Morton, 2 Asp. 
 
 aside ; as also the cases of The M. C. 466. 
 
 Chmwnry, 1 Asp. M. C. .569, and (c) 14 Wall. 270, 277. 
 
 The Breudalhane, 7 P. D. 186, so far [d] The Ocumus, 5 Bened. 54 5. 
 
 as they bear upon the question as to See also The Governor, Abbott. Ad. 
 
 what is an " overtaking " ship. 108 ; The Rhode Island, Olcott, 505 ; 
 
 (z) But see The Main, 11 P. D. 1 Blatchf. 363. 
 
 132, where the definition by Fry, [e) Whitridge v. Dill, 23 How, 
 
 L. J., of a ship that is " being over- 448.
 
 OVERTAKING SHIP. *^^^ 
 
 that a ship with the wind free must keep out of the way of ^^^ticie 24. 
 another close-hauled. In an American case, where a brig 
 and a s(3hoouer were upon converging courses, the schooner 
 overtaking the brig, it was held that the brig was in fault for 
 not keeping out of the way, she having the wind free. It 
 was said that, if she had been close-hauled, it would not have 
 been her duty t<j keep out of the way (./'). Under the 
 existing law, a sailing ship overtaking another must keep out 
 of the way, though she is close-hauled, and the other is free. 
 
 A ship cannot, it seems, be an " overtaking " ship unless 
 she is going faster than the ship ahead ( (/). 
 
 Where the overtaking ship was on the quarter of the ship Buty ^J^.^^^'^^- 
 ahead, and the latter altered her course so as to give the '' ^" ^ '^' 
 other ship more room, it was held that she did not thereby 
 depart from the regulations, so as to be held in fault for 
 a collision which followed (//). If an overtaken ship is 
 compelled to alter her course in order to avoid another ship, 
 or for any other reason, she must not alter more than is 
 necessary (0 ; otherwise she will fail to justify her alteration 
 under Art. 27, and will be held in fault under the statute for 
 infringing the regulations. 
 
 A ship that was being overtaken wilfully obstructed the 
 other. It was held (in America) that she was alone in fault, 
 although there was some negligence in the other ship (/.•). 
 
 The words " shall keep out of the way " have given rise to "ShaU keep 
 
 . . 1 J.1 1 T o\it of the 
 
 a difference of judicial opmion m a case where the leadmg ^^y^ 
 
 ship had altered her course. In such a case. Lord Esher, 
 
 M. R., and Lopes, L. J., thought that no more was required 
 
 of the overtaking ship than ordinary care, and that if, using 
 
 such care, she nevertheless failed to keep out of the way, she 
 
 would not be held in fault for an infringement of the Ai'ticle. 
 
 Kay, L. J., thought, on the other hand, that the obligation 
 
 on her is absolute, and that, unless she proved that the action 
 
 of the leading ship made the collision inevitable, or unless 
 
 (/) The Clement, 1 Sprague, 257 ; (t) The Saragossa, 7 Asp. M. C. 
 
 2 CurtiH, 363. The Supreme Court ■1^'d. 
 
 waH equally divided. [k) Oaffnev v. Figott, 116 led. 
 
 'g) The Franconia, 2 P. D. 8. Rep. 486. 
 
 (/i) The Franconia, '2 P. D. 11.
 
 438 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 24. 
 
 Sailing- 
 trawler at 
 work. 
 
 Cases illus- 
 trating the 
 application 
 of Art. 24. 
 
 she brought herself within the saving words of Art. 27, she 
 must be held in fault (/). 
 
 Notwithstanding the wording of Art. 26, it would 
 probably be held that a steamship overtaking a sailing 
 trawler at work is required by Art. 24 to keep out of her 
 way ; and that a sailing ship overtaking a sailing trawler at 
 work is required both by Aii. 24 and Art. 26 to keep out of 
 her way. 
 
 The duty of the ship which is being overtaken to show 
 a light astern is considered in a previous Article. 
 
 It is the duty of a steamship overtaking a sailing ship to 
 keep out of the way of the latter, both by virtue of Art. 20 
 and Art. 24. 
 
 The following cases illustrate the application of Art. 24 : — 
 
 A steamship attempted to pass a saihng ship turning up 
 the Thames against a head wind. Owing to the latter going 
 about when she got to the edge of the tide, the steamer ran 
 into her. It was held that the sailing ship was under no 
 obligation to give notice that she was going about, and that 
 the steamer in attempting to pass did so at her own risk {ni). 
 
 Where a sailing ship. A., with the wind free, was 
 approaching another, B., hove-to, and driving to leeward in 
 such a direction that her side lights were not for some time 
 visible to A., it was held that it was the duty of A. to keep 
 out of the way {ii). It does not appear whether the decision 
 was on the ground that A was " overtaking" B., or that A. 
 was "crossing" B. and to windward of her, with tbe wind 
 on the same side, or whether it was A.'s duty to keep out of 
 the way because she was going free and the other ship 
 hove-to. 
 
 When two ships turning to windward in narrow waters 
 are close-hauled on the same tack, one following in the wake 
 of the other, if the leading ship goes about, and the following 
 ship cannot stand on without risk of collision, it is the duty 
 of the latter to keep out of the way of the ship ahead by 
 going about (o). 
 
 {I) The Saragossa, 7 Asp. M. G. 
 289. 
 
 {m) The Palatine, 1 Asp. M. C. 
 468. 
 
 («.) The Eleanor v. The Alma, 2 
 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 240. 
 
 (o) The Priscilla, L. E,. 3 A. & E. 
 125 ; but see The Annie, (1909) P. 176.
 
 OVERTAKING SHTf. ^^9 
 
 If two ships are turning to windward, and the one ahead^ Article 04. 
 instead of going about, weais, it seems that, whilst she is in 
 the act of wearing and approaching the ship astern, the latter 
 is not an " overtaking " ship, and that she is not required to 
 keep out of the way [p) . 
 
 The Seafoii and T/w Pohcicra were on nearl}^ parallel 
 (S.W. by W., about) courses, T/ic Pok-evero being abaft 
 the starboard beam of The Seaton and overtaking her. When 
 the ships were three or four miles apart, The Polccvera altered 
 her course to S. \ W., thereby causing risk of collision. 
 It was held that she was in fault for a collision that 
 followed {q). 
 
 The following American cases illustrate the application of American 
 Art. 24 :— *''''^^- 
 
 A schooner luffing up to come to an anchor, when a short 
 distance ahead of a steamship, was held not to be in fault for 
 a collision which followed (r). 
 
 The principle that an overtaking ship does not cease to be 
 bound to keep out of the way until she is past and clear of 
 the other ship was applied in the case of the overtaking ship 
 rounding to, to come to an anchor (.s). 
 
 Two tugs were racing (twelve knots) for a schooner. One 
 was overtaking the other, and, before she was clear, attempted 
 to cross her, and so forced her into collision with the schooner. 
 The overtaking tug was held alone in fault (;'). 
 
 Two ships were workiug to windward in company, one 
 overtaking the other. The leading ship went about, and the 
 overtaking ship did the same, but missed stays and took a 
 stern board into the other. The overtaking ship was held 
 alone in fault for standing too close to the other {u). 
 
 A collision occurred between an overtaking steamship and 
 a tug just cast off from the ship ahead, alongside which she 
 had been lashed. The overtaking steamship had not, in 
 accordance with the law in America, signalled her intention 
 
 (») The Falkland and The Navi- (*) The Bendo and The ^atnpson, 
 
 gaior, Br. & Lu«h. 204. 44 Fed. Rep. 439. 
 
 (o^ The Seaton, 9 P. D. 1 ; cf. (t) The Jesse Spauldiug, ;)0 Fed. 
 
 Ueheriveg v. La Compagiiie Generale Rep. 583. Cf. The Sundhtll, (1894) 
 
 Tramatlantique, 60 Fed. Rep. 461. App. Cas. 646. 
 
 {r\ The Hekn £V/fer, 50 Fed. Rep. («) The Stephen Dennett, 54 led. 
 
 142 Rep. 207.
 
 440 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 24. of passing the ship ahead. It was held that she was in fault 
 for the collision, although, until the tug cast off, she was not 
 aware of the presence of the tug (.r). 
 
 A vessel was held in fault for attempting to pass another 
 ahead in a channel so narrow that there was risk in making 
 the attempt (y). 
 
 The rule has been held to apply in a case where the over- 
 taken vessel was going astern (2). 
 
 Article 25. 
 
 Article 26. In narrow channels every steam vessel shall, when it is safe 
 and practicable, keep to that side of thefiincai/ or mid-channel 
 which lies on the starboard side of such vessel. 
 
 This Article corresponds with Art. 21 of the Regulations 
 of 1884, from which it differs only verbally. 
 
 The Article is substantially the re-enactment of a rule 
 which, having been in force from 184U to 1862, was in that 
 year repealed. By 9 & 10 Yict. c. 100, s. 9, steamships 
 were required to keep on the starboard side of mid-channel, 
 " due regard being had to the tide and the position of each 
 vessel in such tide." In The Leith {a), this was interpreted 
 to mean that a ship was to keep on the starboard side, ' • pro- 
 vided it may be done with convenience and safety " to the 
 other vessel. By subsequent Acts (14 & 15 Yict. c. 79, 
 s. 27, and 17 & 18 Yict. c. 104, s. 297) the rule was re- 
 enacted with the omission of the words as to having regard 
 to the tide. In several cases (b) decided under these Acts, it 
 was held that no practice of the river as to ships keeping in or 
 out of the strength of the tide, and no considerations of con- 
 
 {x) Robinson v. Detroit, ^-e. Steam 
 Nav. Co., 73 Fed. Rep. 883."^ 
 
 (y) The City of I'aris, 1 Bened. 
 174 ; 9 Wall. 634 ; The Narragansett, 
 10 Blatchf. 475 ; The Nova Scotia 
 and The Quebec, 2 Quebec L. R. 1 ; 
 The Farewell, 8 Quebec L. R. 87. 
 
 (2) The Sicilian Prince, 128 Fed. 
 133. 
 
 (a) 7 Not. of Cas. 137. 
 
 (*) The Duke of Sussex, 1 W. Rob. 
 
 274; The Sylph, 2 Sp. 75; The 
 Panther, 1 Sp. 31 ; The Malvina, 1 
 Moo. P. C. N. S. 357 ; The Mceander 
 and The Florence Nightbujale, ibid. 
 63 ; The Seine, Swab. \\\\' The Hand 
 of Providence, ibid. 107 ; The Unity, 
 ibid. 101 ; The Nimrod, 15 Jur. 1201, 
 are decisions under the starboard 
 side rule of former Acts. Cf. 
 Occidental, ^c. Co. v. Smith, 74 Fed. 
 Rep. 261.
 
 STARBOARD SIDE RULE. 
 
 441 
 
 venience, would justify a deviation from the express enact- Article 26. 
 
 ment as to keeping on the starboard side. By 25 & 26 Vict. 
 
 e. 63, s. 2, the starboard side rule was repealed, and from 
 
 1862 to the 1st of September, 1880, vessels were free to 
 
 navigate on either side of rivers, except in certain waters 
 
 where a special rule was in force under local Acts. Such 
 
 special rules are now in force in the Mersey, the Clyde, the 
 
 Tyne, the Tees, and in Cork or Queenstown harbour (c) ; also 
 
 in the Danube (d). Vessels entering Sorel harbour are 
 
 required to keep on the port side (e) . 
 
 The re-enactment of the starboard side rule and its Consequence 
 
 insertion in the regulations are of the utmost consequence to °^ navigating 
 
 . , „ , . . on the wrong 
 
 seamen. Any person m charge of a snip wlio navigates her side of a nar- 
 
 on the wrong side of a narrow channel, besides being guilty ^^^ ^ ^°°^ ' 
 
 of a misdemeanor, will almost inevitably subject himself aud 
 
 his owners to liability for any collision occiuTing when he is 
 
 on his wrong side, unless it is proved that his being on the 
 
 wrong side was unavoidable (/). 
 
 There is considerable difficulty in defining a " narrow ^vhat is a 
 
 channel." A "narrow channel" need be of no particular ",°*''^°T. . 
 
 cnaunel ? 
 
 length, and may be formed by extremities of two breakwaters 
 at the entrance to a harbour ((7). The rule has been applied to 
 the Straits of Messina {/i) ; the Swin, at the Middle Light (i) ; 
 the entrance of Falmouth harbour (/.:) ; the Cardiff drain at 
 its junction with the entrance channel to the Roath basin (/); 
 the Scheldt at Antwerp [m) ; the Golden Grate entrance to San 
 Francisco harbour («) ; the channel leading to the inner har- 
 bour, Sydney, N. B. (0) ; the River Humber between the BuU 
 
 (c) See AppendL^ for some of these 
 rules. For an application of the 
 Tees rule, see The Mary Lohdcn, 6 
 Asp. M. C. 262. 
 
 {d) The Yourri and The Spearman, 
 10 App. Cas. 270 ; The Clieveden, 
 (1894) App. Cas. 625. 
 
 {e) 42 Vict. c. 29 (Canada) Art. 28. 
 
 (f) 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, s. 419. 
 
 (y) Cf. per Alverotone, C. J., in 
 The Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosxe, (1907) 
 P. 259, at ijp. 263, 2G4. 
 
 {h) The lihondda, 8 xVpp. Cas. 549. 
 
 (i) The Minnie, (1894) P. 336 ; The 
 C'orennie, ibid. p. 338, note. But, 
 owing to an alteration in Hghts, the 
 
 whole breadth of the Swin is now 
 tlie channel. See T/ie Oporto, (1897) 
 P. 249. 
 
 (k) The Clydach, 5 Asp. M. C. 336. 
 
 {I) The Leverington, 11 P. D. 117. 
 
 (»«) The Whithchnrn, 9 Asp. M. C. 
 154. The rule was assumed to apply 
 here. 
 
 («) Occidental, ^c. Co. v. Smith, 74 
 Fed. Rep. 261. 
 
 (o) The Cuba v. McMillan, 26 Sup. 
 Ct. (Canada) 651. The rule also 
 applies to the Narrows at Vancouver, 
 Brt/ve V. C. P. Ry. Co., 13 Brit. Col. 
 Rep. 446.
 
 442 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 25. 
 
 Meaning of 
 " fairway," 
 " mid- 
 channel." 
 
 ' ' Safe and 
 practicable." 
 
 and Clee Ness buoys on the south side and the buoys on the 
 north side {j)) ; Queenstown harbour {q) ; the entrance to 
 Cherbourg harbour (r) ; the entrance channel formed by the 
 east and west pier at Swansea (s) ; the Firth of Forth from 
 the Forth Bridge upwards (f); and the northern entrance to 
 the Great Bitter Lake in the Suez Canal (u). On the other 
 hand, an outward part of the sea channels at the entrance of 
 the Mersey (x) ; the harbour of Lerwick inside its nor- 
 thern and southern entrances (y) ; and the Sound, six miles 
 wide, outside the western entrance to Vineyard Sound on 
 the American coast (s), have been held not to be narrow 
 channels («). 
 
 Under the earlier Act there was considerable discussion as 
 to the meaning of " mid-channel " (b). In the present Article 
 "fairway or mid-channel" would appear to mean the deep 
 water channel navigable for heavy ships. It would seem 
 that it is to the starboard side of the centre of such deep 
 water channel that vessels, both those navigating within the 
 deep water channel and those navigating in waters which, 
 although .outside of the deep water channel, are, however, 
 comprised within the "narrow channel," must keep (c). 
 
 The words " when it is safe and practicable " qualify the 
 rule; but probably they have no further effect than the 
 saving clause of Art. 27 {d). Probably they would apply to 
 a steamship on her right side of the channel falling in with a 
 sailing ship on her wrong side, so as to require the steamship 
 
 ip) TheAshton, (1905) P. 21. 
 
 [q) The Glengartff, (1905) P. 106. 
 
 (r) The Kaiser Wilhthn der Gro.ssc, 
 (1907) P. 259. 
 
 (s) The Prince Lioaold de Belgique, 
 (1909) P. 103. 
 
 {t) Kerr v. Screw Collier Co., Ltd., 
 (1909) Sess. Gas. 561. 
 
 («) The Knare.'ihro, (1907) P. 38, 
 note. 
 
 (a-) The McBander, 1 Moo. P. C. 
 N. S. 63 (under a former Act). 
 
 [y) The SeymoUcus, (1909) P. 109. 
 
 (2) Donnell v. Bo.ston Towhoat Co., 
 89 Fed. Rep. 757. 
 
 («) For decisions as to the applica- 
 tion of this rule to waters in the 
 neighbourhood of New York, see 
 The Islander, 152 Fed. 385 ; The 
 Wrestler, 144 Fed. 334 and 153 Fed. 
 973. The application of the rule to 
 
 Lowestoft North Roads has not been 
 decided, see The Trt^ Agaiii., Ship. 
 Gaz., June 2nd, 190S'. 
 
 ih) Smith V. Toss, 2 H. & N. 97. 
 
 (c) The Glengariff, supra. It may 
 be noted that "fairway" has been 
 defined in respect of Rule 38 of the 
 Thames Rules. ' ' Wherever there is 
 an open navigable passage used by 
 vessels proceeding up and down a 
 river or ( hannel, that may be said to 
 be a fairway." Per Bruce, J., in 
 The Blue Bdl, (1895) P. 242, at 
 p. 246. This definition was accepted 
 in The Clntha Boat 147, (1909) P. 36. 
 
 {d) See The Try Again, supra. As 
 to the meaning of these words in 
 former Acts, see The Unity, Swab. 
 101 ; The Hand of Providence, ibid. 
 107; 27;^ iVimro^, "15 Jur. 1201 ; The 
 Panther, 1 Sp. 31.
 
 STARBOARD SIDE RULE. 
 
 443 
 
 to keep out of the way of the sailing ship in compliance with Article 25. 
 Art. 20, notwithstanding the fault of the latter in being on 
 her wi'ong side. The same observation applies in the case of 
 an overtaking ship or any other ship whose duty it is under 
 the regulations to keep out of the way. 
 
 Difficulty has arisen in regard to the application of the How to be 
 crossing rule as between vessels proceeding along a narrow ^^^ ^ 
 channel and those approaching the narrow channel with a 
 -view to proceeding along it. It would seem that, where in 
 such circumstances both rules may be reasonably complied 
 ^sith, then obedience to both rules is incumbent upon the 
 vessels. 
 
 Thus, where a ship, A., being in Cardiff drain, was 
 required by the regulations to keep on the starboard side, and 
 the other ship, B., was in the entrance channel to the Roath 
 basin, it was held that they were crossing ships, and that A., 
 having B. on her starboard hand, was required by Art. 16 to 
 keep out of the way (e). 
 
 So also where two vessels were rounding the Clee Ness Buoy, 
 the one bound from Grrimsby to the sea and the other from the 
 sea to Grimsby, the incoming vessel was held at fault both for 
 being on her wrong side of the channel and also for not 
 keeping her course and speed, and the outgoing vessel was 
 held at fault for not keeping out of the way (/). In certain 
 cases, where both the narrow channel and crossing rules were 
 primd facie applicable, compliance with one or both rules has 
 been dispensed with. Thus the rules of seamanship alone 
 were held to apply to vessels, one of which was proceeding 
 up the eastern side of the entrance channel of Swansea 
 harbour and the other entering the channel from a channel 
 leading to a dock also on the eastern side of the channel. It 
 was held to be reasonable, in the event of two vessels 
 approaching the point of intersection of the two channels, for 
 the vessel with the tide against her to wait until the other 
 had passed {(/). In the case of T//r Kaiser Wilhelm der 
 6^yo«se (A), the circumstances were different from those dealt 
 
 le) The Leverin(jton,n'e.'D.\\l\ (1909) P. 103; see also The Try 
 
 The Cuba v. McMillan, 26 Sup. Ct. Again, Ship. Gaz. 'ind June, 1908. 
 (Canada) 651. [h) (1907) P. 259; see also The 
 
 (/) The Ashton, (1905) P. 21. Knaresboro, (1907) P. 38, note, and 
 
 (g) The Prmce Leopold de Belyique, p. 545, infra.
 
 444 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 25. 
 
 Does Art. 25 
 apply where 
 local rules 
 are in force ? 
 
 with above, inasmuch as in that case both vessels were 
 approaching the narrow channel with a view to passing 
 through it, the channel consisting of the strip of water, some 
 half-a-mile wide, lying between the extremities of the two 
 breakwaters protecting the entrance to Cherbourg harbour. 
 The Court, having regard to evidence of custom and to the rules 
 of seamanship, found that in this case the narrow channel 
 rule alone applied, and that vessels leaving and entering the 
 harbour and navigating in the waters adjoining the entrance 
 should keep to their starboard side of the channel and should 
 pass port side to port side. 
 
 If a ship's business takes her to the port side of a narrow 
 channel, she is not required by Art. 'J 5 to keep on the star- 
 board side. The Perim, in a narrow channel (near Cronstadt), 
 was held not to be in fault for breaking the starboard side 
 rule when, at the time of the collision, she was making for a 
 pilot station on the port side of the channel to discharge her 
 pilot {i). So where a ship, whilst coming out of dock at 
 Antwerp, got her stern to the east side of the river, it was 
 held that she was not therefore to be held in fault. Art. 25, 
 it was held, had no application in such a case (/.•) . 
 
 Questions may arise as to the application of the starboard 
 side rule in waters where (as, for example, the river Thames) 
 local rules of navigation are in force, but where there is no 
 rule as to the side of the channel upon which ships are to 
 navigate. It is submitted that in such cases xirt. 25 has no 
 application, and that absence in the local rules of a rule 
 requiring vessels to navigate on one side of the channel or the 
 other leads to the inference that vessels are free to navigate 
 in any part of the channel. It was so held with reference 
 to the navigation of the Thames at Millwall (/). The 
 question, however, is not free from doubt; it may be 
 contended that the local rules are supplementary to the general 
 regulations ('//?). Even in foreign waters there is reason to 
 think that the starboard side rule might be applied upon the 
 
 (i) The Perim, Ad. Div. 10th Nov. 
 1886. 
 
 {k) The WUtlieburn, 9 Asp. M. C. 
 154. 
 
 {I) The Ecossaise, Ship. G-az. loth 
 
 Dec. 1885. See, however. The Gere, 
 (1909) P. 287. See also The Carlotta, 
 (1899) P. 223, as to supplementiDg 
 local rules by the sea rules. 
 {m) See infra, Art. 30.
 
 STARBOARD SIDE RULE. 445 
 
 principle enuuoiated in Tho Fi/enoonf (ii). The general Article 25. 
 question as to what waters the regulations apply to is 
 considered above, p. olH. 
 
 The application of Art. 25 is illustrated by the cases 
 relating to the analogous rule applicable to vehicles on a 
 highway on land. In these cases it has been held that, whilst 
 a driver on his wrong side is required to exercise more than 
 ordinary care to avoid other vehicles (o), the rule of the road 
 is not to be treated as the sole criterion of negligence (;;). 
 But the important distinction created by 56 & 57 Yict. c. GO, 
 s. 419, in case of collision between ships, must not be over- 
 looked in considering the application of the cases relating to 
 collisions on land. 
 
 At the trial of a collision case before a jury the question 
 has arisen whether it is for the judge or for the jury to decide 
 what is a narrow channel. The point was not decided (q). 
 
 In America some of the States have passed laws as to the Rul™ in 
 
 . , . . American 
 
 side on which vessels are to navigate ; and m some rivers rivers. 
 
 there is a customary track. Sometimes a ship bound up 
 
 stream must keep on one side or the other of mid-channel, 
 
 leaving the middle of the river to ships bound down. In the 
 
 East River, at New York, it is the law that vessels going up 
 
 or down shall keep in mid-channel. Where a ship is required 
 
 by law or usage to keep on one side or the other, if she is on 
 
 her wrong side she is held to be in fault for a collision with 
 
 another ship that is on her right side and has done all that 
 
 the law requires to keep clear (r). 
 
 There is great difficulty in determining the application of Difficulty of 
 
 some of the Articles of the general regulations to ships navi- ^'^cTusl^ing "^ 
 
 gating a narrow and tortuous river. It appears to have been ?"'V, "'?®* 
 
 held by the Privy Council («), in the case of two ships bound a winding 
 
 up and down a river, and 6rst sighting each other on opposite 
 
 sides of a point of land round which the river winds, that tlie 
 
 ships are not " crossing " ships within the meaning of the 
 
 («) Swab. 374. ivarra, 14 App. Cas. 318. 
 
 (o) Flitckwcll V. JVilxon. 6 Car. & (?•) 1 Par.-*ous on Shipping (ed. 
 
 P. 375. 18o9). 582 ; T/u- Ivaiilioe and TId' 
 
 (p) jrai/dev. Ladt/ Can; 2 Dow. & Martha M. Heath, 7 Bciicd. '213; 
 
 Ry. 260 ; Wordnworth v. Willan, 4 The Vaitdcrbilt, 6 Wall. 225 ; The 
 
 Esp. 273. Bay State, 3 Blatohf. 18. 
 
 {q) Amtralian Steam Nav. Co. v. (.s) Sec The VelocUy, and caaea 
 
 Smith, The Victoria and The Keila- cited below. 
 
 m 
 3iug 
 river.
 
 446 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 25. 
 
 Customary- 
 course in 
 rivers. 
 
 regulations ; and that, if they are then on different sides of 
 the river, the duty of each is to pursue her course as if the 
 other were not in sight. If, when they first sight each other 
 on opposite sides of a point of land, they are both in mid- 
 channel, or equi-distant from the same shore, it is not clear 
 how, and on which side, the law requires them to pass each 
 other it). It may happen, in such a case, that owing to the 
 way of the ships through the water and the set of the tide it 
 is possible for them to clear each other with certainty in one 
 way, and in one way only. 
 
 In most tidal rivers there is a customary track for vessels 
 going with the tide, and another for those going against it {u). 
 Its course depends mainly on the practice for ships with a 
 fair tide to keep in its strength, and for those with a foul tide 
 to " cheat " it, or keep out of its strength. In a winding 
 river, where there is an off-set of the tide from the points into 
 the opposite bights, ships usually cross from one side of the 
 river to the other at or about particular places in the different 
 reaches. It has been held that such a practice, although not 
 strictly a custom binding upon all ships, is one which a ship 
 is justified in following and in assuming that other ships will 
 follow {x). And it appears that this is so although her 
 position with regard to another vessel is such that if she were 
 in the open sea the regulations would apply and require her 
 to act differently. In determining, therefore, what are the 
 proper steps for a ship to take in order to avoid another 
 approaching her in a winding river, the sinuosities of the 
 river, and also the usual course of vessels in the river, must 
 be taken into consideration. In cases where, if each ship 
 continues her course in the usual track, they will pass clear, 
 although if either deviates from it there would be risk of 
 collision, it appears that the regulations do not apply, and 
 that it is the duty of each vessel to continue her course in the 
 usual track and as if the other were not in sight (//) . 
 
 (<) As to tlie duty of two ships 
 rounding a bend in a river in 
 opposite directions, one outside the 
 other, see The Byuell Castle, 4 P. D. 
 -11%, per Brett, L.J. 
 
 («) In The Cambria, Ad. Div. May, 
 1887, Hannen, P.. was advised by 
 his assessors that there is no usage 
 
 for ships bound down the river to 
 keep either to the north or to the 
 south side of the river from Millwall 
 Pier round the Isle of Dogs. 
 
 [x) The Esk and The Niord, L. R. 
 3 P. C. 436, 412. 
 
 yijl The Pekiu, (1897) App. Gas. 
 o32; The Vehviti/, L. R. o P. C
 
 CUSTOMARY TRACK IN Rm:RS. 44 
 
 It has recently been held in the Admiralty Division that it Article 25. 
 is a prudent rule in a winding tidal river, in the absence of 
 special regulations, for a steamship about to round a point 
 against the tide to wait until a vessel coming in the opposite 
 direction has passed clear, and a steamship was held in fault 
 for disregarding this precaution in the Scheldt (s). 
 
 It appears, however, from a decision of the Court of Appeal, 
 that the cases above cited as to the application of the genf^ral 
 regulations in a winding river do not necessarily apply in a 
 river Av^here there are in force special rules made under a local 
 Act for the express purpose of regulating its navigation. 
 Although the Thames Rules (of 1872) were identical, as 
 regards crossing ships, with the sea regulations, it seems to 
 have been doubted whether the decision in The Velocity, and 
 other cases following it, that two ships rounding a point are 
 not within the " crossing " rule, would be followed in a 
 similar case arising under the Thames Rules {a). The 
 particular point decided in The Velocity does not arise upon 
 the existing Thames Rules, which contain no rule correspond- 
 ing to the " crossing " rule there discussed. But the prin- 
 ciple involved in that and the other decisions above referred 
 to is of wide application, and has an important bearing upon 
 the existing Thames Rules, as well as other rules for the 
 navigation of winding rivers. That principle is that the 
 questions, Whether there is risk of collision ? and. What rule 
 is applicable where there is such risk ? depend rather upon 
 the relative positions of the two ships in the river as regards 
 
 44 ; The Culogne and The Ranger, a strong opinion that where, except 
 
 L. R. 4 P. C. 519 ; The Esk and The for the practice of the river as to 
 
 Niord, L. R 3 P. C. 436 ; The keeping- in or out of the strengrth 
 
 Kjuhriiharn, 2 Asp. M. C. 213, 217; uf ihe tide, the Triuitj' Rule of lS40 
 
 but see the ob.-^ervations of Jame.s, would apply, the case was not taken 
 
 L. J., on some of these cases in The out of the rule by the practice. And 
 
 Oceanu, 3 P. D. 60 ; see also The in The Duke of Sumex, 1 W. Rob. 
 
 Milwaukee, Brown, Ad. 313. Tlie 274, it was held that the custom of 
 
 principle adopted in the above casts the river as to vessels uvailiiifi- them- 
 
 by the Privy Council, that in de- selves of the strenf,'th of the tide was 
 
 termining the apjilication of the superseded by the Trinity Rule, 
 
 regulations in a winding river the (s) The Ttlahot, (i A.sp. M. C. 602. 
 
 customary track of .ships is to be So in America : The F. ^ P. M. 
 
 couhidered, does not ujiijcar to have (No 2), 44 Fed. Rep. 69S ; aliler, 
 
 been followed i^y Dr. Lushington whero there is another chantiel free 
 
 under former Acts and rules. In for the dcscenrling >hip : The Cili/ of 
 
 The Friends, 1 VV. Rob. 478, and Spriiigjietd, 26 Fed. Rep. loS. 
 
 The Gazelle, ihid. 471, he expressed (a) The Oceana, 3 P. D. bO. 
 
 fy
 
 448 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 25. 
 
 American 
 cases as to 
 the applica- 
 tion of the 
 regulations 
 in a winding 
 river. 
 
 mid-channel, and upon the customary track of ships in the 
 river, than upon the heading of the two ships at a particular 
 moment. 
 
 The following cases illustrate the view taken by the 
 Supreme Court of the United States as to the application of 
 the Regulations of 1863 in a winding river. 
 
 A sailing ship descending a river on a southerly course 
 sighted a steamship ascending it. In accordance with the 
 practice of the river, the sailing ship was on the west, and the 
 steamship on the east, side of the channel. At a point 
 between the two vessels the river took a bend in a south- 
 easterly direction. On reaching this point the sailing ship's 
 helm was put to starboard in order to round the bend. 
 Instead of porting, so as to resume her course in the usual 
 track along the west bank at a point where the channel 
 turned again to the west and ran in its original southerly 
 direction, the sailing ship continued the course she was on 
 after her helm had been put to starboard. Crossing the 
 channel to the east shore she ran into the steamship, which 
 had continued her original course along that shore. It was 
 held that the sailing ship was in fault for deviating from the 
 customary track along the west shoie ; that her duty under 
 the rule (identical with Art. 18 of the Regulations of 1863) 
 requiring her to keep her course was to keep her course along 
 the west shore, deviating from a straight course only so far 
 as the winding of the river required (b). The judgment of 
 the Supreme Court in this case is to the effect that when a 
 point of land or other obstruction in the navigation interferes 
 with the literal application of the regulations, they are, never- 
 theless, to be complied with so far as possible ; that a vessel 
 required by the law to keep her course, if she is compelled 
 by an obstruction or bend in the river to deviate from it, 
 must resume her original course as soon as possible. And 
 the Court expressly held, that where two vessels wiU pass 
 clear if each adheres to the customary track, the regulations 
 have no application ; and that a vessel deviating from the 
 customarj' track in supposed obedience to the regulations is 
 in fault. 
 
 (i) The John L. Easbrouck, 3 Otto, 406 ; of. The New York, 82 Fed. Rep. 
 819,
 
 WINDING RIVER. 449 
 
 In The Free State (r), a sailing ship was crossing a river Article 25. 
 diagonally, for a temporary piu'pose, when she sighted a 
 steamship approaching with risk of collision ; the Supreme 
 Court held that the duty of the sailing ship was to keep on 
 her course across the river. The sailing ship ascending a 
 river on a northerly course and being overtaken by a steam- 
 ship, starboarded until her head was N.W. by N., in order 
 to give the steamship more room to pass on her starboard 
 hand. "While crossing the river on the N.W. by N. course 
 she sighted another steamship descending the river and 
 preparing to pass the ascending steamship port side to port 
 side. After being passed by the ascending steamship the 
 sailing vessel ported and attempted to follow in her wake, so 
 as to pass the descending steamship port side to port side. 
 In doing so she came into collision witli the latter, and it was 
 held by the Supreme Court that she was in fault for not 
 keeping her N.W. by N. course. 
 
 Wlien two steamships proceeding in the same direction 
 were rounding a point or bend in a river nearly abreast, it 
 was held that it was the duty of each to keep in her own 
 water, and not attempt to cross the course of the other. The 
 outside boat was held in fault for a collision that occurred 
 while attempting to get in to the shore across the bows of the 
 other {(/). 
 
 In T/ie 31i7i(rad-ee (e), it was held that the question 
 whether, in a winding river, two ships were meeting " end 
 on " is to be determined by their general course in the river, 
 and not by their compass course at a particular moment while 
 they are pursuing the windings of the channel. 
 
 Where conical buoys were placed down the centre of a System of 
 navigable channel, a vessel was held free from blame for and^narr.nv 
 having treated them as starboard hand buoys, even thoiigli chaini.-l. 
 by so treating them she brouglit herself onto tlio wrong side 
 of the navigable channel {/). 
 
 (c) 1 otto, 200. (/) The Gu.stafxberff, (1905) T. 10. 
 
 (d) The Oceanns, 12 Blatchf. 430. Vov Tuiiform system of bn(>5-agc, sec 
 
 (e) Brown, Adm. 313. Ohaunol Pilot, 'Jtli oil. Vt. I. p. 2;t. 
 
 M. ^' ^*
 
 450 
 
 THE KEGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 26. 
 
 Sailing ships 
 to keep out 
 of the way of 
 fishiii"' craft. 
 
 Article 26. 
 
 Scnling vessels under u-ay shall Ixeep out of the way of sailing 
 vessels or boats fishing with nets, or lines, or trawls. This rale 
 shall not give to any vessel or boat engaged in f shin g the right 
 of obstructing a fairway used, by vessels other than fishing vessels 
 or boats. 
 
 This Article first appeared in the present Regulations. 
 Although limited to sailing vessels, steam vessels are bound 
 to keep out of the way of sailing fishing craft, by virtue 
 of Art. 20. What effect the Article has as regards sailing 
 trawlers at work is not clear. Hitherto it seems to have been 
 assumed that a trawler at work is " under way " {g). Under 
 Art. 26 it would seem that a sailing trawler at work is not a 
 " sailing vessel " under way within the meaning of some of 
 the regulations. Steam trawlers are not touched by Art. 26, 
 and, so far as they can, must comply with the regulations for 
 " steam vessels " (see Art. 20). 
 
 Article 27. 
 
 Article 27. In obeying and construing these rules, due regard shall be had 
 ProvisiTas to" to all dangers of navigation and collision, and to any special 
 
 special cir- circumstances which man render a departure from the above 
 cumstances. ' . ?• 7 ' 
 
 rules necessary in order to avoid immediate danger. 
 
 This Article is identical with Art. 23 of the Eegulations 
 of 1884, except for the insertion of the words " and 
 collision." 
 
 The concluding words of Art. 27, while bearing a strong 
 resemblance to those of i>l & -"38 Yict. c. 60, s. 419 (4), are 
 not identical with them. The statute, inasmuch as it does 
 not refer to " immediate danger," would seem to confer a 
 wider exemption than does the Article. It may further be 
 observed that while the Article refers to a departure from 
 
 ig) See The Chumn, 5 Asp. M. C. 14 P. D. 1G4 ; T/w Dmivlm, 9 P. D. 
 476 (sailing trawler) ; The Ttvcedsdale, 164 (steam trawlers).
 
 SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES. -151 
 
 " the above rules," the statute refers to " a departure from Article 27. 
 the regulations." The exact meaning to be attached to the 
 phrase " the above rules " found in the Article has not been 
 determined, although an opinion was expressed in a dissent- 
 ing judgment in the Court of Appeal (//), that "above 
 rules " means that group of " Steering and Sailing Rules " 
 of which Art. 27 forms the last. If this view be correct, 
 then the statute not only confers a wider exemption tlian 
 Art. 27 in respect of rules to which the Article is applicable, 
 but also confers an exemption in respect of rules to which the 
 Article is not applicable at all. It may be suggested in 
 support of this proposition that a justifiable breach of rules, 
 other than the " Steering and Sailing Eules " {i), in circum- 
 stances in which there is no " immediate danger," is more 
 readily conceivable than is such a breach of the " Steering 
 and Sailing Rules." 
 
 A case in which the statute was applied, and in which, it 
 is submitted, the Article would not have been applicable, was 
 that of T//r ChUifui. In tliis case a vessel in fog employed a 
 mouth-horn in place of the mechanical fog-horn, wliicli slie 
 was required to carry. Her departure from the rules was 
 held to be "necessary " within the statute {k). 
 
 Art. 27 appears to justify a departure from any of the 
 regulations, including those as to lights and fog signals, in 
 order to avoid immediate danger. The question has been 
 raised whether a steamship at anchor in a fog is justified by 
 Art. 27 in sounding her steam whistle for the purpose of 
 attracting the attention of another vessel heading straight for 
 her and apparently not hearing her bell. It would seem 
 that such a use of the whistle might, under exceptional cir- 
 cumstances, be justified (/). But the circumstances must be 
 very exceptional to ji-stify the use of any light or fog signal 
 other than those prescribed by the regulations; and the 
 stringent provisions of 57 & 58 Yict. c. 60, s. 419, must not 
 
 (/() Per Fletclior Moultoii, L. .T., iind 9th March, 1878 (for facts, sco 
 
 in The liellanoch, (1907) P. 170 at supra, p. 44) ; see also The Coo<ief, 
 
 p. 189. Vict. L. R. xxix. p. 874 : Thr 
 
 (i) With the possible exception of Gladijs, (1910) P. 13; The Tfivr, GS 
 
 Art. 28, as to which see infra, p. 460. Fed. Rop. ;590. 
 
 (A-) 4 Asp. M. C. MW : Thr Cah/psn (/) Cf. The Mmhaut Vrimr, 10 
 
 and The Minsissipi, Ad. Ct. 7th,' 8th P. J). I'M). 
 
 O G 2
 
 452 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 27. be overlooked. Nor would a seaman be held in fault for not 
 instantly arriving at tlie conclusion that a departure from the 
 regulations was necessary (in). 
 
 In T//e Benares {n) (1883), it was held by the Court of 
 Appeal, that where there is one and only one " chance of 
 escape" from collision, a seaman is justified in taking the 
 benefit of that chance, although it necessitates a departure 
 from the regulations. Under former regulations there was 
 difficulty in reconciling this decision with dicta in The 
 Khedhe (o) to the effect that danger from collision was not a 
 circumstance justifying departure from the regulations. It 
 was probably to remove this difficulty that the words " and 
 collision " were inserted in Art. 27. 
 
 The important distinction between The Khedive and The 
 Beneo'es must, however, not be lost sight of. In the former 
 case, the ship which was held in fault, under the statute, for 
 having infringed the regulations, did what was, though not a 
 negligent act, in fact the wrong thing in point of seamanship, 
 and thereby, probably, caused the collision. In The Benares 
 tlie ship did what from a seaman's point of view, and apart 
 from the regulations, was the right thing ; and though in the 
 result it failed to avert a collision, it did not cause the colli- 
 sion, which was, from the first, inevitable. The difference 
 between the two cases is that, although in neither of them 
 was there negligence on the part of those on board, in the one 
 case the House of Lords held that the regulations had been 
 infringed, in the other the Court of Appeal held that they 
 had not been infringed. 
 Regulations It is sometimes attempted to urge this Article as an excuse 
 
 departed from ^'^^ ^ departure from the regulations where an adherence to 
 
 except for them would have prevented a collision. In such a case 
 necessity. Ai.r>-ri ^• ■ ■> • • op ^ 
 
 Art. Zi nas no application; nor does it in any wt:y affect the 
 
 universal application of the regulations where it is possible to 
 
 apply them so as to avert collision. This is well illustrated 
 
 {m) See The Oregon, 5\ Davis, 186, 
 as to a ship at anchor exhibiting a 
 flare. 
 
 (w) 9 P. D. 16. 
 
 [o) 5 App. Cas. 876. See the 
 observations of Lords Watson and 
 Blackburn, pp. 895, 902 ; and of 
 Field, J., in the American case, 
 
 The Maggie J. Smith, 16 Dav. 349, 
 3n4. In The S. Amlcrsou, 26 Fed. 
 Kep. 392, it was held that the close- 
 ness of the ships, when first seen by 
 each other, was a circumstance jus- 
 tifying departure from the regula- 
 tions.
 
 WHEN TO BE DEPARTED FROM. 453 
 
 by tlie case of The KJtediro { p) . There a steamship was Article 27. 
 suddenly put into a difficulty, and risk of collision was 
 caused, by the wrong manoeuvre of another steamship 
 approaching her. The former stopped her engines, but did 
 not immediately reverse, though she did reverse before the 
 collision. By not reversing immediately the officer in charge 
 did not show himself wanting in ordinary care, skill, or nerve, 
 though he committed an error of judgment. It was held that 
 he had departed from the regulations. 
 
 A A'essel is not justified in departing from tlie regulations Safety 
 because she fears that the other ship will not comply with their uuifonu 
 them. In a case decided under the Trinity Rules of 1840, '^p*^ *'^**^*' 
 
 , , "^ . . observauce. 
 
 Dr. Lushington thus laid down the general principle : " I 
 
 cannot conceive that anything would be more likely to lead 
 to mischievous consequences than to suppose that a vessel 
 whose duty it is to keep her course should anticipate that 
 another vessel will not give way, and so give way herself. 
 The consequence would be that there would be no certainty ; 
 whereas the doctrine I have upheld, supported by your {i.e., 
 the nautical assessors') authority, is that in cases of this 
 description you ought always to follow the general rule. 
 The certainty which results from adherence to general rules 
 is, in my opinion, absolutely essential to the safety of navi- 
 gation " {q). Again : " All rules are framed for the benefit 
 of ships navigating the seas, and no doubt circumstances will 
 arise in which it would be perfect folly to attempt to carry 
 into execution every rule, however wisely framed. It is, at 
 the same time, of the greatest possible importance to adhere 
 as closely as possible to established rules, and never to allow 
 a deviation from them unless the circumstances which are 
 alleged to have rendered such a deviation necessary are most 
 distinctly proved and established ; otherwise vessels would 
 always be in doubt and doing wrong " (r). 
 
 The case of The Sitperior (h), decided under the Trinity The Superior. 
 House Rule of 1840, is a strong one, as showing that the 
 
 (;;) .5 App. Can. 876. Cas. 387; of. The Gnat £,i.s/cni, 3 
 
 [q) The Test, 5 Not. of Cas. 276. Moo. P. C. N. S. 31 ; The Righgatc, 
 
 See also The Superior, C Not. of Can. nupm, p. 408. 
 
 607. («) 6 Nut. of Cas. 007. 
 
 (r) The John Buddie, 5 Not. of
 
 454 THE KEGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 27. necessity of observing rules of navigation, wherever it is 
 possible to do so, has been insisted upon from the first. A. 
 was a brig bound down the Thames against the flood-tide, 
 with the wind free. B., a brig bound up the river, was 
 required by the rule (f) to pass to the northward of A. Close 
 ahead of A. was a schooner, which, in violation of the Trinity 
 Rule, passed to the northward, or inside B. Expecting that 
 
 A. would follow in the wake of the schooner and pass inside, 
 
 B. starboarded, and in attempting to pass outside or to the 
 southward of A. came into collision with her. B. alleged 
 that there was no room for her to pass between the schooner 
 and A. It was held that the fact of the schooner having 
 safely passed B. on the wrong side — of her having violated 
 the rule with impunity — was no justification to B. for herself 
 violating the rule, in the expectation that A. would not obey 
 the rule, but would follow the schooner, and pass inside. 
 
 In T/tc Khedlce [u), the safety which arises from universal 
 obedience to the regulations, where it is possible to obey them 
 without causing a collision, was strongly insisted upon by the 
 House of Lords. They must, it was said, be complied with, 
 although in the particular ease it may seem to be better sea- 
 manship not to do so. •' These rules . . . are general rules," 
 said Lord Hatherley, " to be adopted by all persons having 
 charge of the navigation of vessels, with the exceptions which 
 have been pointed out (as to immediate danger). This rule 
 (as to stopping and reversing) is not laid down merely for 
 the sake of the vessel commanded by the man who breaks it, 
 but for the sake " of the vessel commanded by the man 
 approaching at a distance, and who has no right or reason to 
 suppose that he will break it. If the rule is observed, every 
 person will know precisely what he is to do, and will say, 
 ' I will carry out my directions entirely with that knowledge.' 
 On the other hand, if the Court allows these rules to be lightly 
 departed from, the result will be the very evil which the Act 
 was intended to prevent." And in the same case, Lord 
 
 {t) It does not clearly appear (m) Stoomvaart Maatschappy Neder- 
 
 whether she had the wind free or land v. Peninsular and Oriental Steam 
 
 was close-hauled. In either case her Navigation Co., The Khedive, 5 At^^). 
 
 duty as to passing to the northward Cas. 876, 895, 904, 909. 
 
 .1 the other ship was the same.
 
 WHEN TO BE DEPARTED FROM. 
 
 455 
 
 Watsou (.<•) said : — " It was the deliberate policy of the legis- Article 27. 
 lature to compel sea captains, where their vessels are in danger 
 of collision, to obey the rule (Ai't. 16 of 1863), and not to 
 trust to theii- own nerve and skill." 
 
 At the date of the observations of Dr. Lushington in the 
 case cited above {ij) there was in force no enactment or rule 
 corresponding to Art. 27. A saving clause restraining the 
 indiscriminate application of the statutory rules of navigation 
 first appears in 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 296. An Article to 
 the same effect (Art. 19) is included in the Eegulations of 
 1863. The purpose of such an enactment clearly is to pro- 
 vide for cases where a literal compliance with the regulations 
 woidd cause a collision or bring the ships into certain peril. 
 The stringency of the existing regulations wovdd seem to be 
 greater than that of the (1840) Trinity House rule of port 
 helm. In The FncndH (s), Lord Campbell said that that rule 
 applied only where, by its application, a collision " may prob- 
 ably be avoided." 
 
 Of the corresponding Article of the former law Dr. Lush- Art. 27 pru- 
 ingtou said that it was not a directory enactment, telling rc^uLitluns 
 persons to do this or that, but that it released them from the ^^mg applied 
 severe obligation of complying with the regulation under col'lisiou. 
 circumstances which would render obedience to them dan- 
 gerous, when, by deviation, they might escape danger [a). 
 But Art. 27 applies only to cases where " there is immediate 
 danger, perfectly clear " (6) ; and the departure from the 
 rules must be no more than is necessary (c). It " does not 
 prescribe any particular measures that should be adopted in 
 departing from the strict terms of any of the previous regu- 
 lations that it governs, but it merely states that in construing 
 and obeying these regulations as far as possible you may take 
 into consideration urgent attendant circumstances. ... It 
 is common sense ; for if any rule were laid down by Act of 
 Parliament, or any otlier authority, that could never be 
 departed from in certain states of circumstances, such a rule 
 
 [x) 5 App. Gas. 904. (i) The Allan auil The F/uni, 14 
 
 (y) Supra, p. 4.53. L. T. 8G0 ; 'The Moderation, 1 Moo. 
 
 {£) 4 Moo. P. C. 314, 320. P. C. ,528. 
 
 (a) 'The Eliza and The Orinoco, (c) The Sarayoi^sa, 7 A.sp. M. C. 
 
 Holt, 98. See The Concordia, L. R. 289. 
 1 A. & E. 93, 97.
 
 456 
 
 THE KEGUL.VnONS. 
 
 Article 27. 
 
 Duty to avoid 
 collision, and 
 for that 
 purpose to 
 depart from 
 the regula- 
 tions if 
 necessary. 
 
 would necessarily involve, on many occasions, the destruction 
 of ships which it was intended to preserve " {(/). " The duty 
 is to avoid collision by observing the rules, primarily ; by 
 departing from them, if necessary, to avoid danger" (r). 
 
 Not only is departure from the rule of the road excused by 
 Art. 27, where the rule cannot be obeyed without collision, 
 but a literal observance of the regulations cannot be set up 
 as a defence where the collision might have been avoided by 
 ordinary care (/). " When one person neglects his duty, and 
 so puts another into danger, the second is not justified in 
 doing nothing to avert that danger, though it is caused 
 entirely by the fault of the first" (g). ''You may depart, 
 and you must depart, from a rule if you see with perfect 
 clearness, almost amounting to certainty, that adhering to 
 the rule will bring about a collision, and violating a rule will 
 avoid it; and, indeed, this is provided for by the 19th 
 Article" (of the Eegulations of 1863) (A). And, again, "you 
 have no right to stand in a difficulty upon a right, though it 
 may be a perfectly good right, obstinately, recklessly, and 
 regardless of the safety of others" (/). Art. 27, in fact, 
 merely states the general principle, which, it is submitted, 
 would prevail in the absence of such an enactment. The 
 principle was thus stated by Best, C. J. :— " Although there 
 may be a rule of the sea, yet a man who has the management 
 of one ship is not to be allowed to follow that rule to the 
 injury of a vessel of another, where he could avoid the injuiy 
 by pursuing a different course " (A-). 
 
 A barque close-hauled on the starboard tack was held to 
 be solely in fault for a collision with a barque that had just 
 been in stays, and had not gathered way on the port tack. 
 
 (d) Per Dr. Lushington in The 
 Allan and The Flora, ubi mpra ; 
 and see The Superior, ubi mpra. The 
 Supreme Court of the United States 
 used similar language with regard 
 to the operation of Art. 19 of the 
 Regulations of 1863 in The Cmjiiga, 
 14 Wall. 270 ; The Siinnyside, 1 Otto, 
 208. 
 
 [e) The Hercules, 51 Fed. Rep. 
 452 : The Spiegel, 84 Fed. Rep. 1002. 
 
 (/) See further on this, supra, 
 p. 20. 
 
 {g) Fer Brett, L. J., The Jane 
 
 Bacon, 27 W. R. 35. 
 
 [h) Pkt Dr. Lushington, in The 
 Boanerqes and The Anglo-Indian, 2 
 Mar. Law Cas. 0. S. 239. See 
 also The Ida and The Wasa, infra ; 
 Handaysyde v. WiLon, 3 Car. & P. 
 528 ; The Lady Anne, 15 Jur. 18. 
 
 (j) The Legatus and The Emily, 
 Holt, 217. 
 
 [k) Mandaysyde v. Wilson, 3 Car. 
 & P. 528 ; see also Mayheiv v. Boyce, 
 1 Stark. 423: cf. The C. R. Stone, 
 49 Fed. Rep. 476; The Hercules, 51 
 Fed. Rep. 452, 475.
 
 WHEN TO BE DEPARTED FROM. 457 
 
 The Court (iu Ireland) said that if a ship insists on her Article 27. 
 
 rig-ht, under a rule of navigation, of not giving way, and 
 
 makes no etl'ort to prevent the collision when it is in her 
 
 power to do so, she will be held not to have performed her 
 
 duty, and to be in fault for the collision (/). So a ship ou 
 
 the port tack was (in 1850) held in fault for a collision with 
 
 another having the wind free, which she had seen a mile and 
 
 a-half off and did not attempt to avoid (in) ; and more recently 
 
 a schooner oa the starboard tack was held in fault for doing 
 
 nothing before she came into collision witli a smack hove-to 
 
 on the port tack (y/). 
 
 T/ic Lad// Ainir, close-hauled on the starboard tack, was 
 meeting another ship, close-hauled on the port tack. It 
 was held that T//e Lad// Anne might have avoided the 
 collision by putting her helm down at the last moment and 
 easing off her head sheets, and that she was in fault for not 
 doing so (o). 
 
 So a sailing ship will be held in fault for a collie-ion with a 
 steamship if she makes no attempt to avoid a collision, where 
 it is clearly in her power to do so. In such a case a mere 
 adherence to the letter of the regulations is no justification. 
 In T/ie Sunn //side, a sailing ship, with the wind free, saw the 
 mast-head and green lights of a steamship half a point on 
 her port bow, a considerable distance off. The lights were 
 those of a tug, drifting before the wind, at about a mile and 
 a-half an hour, and waiting for employment. The sailing 
 ship kept her course, and did not alter her helm until it was 
 too late to avoid the tug. It was held in America by the 
 Supreme Court that the sailing ship was in fault, as well as 
 the tug (p). In The Zadok (</), a sailing ship was h.eld in fault 
 for a collision in a fog with a steamship, because, amongst 
 other acts of negligence, after she heard the whistle of the 
 steamship approaching, she had no hands stationed at the 
 
 {I) Thr Ida iiiid Thr Warn, 1 "j L. T. Thv Gnicral Lee, 82 Fed. Rop. 830, is 
 
 1<^^- a tsiiiiilar case. In Thr I'utria, 92 
 
 {m) The Commerce, ?, \V. Rob. 2S7 ; Fed. Koj). 411, an overtaken .sailing 
 
 but see the observations of Sir J. shiiJ was held in fault for not luffiu{f ; 
 
 Colville on this case, 4 App. Cus. but see The lioinjuinville v. The Jaincx 
 
 C72. ^ C. Stivciison, L. R. f) P. C. 310, for 
 
 («) The Itosalie, 5 P. D. 245. a case of premature alteration of lier 
 
 (o) The Ladif June, Ih Jur. 18. course by the suiliug ship. 
 
 [p] The Su/aty.ncle, 1 Otto, 208; {tj} 9 P. D. 114.
 
 458 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 27. braces ready to let them go so as to assist the helm wheu the 
 steamship came iuto sight at close quarters. 
 
 The Tasmania (>■), a steamship going three and a -half knots, 
 saw the red light of another steamship one mile or more 
 distant, and two points upon her port bow. When the latter 
 was about four ship's lengths off, the green came into view. 
 No alteration in speed or helm was made until the hull of the 
 other ship was seen. The question was whether The Tatunania 
 was in fault, under Art. 23, for not having altered her course 
 before the collision. After different decisions in the Courts 
 below, the House of Lords held that she was not in fault. 
 And iu The Higligate (.s). Sir James Hanneu distinguished 
 the then subsisting decision of the Court of Appeal in The 
 TaHmaiiia, and refused to hold a sailing ship in fault for not 
 taking any step to avoid an approaching steamer until 
 collision was imminent, saying that, " It is only where a clear 
 case of necessity is made out that a captain can excuse himself 
 for not following the rule." 
 Duty to keep Under this Article must be considered cases in which one 
 o^war.sMiw.'''^ of a fleet of warships has come into collision with a merchant- 
 man ; the question in such cases usually having been whether 
 the approach of such a fleet on a crossing course upon the 
 port bow, in the case of a steamship, or from any direction, iu 
 the case of a sailing ship, constitutes such " special circum- 
 stances " under the Article or otherwise brings about such a 
 state of affairs, that it becomes the merchantman's duty to 
 keep out of the way. 
 
 The issue between the vessels in such a case is purely one 
 of negligence, the statutor}^ penalty imposed by the Merchant 
 Shipping Act of 1894, s. 41 !J (4), not being applicable (/), 
 although the rules and regulations to which each vessel is 
 subject are relevant as establishing an approved course of 
 conduct. The merchantman nmst still regard the regulations 
 as binding upon her, although not liable to the statutory 
 penalty for a breach of them. She must also, it seems, pay 
 
 (r) 15 App. Cas. 223, reversing not, where the other ves.sel is not 
 
 14 P. D. 53. bound by the section, involve the 
 
 («) 6 Asp. M. C. 512. statutory penalty, and may never do 
 
 (<) As to the warship, see ante, so; The Etna, (1908) P. 269; The 
 
 p. 366. As to the mtrchantman, Sans Fareil, (1900) P. 267, and (uitc, 
 
 breaches of Arts. 21, 27, and 29 do p. 54.
 
 WHEX TO BE UEPAKTEU FKUM. 459 
 
 attention to any notice (n) wliicli the Board of Trade niav Article 27. 
 issue with reference to the meeting- of mercliantmen with 
 fleets of warships. The warship must conform to the collision 
 regulations imposed upon His Majesty's ships by Order in 
 Council (June, 1899), which are identical in terms (r) with 
 those promulgated under the Merchant Shipping Act, although 
 made independently of that Act (//). The navigating officer 
 must also conform with the directions contained in tlie Kins-'s 
 Regulations and Admiralty Instructions. 
 
 In the light of these regulations it appears that in these 
 cases two questions have to be determined by the Court. 
 Firstly, was there a duty upon the merchantman, having 
 regard to the size and formation of the fleet, and to any 
 notice (if known (s) ) of the Board of Trade, to keep out of the 
 wayy Secondly, was the conduct of the warship, luivino- 
 regard to the duties (sometimes apparently inconsistent), 
 imposed upon her by the two sets of regulations, in the 
 circumstances correct ? 
 
 In T/ie Sails Pareil {a) it was unanimously held by tlie 
 learned Lords Justices that the tug with a vessel in tow, 
 which was approaching a fleet of thirty warships in four 
 columns, having them on her port bow on a crossing course, 
 was guilty of negligence in keeping her course and speed. In 
 this ease, however, such negligence was not held to have 
 contributed to the collision. 
 
 In The Jlelampus {h) a steamship kept ber course and speed 
 on meeting a fleet of warships, approaching her on the port 
 bow, the steamship being about to cross ahead of The 
 3Iehi)upm, which was following the starboard hand vessel of 
 two other warships sailing abreast. The steamship was found 
 to have a(;ted properly, and the warship was found at fault 
 for not taking proper steps to keep out of her way. 
 
 In The Satlcj {e), a sailing ship was approaching a fleet of 
 eight warships, formed into two columns of four, and was 
 shaping to pass between the thii'd and the last vessels of the 
 
 (m) The Etna, mpra. (z) The Etna, (1908) P. 2G9, at 
 
 [x) The order contains Home pro- p. 279. 
 visions as to liglits and 8i-,'nals in {a) The Sans I'unil, (1900) P. •_>67. 
 
 addition to thohe <oiitaii,cd in the lb) 'I'l,,- Mclainpiis, Ship. Caz. 
 
 ordinary eoUisiou regulations. Dec. 22ud, 1903. 
 
 (y) See ante, p. 306. (c) The Suthj [\mb), T. J.. R. ;j.'5.
 
 460 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 27. port column from their port side. It was held that the duty 
 of the sailing ship was to keep her course and speed, and 
 that she was in fault for not doing so. The navigating 
 officer of The Siitlej in this case found himself compelled by 
 the Collision Regulations, as applied to His Majesty's ships, 
 to keep out of the way of the sailing ship ; and at the same 
 time by Art. 597 (sub-rule 12) of the King's Regulations, 
 " never to change the course without directions from the 
 captain, unless to avoid immediate danger." Under the 
 circumstances he was held to have starboarded in time. 
 
 In The Etna {(/), a merchantman, which had, by reason of 
 faulty look-out, brought herself within the port and the star- 
 board columns of a flotilla of torpedo boats, which was 
 approaching her on her port bow upon a crossing course, 
 was held at fault for a breach of Art. 27 in not keeping out 
 of the way. The JVear, with which she collided, which was 
 the second ship in the port column, was held in fault for not 
 taking steps to keep out of the way in proj)er time, regard 
 being paid to her conflicting duties under the regulations. 
 
 In The Cohfrop (e), the point was taken that it was the 
 duty of a merchantman approaching a flotilla of twenty 
 destroyers in three colmnns on a course, which would take 
 her between the port and middle columns, to keep out of the 
 way. It became unnecessary to decide this point, the mer- 
 chantman being found to blame on other grounds. 
 
 Great caution must be used in applying the principle 
 recognized in some of the above cases, that under some 
 circumstances it is the duty of a ship to disobey the regula- 
 tions. It may be applied only where the circumstances are 
 very exceptional. " The principle of law that you are not to 
 adhere to strict rules of navigation but avoid an accident if 
 iwssible is a doctrine to be very carefully watched " (,/'). 
 The Court will not hold a ship in fault for not departing 
 from the regulations in a case where tbey were prii/ui faeie 
 applicable, and the other ship failed to comply with them, 
 unless it is clearly proved that those on board the first ship 
 might with reasonable care have seen that the other ship was 
 
 Danger of 
 departing 
 from the 
 regulation!- 
 
 (d) The Etna, supra. 
 {c) The Cohtrop, Ship. Gaz., Oct. 
 24th, 1908. 
 
 ( /■) Per Dr. Lushiugtou, The Test, 
 .5 Not. of Gas. 276.
 
 WHEN TO RE DEPARTED FROM. 
 
 461 
 
 not going to comply with the regulations ; and further, that Ariicle 27. 
 they should have seen this at a time when it was in their 
 power to avoid the collision. 
 
 A ship, A., close-hauled on the port tack, and another, B., 
 on the starboard tack with the wind free, were on crossing 
 courses. A. stood on until immediately before the collision, 
 when she luffed. B. neglected to keep out of the way, as 
 required by the regulations. It was held that A. was in 
 fault as well as B., because she pertinaciously kept her 
 course, when she ought to have seen that B. was not going 
 to keep out of the way in compliance with the law ; and in 
 so deciding, the Court relied on The Commerco {(/). The 
 Privy Council reversed the decision of the Court below, and 
 held that A. was not in fault. Sir J. W. Colville, in 
 deKvering the judgment of the Privy Council, said: " Their 
 lordships remark tliat, though tlie principle involved in that 
 case ( T//r Commerce) may be in itself a sound one, it is one 
 which should be applied very cautiously, and only when the 
 circumstances are clearly exceptional. They conceive that to 
 leave to masters of vessels a discretion as to obeying or 
 departing from the sailing rules is dangerous to the public ; 
 and that, to require them to exercise such discretion, except 
 in a very clear case of necessity, is hard upon the masters 
 themselves, inasmuch as the slightest departure from these 
 rules is almost invariably relied on as contributory negli- 
 gence" {h). 
 
 Art. 27 is not intended to apply to a case where the If the ivf,niia- 
 
 , T 1 -ii J. L. tions cannot 
 
 regulations cannot be complied with, nor to a case wtiere be complied 
 non-compliance could not by possibility have caused the with, or can- 
 
 ■^ . * T DOT', ir colli" 
 
 collision. In such a case non-compliance with the regula- plied with, 
 tions is immaterial upon the question Avhii-h ship is in fault, p^i7ision, ^^ 
 but that is so by virtue of the general law, and not under Art. '27 does 
 Art. 2." (/). But it appears that where the collision, though 
 in fact inevitable, may, in the o})inion of a seaman of 
 
 (^) 3 W. Rob. 287. Suns Pareif. (1900) P. 267. 282: 
 
 (h) The William Fredtrirk unA. Tin •'Where a man is called ujion 
 
 Byfoged Christenmn, 4 App. Cus. 669 ; to do his best because the colli- 
 
 and see The L'-ijalits and The Emi/i/, sion rej,'ulations cannot be carried 
 
 II(jlt 217. out, there cMiiiiot be a breach of tlie 
 
 (() Sec Thr City of ylit/wer/j and rejfulafions within sect. 119 of the 
 
 The Friedrich, li. R. 2 P. C. 25, :14. Merchant Sliippin-j;- Act, 1S9-1." 
 Cf. per Smith, L. J., in The
 
 462 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 27. 
 
 herself. 
 
 ' ' Special cir 
 ciniistaTicos." 
 
 ordinary skill, be avoided by departing from the regula- 
 tion (/.-) which is j)r'uud facie applicable, the ship will not be 
 held in fault for a departure from the regulations merely 
 because the collision has occurred (/). 
 A ship is Nothing in the regulations requires a ship to take a measure 
 
 takeaXp^ which puts her into imminent peril (^;/). A vessel is not 
 dangerous to \,q^^^ to obey the rule requiring her to port, if, by porting, 
 she will incur serious danger by going ashore [n), or striking 
 another ship (o). In such a case Art. 27 may apply to both 
 vessels, or to one of them. It excuses non-compliance with 
 the Article requiring her to port on the part of the one 
 vessel, because of the rock or shoal ; and if, in order to avoid 
 a collision, it is necessary for the other vessel to depart from 
 the regulations, it is her duty to do so, and Ait. 27 excuses 
 her departure. 
 
 So, where a ship required by the regulations to kee[i out of 
 the way is unable to do so, it is the duty of the other not to 
 keep her course, but herself to keep out of the way. Two 
 vessels, close-hauled on opposite tacks, were crossing, and the 
 sliip on the port tack could not bear up for fear of collision, 
 and could not go about because of a shoal. It was held (in 
 America) that the ship on the starboard tack was in fault for 
 not keeping out of the way {p). 
 
 Two ships were beating to windward in company on the 
 same tack. The leeward ship had to go about for a third 
 ship. The windward ship did not observe her go about and 
 fouled her. It was held that there were " special circum- 
 stances " which made it the duty of the windward ship to go 
 about when the other did {q). 
 
 A tug, whilst being overtaken by another vessel, was com- 
 pelled to alter her course to clear a third ship. The overtaking 
 vessel, in consequence of the tug's alteration of course, fouled 
 the tow. She was held alone in fault (r). 
 
 {k) The Benares, 9 P. D. 16. 
 
 (/) See The Khedive, Ti App. Cas. 
 87«, 902. 
 
 {m) Thr Sf. Ct/nrnv. The Henry, 12 
 W. R. lOH. In TheSfins T'dnll, .supra, 
 The IJast Lotliian -would, it is sub- 
 mitted, have been justified under the 
 principle stated in the text, in de- 
 parting from Art. 21. 
 
 (w) The Lucid Jani'uia v. Tlie Mexi- 
 can, Holt, 130. 
 
 to) The Concordia, L. R. 1 A. & E. 
 93. 
 
 (p) The Ann Caroline, 2 Wall. 53S. 
 
 {(j) The Commodore Jonts, 25 Fed. 
 Rep. 506. 
 
 [r] ll'hitea.sh v. The TT'innie, 64 
 Fed. Rep. 893.
 
 \YnEN TO T^E DKPAKTED FROM. -^^'-^ 
 
 A steam trawler, eucumbered with trawl, may be held _Arucle^ 
 justified, under Art. 27, in not taking such steps as would 
 naturally' be incumbent on a steamship to keep out of the 
 way of a sailing ship (-s). 
 
 On the other hand, where two steamships were approaching 
 a pilot station, and the vessel which had the other on her 
 starboard hand had brought herself to a standstill, it was 
 held that there were no "special circumstances" within 
 Art. 27 to justify a breach of the crossing rule (0- 
 
 If a vessel is partially disabled, or in a condition which Di^^'^^led 
 prevents her answering lier lielm readily, she must take 
 precautions in time, and do all she can to comply with the 
 regulations effectually {>(). A brig hove-to, reefing top- 
 sails, was held in fault for not porting U). Where a ship 
 had no head sail on her, and the regulations required her to 
 bear np, it was held that it was the duty of those on board 
 to take the after sail off her, so that she might be better able 
 to bear up (//) . 
 
 If it appears that a vessel is unable to comply with the 
 regulations owing to her being disabled, or in stays, or for 
 other reasons, it is the duty of those on board the other to 
 watch her closely. They have no right to speculate on the 
 disabled ship being able to keep out of the way, but they 
 should themselves at once take steps to make the collision 
 impossible {z). 
 
 It was held in America that the fact of a schooner's flying- 
 jib being carried away was no excuse for her not bearing up ; 
 and that the other ship was not in fault because she failed 
 in the daytime to see that the schooner was partially 
 disabled {a) . 
 
 To justify a departure from the regulations which is Necessity of 
 alleged to have been necessary to avoid immediate danger, f,!^|J;|'tlir 
 ther" must be clear proof that an adherence to them would J"^;^^'^^''[J^^'"'' 
 have caused such danger, and also that the step taken was proved. 
 
 (,) The Ta-eoMali', 14 V. 1). 164 (,//) The ('alcntta, 21 L T. 7(58. 
 
 atD l<i9. But see cases under Art. 20, (;; Thr I'nsclla, h. R. 'i \. k \\. 
 
 Yo7 l^-''- Seeals.) '/'/(f- C/(. /i''/''//, Hrowii, 
 
 U)TheAlbano,{\'m)Is..Q.Wi. Adm. 4r,3. 
 
 \u) The Tent, 5 Not. of Cas. 276. (a-) The It. V. lUtldinn, Ikowu, 
 
 (ar) The Blenheim, 1 Sp. 28'). Ad. 300.
 
 464 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 27. 
 
 Cases where 
 departure 
 from the 
 regulaticns 
 held not 
 j ustifiable. 
 
 the right step {b). It is not enough to show that, if the 
 approaching ship had taken one rnancouvre when others were 
 open to her, ohedience to the regulations would have increased, 
 instead of diminishing, the risk of collision. Therefore, 
 where the steamship San Sci/rador was approaching the steam- 
 ship Memuon on a crossing course, having her on her own 
 starboard how, and taking no step to keep out of the way, 
 and the speed of the latter was such that in the existing 
 circumstances she would probably have passed safely across 
 the former's bows. The Mermion was held in fault for not 
 stopping her engines, although, had the San Salvador kept 
 her course, the risk of collision would have been increased 
 and not diminished by The Mcinnon slackening her speed (f). 
 Where it is possible to comply with the regulations. Art. 27 
 would be no excuse for departing from them. In a case 
 under the Trinity Rules of 1840, it was held that it was no 
 excuse for not observing the rules that the night was very 
 dark, and that the other ship was not seen until she was very 
 close {(I). 
 
 Where two steamships were meeting in the Thames end 
 on, and one starboarded in order, as was alleged, to clear a 
 barge, in the absence of proof that the starboarding was 
 necessary, she was held in fault for a collision wdth the 
 other steamship {c). The obligation on a ship which seeks to 
 justify a departure from the regulations is heavy. She takes 
 upon herself the obligation of showing both that the depar- 
 ture was necessary in order to avoid immediate danger, and 
 also that the course adopted by her was reasonably calculated 
 to avoid that danger (,/'). 
 
 The fact that a steam tug had a heavy ship in tow, and a 
 strong wind and tide against her, was held not to justify her 
 departing from the rule requiring her to keep out of the way 
 of an approaching sailing ship(//). And where a large 
 steamship of 1,356 tons had a disabled steamship of 1,495 
 
 (//) The Concordia v. The Esther, 
 L. R. 1 A. & E. 93. And see The 
 Corsica, 9 Wall. fi30. 
 
 (f) The Memnnn, 6 Asp. M. C. 488. 
 
 {(1) The Fliut, G Not. of Cas. 271. 
 
 [e) The Concordia and The Esther, 
 L. R. 1 A. & E. 93. 
 
 (/) The Agra and The Elizabeth 
 Jenkins, L. R. 1 P. C. 501. 
 
 (r/) The Warrior, L. R. 3 A. & E. 
 553.
 
 WHEN TO BE DEPARTED FROM. ^"^ 
 
 tons in tow, and was fast to the latter by a tow rope and A rticle 27. 
 
 chain cables of such length that fi-ora the bow of the towing 
 
 vessel to the stern of the other was nearly a quarter of a mile, 
 
 it was held by the Privy Council that those circumstances did 
 
 not justify a departure from the rule requiring steamships to 
 
 keep out of the way of a sailing ship (//). 
 
 Two steamships on crossing courses, both making for a 
 pilot cutter, must keep clear of each other by observing the 
 regidations. The fact that they are both making for the 
 cutter does not justify the steamship with the other on her 
 starboard hand in neglecting to keep out of the way (/). In 
 such circumstances, however, the other vessel, if it is apparent 
 that she is approaching the cutter to pick up a pilot, may be 
 excused under Art. 27 from the duty to keep her course and 
 speed, providing any alteration in her course and speed was 
 made in the ordinary course of navigation for the purpose of 
 picking up the pilot {k) . 
 
 A sailing ship beating to windward ahead of a steamship 
 is justified by Art. 27 in going about when she has stood in 
 towards a sand ahead of her as near as is prudent, although, 
 except for the danger of going ashore, it would be her duty 
 to keep her course (I). 
 
 It seems that Art. 27 does not justify a departiu'e from 
 the regulations on the ground that it was reasonable 
 to expect that the force of the blow would thereby be 
 diminished {m). 
 
 Where a collision may be avoided by obeying the regula- Convenience 
 tions, it is not a sufficient excuse for departing from them Jg^aTtS *^' 
 that the collision might, with equal safety and more con- fi-om the 
 veniently, have been avoided by one or both ships departing *'" 
 from the regulations. Thus, where a steamship sighted 
 another at a considerable distance, approaching her nearly 
 end on and a little on her starboard bow, it was held that the 
 
 (A) The American and The Syria, Though this case related to speed 
 
 L. R 4 A. & E. 22(5 ; on appeal, alone, it is submitted, iu view of the 
 
 L. R. 6 P. C. 127. observations of the leiirued judges in 
 
 (i) The Ada v. Thr Sappho, 1 Asp. the Court of Appeal, that a like 
 
 M. C. 47o ; affii-inc'd in the Privy principle would apply to a change of 
 
 Council by Gorell Barnes, P., in course. 
 
 Thy: Alhano and Thi^ Parisian, (1901) (I) The Orwell, mpra, p. 415. 
 
 P. 19a. \m) The Khedive, 5 App. Cas. 87(i. 
 
 {k) The Roanoke, (1908) P. 231.
 
 466 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 27. 
 
 A ship 
 close- hauled 
 should luff, 
 if possible, 
 rather than 
 bear up. 
 
 Neither ship 
 may depart 
 from the 
 regulations 
 on the chance 
 of the other 
 obeying them. 
 
 Combined 
 operation of 
 Art. 27 and 
 Art. 28. 
 
 law required her to port, and that she was iu fault for star- 
 boarding, although by porting she would have had to cross 
 the bows of the other ship (n). 
 
 If a ship that is close-hauled must, in order to avoid a 
 collision, either luff or bear up, it has been said that the more 
 prudent course for her is to luff, if possible, " so as thereby to 
 stop her way, and mitigate as far as possible the effects of a 
 collision, if a collision should take place " (o). 
 
 Although the steps which the regulations require two 
 vessels approaching with risk of collision to take are not 
 necessary, in the sense that a collision would certainly be 
 avoided by only one of the vessels obeying the regulations, 
 the law must be obeyed by both. A ve?sel departing from 
 the regulations will not be excused on the ground that the 
 collision would have been avoided if the other vessel had not 
 disobeyed the law. In such a case Art. T-\ is no justification 
 for either ship in departing from the regulations. Thus, 
 where two steamships were meeting end on, and a collision 
 would not have occurred if either had put her helm to port, 
 both were held in fault by the Supreme Com-t of the United 
 States ( p) . 
 
 It still remains to be decided what effect Art. 27 has upon 
 the application of Art. 28. The point has recently been dis- 
 cussed in the important case of The BellanocJi (y), but no 
 decision thereon was ultimately found necessary. In the 
 Court of first instance, Sir Gorell Barnes, P., inclined to the 
 view that The BelkuiocJi, whose engines were from time to 
 time going full speed astern in order to clear the mud from 
 the propeller, but which was not hei"self moving astern through 
 the water, was excused from blowing the signals required by 
 Art. 28, inasmuch as they might have proved misleading to 
 The Canning, which was approaching with a duty to keep out 
 of the way. This view was very strongly dissented from by 
 
 («) The Araxes and The Black 
 Prince, 15 Moo. P. C. 122. This case 
 was decided under the Act of 1854 ; 
 it is submitted that the decision would 
 have been the same under the exist- 
 ing regulations. The observations 
 in The Arthur Gordon, Lush. 270, 
 with regard to the duty of a sailing 
 
 ship to keep out of the way of a tug 
 and her tow upon grounds of con- 
 venience, must be taken with caution. 
 
 (o) Thr Agra and The Elizabeth 
 Jenkins, L. R. 1 P. C. 501. 
 
 (/>) The America, 2 Otto, 432. 
 
 ((?) (1907) P. 170; (1907) A. C. 
 269.
 
 WHEN TO BE DEPARTED FROM. 
 
 4fi7 
 
 Fletcher Moulton, L. J. (r),in the Court of Appeal, who con- Articie27^ 
 sidered that Art. 27 " does not leave masters at liberty to 
 consider to what extent they sliall obey the reo^ulations as to 
 signals during a period of from five to twenty minutes before 
 the collision, but only applies to cases in which, in the throes 
 of danger, a departure from the strict observance of the rules 
 is imperatively forced upon the master of a ship by the peril 
 in which he is placed." 
 
 The learned Lord Justice further inclined to the view that 
 Art. 27 has no application to Art. 28 at all, but that its 
 operation is solely confined to the group of " Steering and 
 Sailing Rules" (namely, Arts. 17 to 27), of which it forms 
 the last. 
 
 In America, where a " whistling " rule similar to that of 
 Art. 28 has been in force for many years, it has been held 
 that a steamship signalling to another that she intends to de- 
 part from the regulations, and departing from them, is not in 
 fault for such a departure if it was agreed to by the answering 
 signal from the other ship. But strict proof was required 
 that the assenting signal was given («). 
 
 It would probably be held that where a ship is hailed by 
 another to take a particular course, if she does so and a 
 collision occurs, the latter could not be heard to say that the 
 former was wrong for departing from the regulations {f). 
 
 Sound Sif/nalfi for venseh in sight of one another. 
 Article 28. 
 
 The icorch " short blast " uxcd in this Articlr shall mean a Article 28. 
 blast of about o)ie second's duration. Helm siifnals. 
 
 When vessels are in sight of one another, a steam vessel under 
 icay, in taking any course authorized or required by these rules., 
 shall indicate that course by the following signals on her whistle 
 or siren, viz. : — 
 
 One short blast to mean, " / am directing my course to star- 
 board. '^ 
 
 {r) (1907) P. 189, 190. (t) See above, \). ;'). aud casew thew 
 
 («) The Milwaukee, 1 Brown, Adiu. cited. 
 313. 
 
 H H 2
 
 468 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 A rticle 28. J'^^.Q .^iigrf blasts fo mean, " I am directing my course to 
 
 porty 
 
 Three short blasts to n/ran, '■'■ BIi/ engines are going fnl/ speed 
 astern." 
 
 This Article corresponds with Art. 19 of the Regulations 
 of 1884, but it differs from it in the important substitution of 
 " shall " for " may," and in the omission of the declaration 
 that the use of the signals is optional. It has, by recent 
 decisions, been placed beyond doubt, that a breach of Art. 28 
 brings a ship within the penalty imposed by 57 & 58 Vict, 
 c. 66, s. 419 (?/). 
 
 It may be noted that compliance with the rule is required 
 where : 
 
 (i) The vessels are in sight of one another, 
 (ii) A steam vessel under way is taking a course, 
 (iii) Such course is authorized or required by these rules. 
 
 " In sight " does not mean in sight at any distance, but 
 " in sight with reference to the manoeuvres which a vessel is 
 authorized or required to take, having regard to the other vessel 
 approaching, for the purpose of avoiding collision . . ." (.r). 
 
 " Course " does not mean " course by compass, but the 
 action of the vessel " (//). The word may apparently be used 
 equally in regard to the management of a vessel's helm and 
 to that of her engines. 
 
 A tug under slight starboard helm in order to counteract 
 the effect of the tide was held to have " taken a course " when 
 she further starboarded her helm in order to pass under the 
 stern of another vessel (z). 
 
 A vessel, which was dragging over mud and was from time 
 to time putting her engines full speed astern to clear her 
 propeller without herself moving astern through the water, 
 was deemed by a majority of the Court of xA-ppeal not to 
 have taken a " course " (a). 
 
 Possibly it is unnecessary that in order to constitute 
 
 (m) The Aristocrat, (1908) P. 9 ; {i/} I'/y Alverstone, C. J., i/>id. at 
 
 following The Anselm, (1907) P. 151. p. 182; cf. The An selrn, supra. 
 
 [x) P<?r Alverstone, C. J., The Bet- (z) The Aristocrat, supra; but see 
 
 lanoch, (1907) P. 170, at p. 181 ; The Colgarth, Ship. Gaz. Nov. 3rd, 
 (1907) A. C. 269. 1906. 
 
 (a) The Bellanoch, supra.
 
 HELM SIGNALS. -169 
 
 " taking a course " there should be any alteration at all in Article 28. 
 helm or engines. Persistence in a course originally taken 
 for the ordinary purposes of navigation might amount to 
 " taking a course " within the Article (A). 
 
 The words " authorized or required " have given rise to 
 difficulty. They were judicially interpreted hy Sir Francis 
 Jeune, P., in The Lhhmoor (c), and his interpretation was 
 approved in the Court of Appeal in The Amelni {d) and The 
 Aristocrat (e). " It has been sought to put a rather narrow 
 interpretation on the rule. Of course the word ' required ' 
 is clear enough. There are certain things required by the 
 rules to be done. The word ' authorized ' is, however, very 
 much larger, and I am inclined to think that a large inter- 
 pretation ought to be given to it, and that it includes any 
 course which, for the safety of the vessels, good seamansliip 
 requires to be taken with reference to the other vessel then in 
 sight " (/). This definition, it may be observed, covers every 
 course which " good seamanship " requires. It was contended 
 in The Ansel)//, that Art. 28 did not apply where a vessel was 
 taking a course under Art. 27 or 29. It was decided, how- 
 ever, that, although a vessel may be acting under Art. 27 
 or 29, a breach of which article probably does not carry the 
 statutory penalty (f/), yet failure to indicate such action by 
 whistle signal will involve a breach of Art. 28, and that the 
 statutory penalty will attach to such breach. 
 
 In the case of The Bellanoch (h) the question arose, whether 
 The Bella)ioch, which was crossing the mud at the entrance to 
 Monte Video harbour, and which was from time to time 
 putting her engines full speed astern to clear her propeller, 
 the last occasion being for the fii'st three of the eight minutes 
 preceding the collision, was obliged to sound her whistle to 
 indicate that her engines were working full speed astern, to 
 TJie Camt'nu), a vessel which was proceeding down a dredged 
 channel on a course nearly at right angles to that of The 
 
 (bj The Aristocrat, .supra, at p. 21 ; {d) Supra, 
 
 aliier, where course is perhisted in (e) Supra. 
 
 •without reference to the other ship ; (/) The Usicmoor, supra. 
 
 of. The Mourvc, (1901) P. 68. {-7) The Sam Parnl, (1900) P. 267. 
 
 (c) The Usicmoor, (1902) P. 250, at (h) Supra. 
 p. 2.53.
 
 470 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 28. Bellanoch, and which had Tlie BeUnnoch on her starboard 
 bow. 
 
 A majority of the Court of Appeal held that the engines 
 of The BeUanoch were being put astern in the ordinary course 
 of navigation, and that The BeUanoch was not taking a course 
 with reference to The Canning ; a finding which clearly dis- 
 tinguished the case from The Anselni. A decision of these 
 points was, however, rendered unnecessary to the conclusions 
 both of the Court of Appeal and of the House of Lords, since 
 both those tribunals found that at the time when Tlie BeUa- 
 noch'' s engines were put full speed astern, the relation of the 
 vessels was not such as to make the Collision Regulations ap- 
 plicable, and further, that if The BeUanocli was guilty of any 
 breach of duty in failing to sound, such breach could not by 
 any possibility have contributed to the collision (?')• 
 
 It has been held in America, where a similar rule has long 
 been in force, that a steamship cannot by her whistle dictate 
 to another a departure from the regulations {k) . The American 
 rules require an answering signal to be given. If after an 
 exchange of signals either vessel departs from her agreed 
 course she is held in fault (/). The signals must not be used 
 by a ship at anchor (/w), nor, as it would seem, under any 
 circumstances other than those mentioned in Art. t^8. 
 
 No vessel, under any circumstances, to neglect proper pre- 
 cautions. 
 
 Article 29. 
 
 Proper pre- 
 cautions are 
 to be taken 
 in all cases. 
 
 Article 29. 
 
 Nothing in these rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, 
 or master, or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect 
 to carry lights or signals, or of any neglect to keej) a proper 
 look-out, or of the neglect of any jjrecaution which may he 
 required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special 
 circumstances of the case. 
 
 (jj This must be taken to be the 
 effect of the decision, see T/ie Corin- 
 thian, (1909) P. 260. 
 
 {k) The Milwaukee, Brown, Ad. 
 313. 
 
 {1} The ,«. John's, 42 Fed. Rep. 
 75. 
 
 {m) The Maling, 110 Fed. Rep. 
 227.
 
 LOOK-OUT. -i *" 1 
 
 This Article is identical with Art. 24 of the Regulations of A.rticle 29. 
 
 1881. Tt seems difficult to attribute to it any legal effect. 
 It was inserted in the regulations, probably cr ahuiidanfo 
 caufeki, and as a declaration, not to be overlooked by seamen, 
 of the legal consequences of negligence. 
 
 In the Sans Pariel (o) it was suggested that bad seamanship 
 may cause a ship to be deemed to be in fault under 57 & 58 
 Vict. c. 60, s. 419, and the Court was divided in opinion upon 
 the point. It is submitted that Art. 29 cannot be infringed 
 within the meaning of s. 419. 
 
 The duty of those in charge of a ship to navigate her with 
 due regard to the ordinary rules of seamanship, and under 
 special circumstances to depart from the regulations, has been 
 already referred to {p). What is required of seamen is Precautious 
 ordinary skill and ordinary intelligence ; they are not expected ^®^""'6d by 
 
 •^ ... t^^ ordinary 
 
 to foresee and provide against every accident. But where practice of 
 literal compliance with the regulations is not enough to avoid 
 a collision, all must be done that a seaman of ordinary skill 
 and intelligence would do to keep clear of the other ship {q). 
 Where, for example, an alteration of the helm is not enough, 
 the helm must be assisted by lowering the peak or letting go 
 the foresheets (/■). So, a vessel has been held in fault for not 
 backing her yards (s) . 
 
 The law as to what is proper care and skill in navigation 
 and what are precautions required by the ordinary practice of 
 seamen, is illustrated by numerous decisions, some of which 
 are here collected. 
 
 First, as to look-out : If a ship is proved to have been Look-out. 
 negligent in not keeping a proper look-out she will be held 
 answerable for all the reasonable consequences of her negli- 
 gence. Though the other ship has no lights, it is negligence 
 not to see and avoid her on a clear night {t) ; but if the 
 absence of look-out clearly had nothing to do with the colli- 
 
 (o) (1900) p. 207. SeeA«jt/)-«, p. 54. (r) The Lady Anne, 15 Jm-. 18; 
 
 (p) See pp. 450 -le//., above. The Straw/er, G Not. of Cas. 36, 38; 
 
 [q) The Jesmond and The Earl i>f The Marpe.sia, L. R. 4 P. C. 2V1 ; 
 
 Elgin, L. K. 4 P. C. 1 ; The City of The Ulster, I Moo. P. C. N. S. 31 ; 
 
 Antwerp aud The Friedrich, Inman The Zadok, 9 V. D. 114, 117. 
 
 V. Uec/c, L. R. 2 P. C. 25. («) The James, Swab. 65. 
 
 {1} The Viola, 59 Fed. Rep. ()32.
 
 472 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 29. 
 
 Anchor 
 watch. 
 
 sion, it will not be deemed to be a fault contributing to the 
 collision (ti) . 
 
 The look-out must be vigilant and sufficient according to 
 the exigencies of the case. The denser the fog and the worse 
 the weather the greater the cause for vigilance. A ship can- 
 not be heard to say that a look-out was of no use because the 
 weather was so thick that another ship could not be seen until 
 actually in collision. In T/ie Melloua (.«), Dr. Lushington 
 gaid : — " It is no excuse to urge that from the intensity of the 
 darkness no vigilance, however great, could have enabled The 
 Melloua to have descried The George in time to avoid a colli- 
 sion. In proportion to the greatness of the necessity, the 
 greater ought to have been the care and vigilance employed." 
 
 In ordinary cases one or more hands should be specially 
 stationed on the look-out by day as well as at night. They 
 should not be engaged upon any other duty ; and they should 
 be stationed in the bows, or in that part of the ship from 
 which other vessels can best be seen (//). On board a Mersey 
 ferry-boat the proper place for the look-out was said to be on 
 the bridge between the paddle-boxes (z). When passing over 
 a fishing ground a specially vigilant look-out must be kept to 
 avoid fishing-boats {a). A vessel brought up in a frequented 
 channel (6) should have an anchor watch ready to sheer her 
 clear of an approaching vessel, or to give her chain (c) . For 
 a large steamship going eleven knots off Dungeness, a 
 crowded part of the English Channel, on a hazy night, the 
 Privy Council considered that one hand on the look-out was 
 not sufficient {d). It was held negligence that an anchor 
 
 («) The Dexter, 23 Wall. 69 ; The 
 Farragut, 10 Wall. 337 ; The Clarion, 
 27 Fed. Rep. 128; The George Murray, 
 22 Fed. Rep. W . 
 
 (x) 3 W. Rob. 7, 13. 
 
 ly) The Diana, 1 W. Rob. 131 ; 4 
 Moo. P. C. 11; The Batavier, 9 Moo. 
 P. C. 'z86 ; T/.e Bold Bucclcuch, 1 Pr. 
 Adm. Dig-. 144 ; Tlie GlannibarUa, 1 
 P. D. 283 ; The Belgenlnnd, 7 Davis, 
 355. See The Mornhig Light, 2 Wall. 
 550. 
 
 (z) The IVirral, 3 W. Rob. 56. 
 
 (a) The Robert and Ann v. The 
 Lloyds, Holt, 55. 
 
 [b) But not, it seems, elsewhere : 
 The M. J. McCaldin, 35 Fed. Rep. 
 
 330 ; The Erastm Corning, 25 Fed. 
 Rep. 572. 
 
 (c) See Lack v. Seward, 4 Car. & 
 P. 106; Vanderplank v. Miller, M. & 
 M. 169 ; and The Eichmond and The 
 E. Heipershan>ien, 63 Fed. Rep. 1020 ; 
 The Guyandotte, 39 Fed. Rep. 575 ; 
 The Altenower, ibid. 1 18 ; The Ogemaw, 
 32 Fed. Rep. 919 ; The Erastm 
 Corning, 25 Fed. Rep. 572 ; The 
 Oliver, 22 Fed. Rep. 848; The 
 Rigaud, 1 1 Quebec L. R. 382 ; The 
 Masters and Tlie Raynor, Brown, 
 Adm. 342 ; The Marcia Tribov, 2 
 Sprague, 17. 
 
 [d) The Germania, 21 L. T. 44. 
 In an appeal from a judgment of
 
 LOOK-OUT. 473 
 
 watch was not kept on board a ship at moorings in the river Article 29. 
 Tjne, the weather being bad and threatening (<'). On board 
 a steamship in daylight in the Clyde, the pilot, an officer, and 
 a hand (not properly qualified for the duty) were held to be a 
 sufficient look-out (./'). 
 
 The necessity in the Thames of a look-out on the forecastle 
 head, to see craft low in the water under tiie ship's bows, was 
 insisted upon in The Hollctt (g). 
 
 Under the Regulations of 1863 it was held that a vessel Look-out 
 was not necessarily in fault for not keeping a look-out astern '^"^ ^™' 
 on a clear night ; although if she sees a vessel approaching 
 her astern it is her duty to warn her of her danger (//). In 
 America a vessel which damaged another by moving her pro- 
 peller in dock was held in fault for not having a look-out 
 astern (/) ; but it was held to be no negligence for a small 
 " stern-wheeler " not to have a look-out astern, having regard 
 to the practice in New York harbour and the scanty crew 
 carried by such boats (/«•). Under the existing regulations a 
 look-out astern must be kept in order to comply with Art. 10 
 as to showing a flare or stern light to an overtaking vessel. 
 
 It is the duty of a ship with another in tow to keep an 
 especially vigilant look-out, because the tow cannot always 
 see ahead (/). On the other hand, the fact that she is in tow 
 will not excuse a vessel from keeping an adequate look-out, 
 and a pilot vessel made fast to a sailing ship, whicli was 
 being towed down the Bristol Channel, has been held in 
 fault for failing in this respect {ui). 
 
 The obligation of keeping a sharper look-out than is ordi- 
 narily required by law may be cast upon a ship by a local 
 
 a Court of Enquiry, .suspending a See also T/f Thetis, Ship. Ga/., 
 
 master's certificate for not having June 23rd, 1906, and March loth, 
 
 set two men on the look-out when 1907. 
 
 running through a roadstead, the (/) Cli/de Nuvigation (Jo. v. Bar- 
 
 judge.s of the Admiralty Division c/rt//, 1 App. Gas. 790, 798. 
 
 .said that there was nothing in the \g) Ad. Div. 9th August, 1887. 
 
 circumstances of the case to require {h) The Earl Spencer, L. R. 4 A. 
 
 more than (jne man on the look-out ; & E. 431 ; The t'lty of Brooklyn, 1 
 
 and they reversed the decision of the P. I). 276 ; Kennedy v. The Snr- 
 
 Court of Enquiry. The Mary and inatian, 2 Fed. Rep 911. 
 
 The Rowland, Adm. Gt., 1 1th July, (i) The Nerada, 16 Otto, 154. 
 
 1881 ; cited in Murton's Wreck \k) McFarlund v. Selby Smiltiny 
 
 Enquiries, p. 19G. and Lead Co., 17 Fed. Rep. 2o3. 
 
 ((•) The Fladda, 2 P. D. 34. As {I) The Jane Bacon, 27 W. R. 3o. 
 
 to the need for a watchman when {tn.) The Harvest Home, (1906) P. 
 
 fast to the shore, see infra, p. 476. 177.
 
 474 
 
 THE RKGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 29. 
 
 Watchmau 
 for ship 
 moored to 
 shore. 
 
 American 
 cases as to 
 look-out. 
 
 rule of navigation. In the Thames, for example, a local rule 
 of navigation requires a vessel, before rounding certain points, 
 to ascertain whether there is any vessel approaching her in 
 the opposite direction on the other side of the point {n). 
 
 Where a vessel in a river ran into another coming out of 
 dock, it was held that the duty of the look-out was to see that 
 the channel was clear ; and that it was not negligence on his 
 part not to have reported the vessel coming out of dock (o). 
 
 Where to keep a good look-out glasses are necessary, it 
 would probably be held negligence not to use them (p). In 
 an American case the use of a night-glass on board a steamer 
 coming into harbour was held to be necessary (//). 
 
 Whether it is negligence to leave craft moored to the shore 
 or other barges in dock or in tidal waters without a watchman 
 depends on the danger to be anticipated, having regard to 
 the position of the barge [r). Evidence that, had there been 
 a man left in charge, he could in fact have taken steps to 
 avert collision is not conclusive in such cases. In determining 
 the danger to the barge, if any, to be anticipated from leaving 
 her unattended, evidence as to the local custom in the matter 
 is relevant, the test in such cases being whether in the 
 circumstances such conduct was reasonable (-s) . 
 
 The requirements of the law in America as to look-out 
 have been stated in many cases in stringent terms. In The 
 Sunnyaide {f) the Supreme Court held that it is the duty of a 
 sailing ship to watch the movements of an approaching 
 steamship, in order that, if the steamship fails to comply with 
 the law and keep out of the way, she may herself be able to 
 avoid a collision. 
 
 In another case it was iield that the absence of a look-out 
 
 [n) The Margnrrt, 9 App. Cas. 
 873, 879. 
 
 {o) The Calabar, L. R. 2 P. C. 
 238. 
 
 {p) See TheHihenna. 2 Asp. M. C. 
 454. 
 
 {q) The Ville du Havre, 7 Bened. 
 328 ; but see The Avon, 22 Fed. Rep. 
 905. 
 
 (>•) The Western Beile, 10 Asp. 
 M. C. 279; of. The Scotia, 6 Asp. 
 M. C. 541 ; The I)unstanborongI(, 
 (1892) P. 263; The Hornet, (1892) 
 P. 361 ; The St. Aubin, (1907) P. 60. 
 
 lu America it appears to be the 
 practice in New York harbour to 
 leave small craft in the slips un- 
 attended ; and it has been held that 
 there is no negligence in doing so : 
 Campbell v. Fennsylvania Rail. Co., 
 85 Fed. Rep. 462. 
 
 (s) Sharpsburg Sand Co. v. Mon- 
 o)igahela. River Consolidated Coal and 
 Coke Co., 145 Fed. 424. 
 
 [t) I Otto, 208; followed in The 
 General, 82 Fed. Rep. 830. Cp. The 
 Manitoba (a case of two steamships), 
 15 Davis, 97.
 
 LOOK-OTTT. "^^^ 
 
 on board a vessel will cause her to be held iu fault for a Article 29. 
 collision, unless it is proved that the other ship was seen as 
 soon as it was possible to see her, and that the proper steps 
 to avoid her were taken, and as soon as it was possible to take 
 them (u). 
 
 The Supreme C!om-t of the United States has held that tlie 
 officer in charo-e of the deck is not a sufficient look-out : that 
 for a first-class ocean steamship two men with no other duty 
 to perform constitute a proper look-out, and that they should 
 be stationed forward in the ship's bows (;<*), or in the part of 
 the ship from which other vessels can best be seen (//). These, 
 however, are questions of proper nautical management, and it 
 would be dangerous to rely too much on decisions which 
 depend so largely on particular circumstances. The rule 
 that there must be one or more men specially stationed on 
 the look-out, and that the officer in charge or the man at the 
 wheel is not sufficient, has been established by numerous 
 cases (s). 
 
 In T/ie Ariadne {a) the Supreme Court said that the rigour 
 of the requirement as to an efficient look-out rises according 
 to the speed and power of the vessel and the chance of meet- 
 ing other ships. Thus, a vessel entering a harbour at night 
 should have all the crew on deck, and keep as sharp a look- 
 out as is possible (b). 
 
 It has been held by the Supreme Court that the absence 
 of a look-out was not excused by the fact that it was day- 
 time and all hands were engaged in reefing (c) ; or that 
 they were repairing damage caused by an accident (d) . 
 The duty of ferry-boats, and of vessels crossing the track 
 of ferry-boats, to keep a specially good look-out has been 
 insisted upon in many cases (e) . 
 
 {u) The Atlas, 10 Blatchf. 459. {a) 13 Wall. 47o. 
 
 (x) Chamberlain v. TJ^ard, 21 How. (b) The Scioto, Davies, 359. 
 
 .548,570. [c] Catharine \. Dickinson, M Row. 
 
 [y) The Morning Light, 2 Wall. 170; Thorp v. Hamiiiond, 12 Wall. 
 
 o50. 408. See also The H. P. Baldwin, 
 
 (z) The Northern Indiana, 'iliVdUiht. Brown, Ad. 300. 
 
 92; The Comet, ^) Bhitchi. '.i2-i: The {([) Whitridgc v. Jlill, 23 How. 
 
 rarlcer-shurg , 5 Blatchf. 247 ; The 448. 
 
 IioiKjlasH, Brown, Ad. 105; The (e) 'The America, 10 Blatchf. 155; 
 
 Nabob, ibid. 115; The Jilossoni, Olcott, /nee v. East Boston Ferry Co., lOG 
 
 IBS. Mass. Rep. 149.
 
 476 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 29. Where the absence of a look-out in no way contributed to 
 the collision, the ship will not be held in fault merely because 
 there was no look-out (_/'). But aliter where, notwithstanding 
 fault in the other shi}) (carrying away of tiller rope), the 
 collision might have been avoided by a better look-out [g). 
 Sufficiency of A vessel Under way must have on board a sufficient crew 
 to work her for the voyage on which she is engaged. The 
 crew that is usual under the particular circumstances wall 
 be held to be sufficient. Thus, two hands have been held 
 sufficient for a sailing barge in the Thames (//). When in 
 dock or harbour she should be provided with sufficient hands 
 to tend her, having regard to her position, the character 
 of the dock or harbour, and to ordinary changes of the 
 weather (/). A steamer having been found to blame for 
 damaging with her propeller a barge that was properly 
 moored astern of her, the barge was held also to blame for 
 having no one on board : but for this omission, the collision 
 might, perhaps, have been avoided, and the barge might, at 
 any rate, have been beached, and the damage diminished [k). 
 In The Homct (/), a somewhat similar case, the collision 
 was in Tilbury (non- tidal) dock, and the barge, which was 
 run into and sunk by a tug, was held to be free from blame, 
 though no one was on board her at the time of the collision. 
 The question to be answered in such case is, w^hether, having 
 regard to the position of the barge, the danger to be anti- 
 cipated to the barge in leaving her unattended is so slight as 
 to justify her being so left {)n). Where a new ship was in 
 collision on her trial trip, when she had not on board her full 
 complement of officers and crew, she was not therefore held 
 in fault, there being on board a sufficient crew to work her (>/) . 
 It is negligence for the officer of a ship at moorings in a 
 river to be ashore unnecessarily w^hen the weather is bad and 
 threatening (o). The officer in chai'ge should be always on 
 
 (/) The Fannie, 11 Wall. 238; [k) The Scotia, Q As^.M. G. an \ 
 
 The Havana, b^'EeA.'Re^. m. The Dunstaiihorough, (1892) P. 363, 
 
 [g) The Riversdale, 6'6 Fed. Rep. note. 
 
 286. (?) (1892) P. 361. 
 
 {h) The Minna, L. R. 2 A. & E. (;«) The Western Belle, 10 Asp. 
 
 97. M. C. 279. 
 
 {i) The Excelsior, L. R. 2 A. & E. («) The Clyde Navigation Go. v. 
 
 268 ; The Patriotto and The Rival, 2 Barclay, 1 App. Gas. 790. 
 
 L. T. 301. (o) The Kepler, 2 P. D. 40.
 
 SUFFICIENCY OF CKEW. 477 
 
 deck ; he should not leave the deck in charge of a junior Article 29. 
 
 officer when another vessel is approaching, so as to involve 
 
 risk of collision ( p) ; but it has been held in America that it 
 
 is not negligence for the officer in charge of the deck, being 
 
 a competent man, not to call the master when another ship is 
 
 approaching with risk of collision {q) . Nevertheless, in urgent 
 
 cases it is prudent to do so. In the case of a collision between 
 
 sailing smacks, it being admitted tliat one of them was in 
 
 fault, the other was held to be also in fault for not haviue- 
 
 more than one hand on deck, whereby the collision might 
 
 have been avoided ; this decision, however, was reversed on 
 
 appeal, and the reversal was upheld (r). In a fog there 
 
 should be strength at the helm sufficient to alter the ship's 
 
 course as quickly as possible on the order being given (.s). 
 
 A vessel under way is bound to keep clear of another at Keeping dear 
 anchor. The rule seems to be the same in all cases Avhere anchor ^* 
 one of the ships is under way and the other, though not at 
 anchor, is for any other reason unable to keep out of the 
 way ; as where she is fisliing and fast to her nets, or in 
 stays, or disabled (;*). And it applies though the ship at 
 anchor is brought up in the fairway, or elsewhere in an 
 improper berth. " It is the bounden duty of a vessel under 
 way, whether the vessel at anchor be properly or improperly 
 anchored, to avoid, if it be possible with safety to herself, 
 au}'^ collision whatever " (»). If one ship properlj^ lighted 
 (if at night) is fast to the shore, or lying at established 
 moorings, it can scarcely happen that the other would not be 
 held in fault for the collision (^). But under such circum- 
 stances she must not be allowed to sheer with her head or 
 stern into the navigable channel (//) Where a steamship in 
 the daytime ran into a sailing ship brought up in a river -"iOO 
 
 (p) The Arthur Gordon and The 'the Marcia Tribou, 2 Sprague, 17 ; 
 
 Tndipendence, Lush. 270 : Thr Khedive but see The Kjnbenhavn, 2 A^p. M. C. 
 
 and The Voorwanrts, 5 App. Ca.s. 213. 
 
 876. [x] See The Secret, 1 Asp. M. C. 
 
 [q) The Maverick, "ih Fed. Rep. 318 ; and Culbertsoii v. Shaw, 18 
 
 845. How. 584 ; Portevant v. The liella 
 
 (r) The General Gordon, 7 Asp. /)o»«tf, Newb. Adra. 510 ; The Bndqe- 
 
 M. C. 317. fjort, 7 Blatdif. 3(J1 ; 14 Wall. Ill): 
 
 («) 7V«e £'«/-</;y«, 14 Jnr. 027. The Granite State. 3 Wall. 310; 
 
 (t) See above, p. 30. The Helen Cuoper and The R. A. 
 
 («) Per Dr. Lushiu^'tou in The Maheij, ' JJlatdif. 378. 
 
 Batavitr, 2 W. Rob. 407 : and see (y) The St. Lawrence, 19 Fed. Rep. 
 
 The Uura, 1 Pritch. Adm. Dig. 174 ; 328.
 
 478 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 29. yards wide, it was held by an American Court that the 
 steamship was solely in fault, although the sailing ship was 
 riding with her sails up, sheering about, and with no anchor 
 watch (z). 
 
 A vessel hove-to has not the privileges of a ship at anchor. 
 
 She is under way, and in case of risk of collision must comply 
 
 with the regulations so far as she is able to do so. She must 
 
 not rely upon the other ship keeping out of her way (-7). 
 
 Ship at an- The following cases illustrate the requirements of the law 
 
 up!'i?geSng as to the duty of a ship when coming to an anchor, when 
 
 under way. brought up, and when getting under way : — 
 
 Foul i)ertli. j^ g\^[p {jx bringing up must not give another a foul berth. 
 
 " If one vessel anchors there, and another here, there should 
 
 be that space left for swinging to the anchor that in ordinary 
 
 circumstances the two vessels cannot come together. If that 
 
 space is not left, I apprehend it is a foul berth " (h). In an 
 
 American case it was held that a ship at anchor is entitled to 
 
 have room to swing, not only with the scope of cable which 
 
 she has out at the time when the other ship takes up her 
 
 berth, but with as long a scope as may be necessary to enable 
 
 her to ride in safety (c). 
 
 If a ship gives another a foul berth she cannot require the 
 latter to take extraordinary precautions to avoid a collision ((/). 
 It has been held that in the Mersey a cable's length between 
 the two ships is a clear berth (e) . This, hoAvever, cannot be 
 laid down as a general rule, for at this distance a laden vessel 
 riding to the tide might, in swinging, come dangerously 
 close to a light vessel riding athwart the tide. And not 
 only must a vessel not bring up so close to another as not to 
 give her room to swing, but she must not bring up in such 
 a place that she endangers the other ship. She should not 
 bring up directly ahead, or in the stream of another ship, 
 having regard to the current and also to prevailing winds. 
 If she brings up dii'ectly in the hawse of another ship, or 
 elsewhere in the neighbourhood of another ship, there should 
 be such a distance between them that if either of them drives 
 
 (2) The Planet, Brown, Adm. 124. {c) The Queen of the East and The 
 
 {a) Supra, pp. 348, 390. Calypso, 4 Bened. 103. 
 ib) Fer Dr. Lus^Mngton in The {d) The Vivid, 1 Asp. M. C. bOl. 
 
 Northampton, 1 Spinks, 152, 160. (e) The Princeton, 3 P. D. 90.
 
 FOUL BERTH. 
 
 479 
 
 or parts from her anchors she may have the opportunity to Article 29. 
 
 keep clear (./"). Where a ship, in bad weather, took up a 
 
 berth two cables' lenjjth to windward of another, in an 
 
 anchorage where there was plenty of room, and then rode 
 
 with only one anchor down and that not her best, she was 
 
 held in fault for a collision with the ship to leeward, against 
 
 which she was driven when her cable parted in a heavy 
 
 squall {(/). Where a vessel gave another a foul berth, and 
 
 subsequently drove against her in a hurricane, it was held to 
 
 be an inevitable accident (A). 
 
 If a vessel takes up a berth alongside another where she 
 takes the ground and falls over and injures the other, she 
 will be held in fault («). A vessel voluntarily taking up 
 such a berth in a dock does so at her own risk (/.•). So where 
 two colliers were beached near each other for the purpose of 
 discharging cargo, it was held tliat it was the duty of the last 
 comer to moor head and stern, and in such a way as not to 
 foul the other when the wind shifted (/) . 
 
 In coming to an anchor caution must be used not to injure Comiu<^ to 
 or embarrass other ships. A vessel rounding-to, so as to 
 bring her head upon tide, should, before altering her helm, 
 look round and see that all is clear, and that her manoeuvre 
 will not endanger other ships {m). The omission to warn 
 a ship astern of her intention to bring up has been held 
 neglect of a " precaution required by the special circum- 
 stances of the case" {»). 
 
 A ship, having lost one anchor off Dungeness, in attempt- 
 ing to bring up in the Downs lost her second anchor, and 
 drove foul of another vessel. It was held that, the weather 
 being heavy, she was in fault for attempting, with only one 
 
 an anchor. 
 
 (/) The Cumberland (Vice - Ad. 
 Court, Lower Canada), Stuart's 
 Rep. (1858), p. 75; The Eqi/ptian, 
 1 Moo. P. C. N. S. 373. 
 
 (,r/) The rolcano, 2 VV. Rob. 337 ; 
 'Thr Magqie Armstrong and The Blue 
 Bell, 14 L. T. 340. 
 
 [h] The Inninfail and The Secret, 35 
 L. T. 819. 
 
 (i) The Indian and The Jessie, 12 
 L. T. 586 ; The G'orc/e and The 
 Lidskjalf, Swab. 117; The America, 
 38 Fed. Rep. 25G ; The Addie 
 
 Schlaefer, 37 Fed. Rep. 382; The 
 Behera, 6 Fed. Rep. 400. 
 
 {k) The Patriotto and The Rival, 2 
 L. T. 301. 
 
 (/) The Vivid, 1 Asp. M. C. fiOl. 
 
 [m] The Ceres, Swab. 250; The 
 Shannon, 1 W. Rob. 463 ; The Thilo- 
 taxe, 37 L. T. 540. 
 
 in) The Philotaxe, 2 Asp. M. C. 
 512 ; and see The Queen Victoria, 7 
 Asp. M. C. 9 ; Thr Helen Kelirr, 50 
 Fed. Rep. 142.
 
 480 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 29. 
 
 Precautions 
 to be taken 
 when at 
 anchor. 
 
 anchor, to bring up ahead of another vessel without the 
 assistance of a tug which she might have taken {o). 
 
 In coming to an anchor in a crowded roadstead or harbour, 
 proper care must be used to shorten sail in time, and not to 
 run in at too great speed. A vessel running into Stan gate 
 Creek, in the Medway, was held in fault for a collision caused 
 by her running in under too great a press of sail {p). 
 
 Where a ship delayed taking up her berth until night, and 
 in consequence of the darkness injured another, she was held 
 in fault for not having brought up by daylight, when she 
 might have done so in safety (^). 
 
 Where, in Hong Kong harbour, a collision might have 
 been avoided if the starboard anchor had been let go, and it 
 could not be let go because it was unshackled, it was held to 
 be negligence not to have had the anchor ready (r). 
 
 By Art. 14 of the Convention contained in the first 
 schedule to the Sea Fisheries Act, 18-^3 (46 & 47 Yict. c. 22), 
 it is illegal for a fishing boat to bring up between sunset and 
 sunrise on ground where drift-net fishing is actually going 
 on. This Article applies only in the waters and to the 
 vessels mentioned in the Act. 
 
 After coming to an anchor, those on board must show 
 proper skill and seamanship in keeping their vessel from 
 driving and endangering other craft. If a ship parts from 
 her anchor, when with proper care she might have ridden in 
 safety, and drives against another vessel, the collision will be 
 held to have been caused by the negligence of the former, 
 although after parting from her anchor the colHsion was 
 inevitable, and all was done that could be done to avoid it. 
 If she drives from her anchor in consequence of her yards 
 not having been sent down, or because she was not tended or 
 made properly snug, she will be held in fault (.s). Where it 
 is customary and prudent to moor, a vessel neglecting to do 
 so will be held in fault {t) ; a foul anchor will not excuse 
 
 (o) T/i" Am/of Lijh', 6 Asp. M. C. 
 50. 
 
 (^;) The Neptune the Second, 1 Dod. 
 467 ; The Secret, 1 Asp. M. C. 318 ; 
 The Earl Spcncir, L. R. 4 A. & E. 
 431 ; The Masten, Brown. Ad. 436. 
 
 {q) The Egyptian, 1 Moo. P. 0. 
 N. S. 373. 
 
 if) The City of Pekiny, 14 App. 
 Cas. 40. 
 
 (.s) The Excelsior, L. R. 2 A. & E. 
 
 268; The Christiana, 1 Moo. P. C. 
 160. 
 
 [t) The Gipsy Kiny, 2 W. Rob. 
 537.
 
 ORDINARY PRECAUTIONS WREN AT ANCHOR. ^^1 
 
 her (i() . The duty to keep an anchor watch has been already Article 29.^ 
 referred to (x) . If a vessel at anchor can avoid a collision by 
 the use of her helm, she will be held in fault if, having the 
 opportunity to do so, she does not sheer clear (//) ; but the 
 proof must be clear that the sheer would have avoided the 
 collision (z). 
 
 If a ship drives from her anchor or parts her chain, and a 
 collision may be avoided by employing a tug which is avail- 
 able, it is negligence not to employ her (a). 
 
 Where a ship gave another a foul berth in the Downs, and 
 drove against her in a gale of wind while riding at single 
 anchor with forty-five fathoms of chain, it was held that, 
 although the other vessel drove also, she was herself solely to 
 blame (b). 
 
 Insufficient ground tackle, or riding by a single anchor 
 when there should have been two down, or failure to drop a 
 second anchor when driving (c), will make a ship liable for 
 a collision so caused (d). A tug in charge of an unwieldy 
 tow of car floats in New York harbour was overpowered by 
 her tow in a heavy squall, and, having let go her anchor, 
 which did not hold, she drove against a third ship. It was 
 held that she was in fault for not having an anchor that 
 would hold her(?). The ship must be duly tended while 
 at anchor. A ship which goes foul of another through 
 improperly breaking her sheer will be held in fault (/). 
 Where a ship was riding in an open and crowded roadstead 
 in blowing weather, without having sent down her top- 
 gallant and main-royal yards, she was held in fault for a 
 collision caused by her driving (r/) . If a ship in a dock or 
 harbour subject to the Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses 
 
 (w) Hastorf v. Mayor, ^c, City of {d) The MaasnehnscUs, 1 W. Rob. 
 
 New York, 64 Fed. Rep. 869. 371 ; The Despatch, 14 Moo. P. C. 
 
 {x) Supra, p. 472. 83 ; The Volmno, 2 W. Rob. 337. 
 
 (y) See supra, p. 33. And see The IFMiam Lxmhay, L. R. 
 
 (z) The Howard B. Peck, 48 Fed. 5 P. C. 338 ; Allen v. Qitehcc Ware- 
 
 Rep. 334. house Co., 12 App. Cas. 101. 
 
 («) The Arran, 9 Quebec L. R. [c) The J. H. Jinttcr, 36 Fed. Rep. 
 
 278 ; and Bee The Annot Lylc, p. 480, 365. 
 
 ««P'«- ( f) See The Peerless, Lush. 30. 
 
 {b) The Maggie Armstrong v. The (y) The Christiana, 7 Moo. P. C. 
 
 Blue Hell, 14 L. T. 340. 160 ; jind see The Ruby Queen, Lush. 
 
 (c) The Mary Fraser, 26 Fed. Rep. 266 ; The Excelsior, L. R. 2 A. & E. 
 
 872. 268. 
 
 M. II
 
 482 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 29. Act, 1847, is insufficiently moored, after notice from the 
 harbour-master to provide proper fasts, she incurs a penalty 
 of 10/. {/i). It has been held negligence not to increase 
 moorings where the state of the weather required it (/). 
 
 It was held in America that a vessel in a gale of wind, 
 with another brought up near her, was in fault for not taking 
 timely precautions for avoiding a collision caused by the 
 other driving on her {k). In another American case (/) it 
 was held that where a ship at anchor drives and comes into 
 collision with another at anchor, the burden is on the former, 
 alleging inevitable accident, to prove that she had a proper 
 watch on deck, that she discovered the dragging at once, that 
 she took proper measures to prevent it, and that her ground 
 tackle was sufficient. 
 
 A vessel that, by dragging her anchors, gives another a 
 foul berth, cannot require the latter to shift. She must her- 
 self get under way (m), or slip. It will be no excuse that her 
 cables were shackled so that she could not slip («). 
 
 If a ship is brought up by her own people, or by a compul- 
 sory pilot, in an improper berth, so as to endanger other 
 ships, she must be shifted and taken to a proper berth as soon 
 as possible (o). Where a ship was compelled to shift her 
 berth in bad weather, owing to her having only one anchor 
 down, and in doing so, although proper precautions were 
 taken, she came into collision, it was held that she was in 
 fault for the collision, because of her original neglect in 
 riding to a single anchor {p). 
 
 A ship in New York harbour was lying at a wharf with her 
 stern projecting into the slip of a ferry-boat. She was warned 
 of her danger and did not shift. It was held that the ferry- 
 boat was not in fault for a collision which followed, the ferry- 
 boat having done her best to avoid it (?). In another case, 
 a ship moored to a wharf so that her bows projected into a 
 
 {h) 10 & 11 Vict. c. 27, a. 61. (o) The IFohurn Abbey, 20 L. T. 
 
 (i) The John Harleij&ndi The William 621. As to the duty of the master 
 
 Tell, 13 L. T. 413"; The Louisiana, to shift, although the pilot is on 
 
 3 Wall. 164. board, if he is iio longer in charge, 
 
 (/,:) The Sapphire, 11 Wall. 164. see p. 220, supra. 
 
 \l) The Dutchess, 6 Bened. 48. {p) The Despatch, 3 L. T. 219 ; 14 
 
 (m) The Wallace, 41 Fed. Rep. 894. Moo. P. C. 83. 
 
 In) The Gevalia, 39 Fed. Rep. 47. (?) The City of Lynn, 11 Fed. Rep. 
 
 339.
 
 ORDINARY PRECAUTIONS WHEN AT ANCHOR. 
 
 483 
 
 fairway, narrowing it but not so as to prevent other ^^^®_29- 
 ships using it. Another ship subsequently moored to the 
 opposite wharf, so as to block the fairway. A third ship 
 attempted to enter and fouled the first ship. It was held 
 that the first ship ought to have shifted her berth after the 
 second ship made fast to the wharf, and that she and the 
 third ship were both in fault (r). 
 
 It was held negligence in a ship in threatening weather to 
 ride to a buoy in the river Tyne, with her chain cables unbent 
 and with no anchor ready to let go in case of parting from 
 the buoy. Even in such situations, if the weather is threaten- 
 ing, or there is cause for special precautions, an anchor watch 
 must be kept and hands enough must remain on board to tend 
 the ship (.s). 
 
 As a general rule, a ship cannot take up or keep a berth by 
 mooring to a buoy at a particular spot. It has been suggested 
 that in particular localities there may be a custom enabhng 
 her to do so {t). Sed qu. 
 
 The parting of a cable, the giving way of a buoy to which 
 the ship was moored, and the jamming of the cable on the 
 windlass on letting go the anchor, have been held to be 
 inevitable accidents (it). 
 
 Making fast to another vessel, instead of to the shore, has 
 been held to be negligence (x) ; and a vessel that did so has 
 been held liable for damage caused by both going adrift (//). 
 
 Where a ship, A., was made fast to another, B., and B., in 
 getting under way, injured A., it was held in America that 
 B. was in fault, although the accident might have been caused 
 partly by the lines by which A. was made fast to B., and 
 which A. had not let go when desired to do so by B. It was 
 held to be negligence in B. to have got under way without 
 seeing that the lines were let go (s). And so, in England, a 
 steamer was recently held in fault for injuring, by the move- 
 
 (r) The Margaret J. Sanford, 37 {t) The Vivid, 1 Asp. M. C. 601. 
 
 Fed. Rep. 148"; The Mary Powell, 36 (m) See supra, pp. 9, 33. 
 
 Fed Rep. .098. W The Atlas, 2 Mar. Law Cas. 
 
 («) The Tladda, 2 P. D. 34 ; The 0. S. Dig. 1480. 
 Kepler, 2 P. D. 40. As to the duty (y) Pangburn v. Gum>, 4 Fed. Rep. 
 
 to have chains bent, see The City of 35. 
 Peking, 14 App. Cas. 40. [z) The Thornton, 2 Bened. 429. 
 
 ii2
 
 484 
 
 THE RKGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 29. 
 
 Brinscing up 
 in a fairway 
 or improper 
 place. 
 
 ment of her propeller, a barge that was properly moored 
 astern of her (a). 
 
 By dn'ection of a wharfinger a lighter was made fast to the 
 wharf at a particular berth, and, in order to make room for 
 her, a schooner was ordered to shift. The lines by which the 
 lighter was made fast were slacked by the surging caused by 
 a passing steamer, and the lighter struck the schooner. It 
 was held that both the lighter and the schooner were in fault ; 
 the lighter for not having made fast properly, and the schooner 
 for mooring too close to the lighter {b). 
 
 In harbours and waters where there are local rules, or an 
 established custom as to the proper anchorage ground, a vessel 
 would be held in fault for a collision caused by her bringing 
 up elsewhere. But if she were compelled to bring up and 
 continue to lie in the fairway it would be otherwise (c). 
 Thus, where a steamer, while going up the Thames on a flood 
 tide, was compelled by the density of the fog to anchor in the 
 fairway contrary to the Thames regulations, and the fog 
 continued such that there was no reasonable opportunity of 
 moving her, she was held free from blame for collision with 
 another steamer coming up after her (d) . If there is no rule 
 or custom requiring her to bring up out of the fairway she 
 may anchor there, although directly in the track of ships. 
 Thus, a vessel brought up in the Mersey directly in the track 
 of the ferry steamers was held not to be in fault for lying 
 there {e). In America it is held that if a vessel does bring 
 up in the track of ferry-boats, as she is at liberty to do, she 
 must keep a vigilant look-out and warn the ferry-boat of her 
 position (/). 
 
 The obligation on a ship under way to keep clear of another 
 at anchor, as before stated (//), applies although the ship at 
 anchor is in an improper berth. And a vessel brought up in 
 a berth which is improper only in the sense that it is an 
 exposed and dangerous position does not thereby contribute 
 
 (a) The Scotia, 6 Asp. M. C. 541. 
 {b) The Greenpolnt, 18 Fed. Rep. 
 186. 
 
 (c) The Ejobenhavn, 2 Asp. M. C. 
 213 ; and see The Clarita and The 
 Clara, 23 WaU. 1. 
 
 [d) The AffuadiUana, 6 Asp. M. C. 
 390. 
 
 {e) The Lancashire, L. R. 4 A. & 
 E. 198. 
 
 (/) The I). S. Gregury, 6 Blatehf. 
 528 ; The Riidso)}, 5 Bened. 206 ; The 
 Exchange, 10 Blatehf. 168; and see 
 supra, p. 384. 
 
 [g) Supra, pp. 29, 30.
 
 BRINGING UP — GETTING l^NDF.R WAY. 
 
 485 
 
 to a collision caused by another ship negligently driving into Article 29. 
 her (A). But when a barge in the Thames was brought up in 
 an exposed position, and was sunk partly by the swell of a 
 passing steamer, it was held that the negligence in bringing 
 up where she was exposed to the steamer's wash partly caused 
 the loss, and the suit against the steamship was dismissed (/). 
 
 A vessel at anchor is not justified under all circumstances Slipping 
 in holding on when by slipping she could avoid a collision. colHsSn.** 
 A vessel in Falmouth harbour was driving in a gale of wind 
 towards the breakwater. She could have avoided the break- 
 water by slipping from her anchor and getting under way. 
 She did not slip in time, went ashore, and did injury to the 
 breakwater. It was held that she was liable for the damage 
 because of her neglect in not slipping in time (/.'). The value 
 of an anchor and chain slipped to avoid collision may be 
 recovered if the danger was caused by the fault of the other 
 ship(/). 
 
 A vessel getting under way unnecessarily in bad weather, Getting 
 with a number of other ships about her, would probably be ^^ ^*^' 
 held in fault for a collision which would not have occurred 
 if she had lain fast (m). So, a ship getting her anchor in a 
 strong tide, which necessarily carried her across the bows of 
 ships bound into harbour, was held in fault for tripping her 
 anchor at the moment when other ships were crossing her as 
 she drove (n). The dut}'- of a heavy ship to exercise more 
 than ordinary caution in getting under way, and of other 
 ships to keep clear of her, has been insisted upon by the 
 American Courts (o). 
 
 A vessel which was moved from one dock to another by a 
 tug at night was held in fault for a collision with a ship at 
 
 (A) The Despatch, 14 Moo. P. C. 83. 
 
 (i) The J)ukf of Cornwall, 1 Pr. 
 Adm. Dig. p. 201. 
 
 (/.-) The Uhla, L. R. 2 A. & E. 
 29, n. ; I'J L. T. 89. Of. The 
 Sapphire, 11 Wall. 164 ; The Gevalia, 
 39 Fed. Rep. 47. 
 
 {I) Supra, p. 27. So a tow cast 
 off to avoid collision may, it seems, 
 recover : The Mount Hope, 84 Fed. 
 Rep. 010. 
 
 {m) The Carrier Dove, Br. & Lush. 
 
 113; The Julia M. Hallock, 1 Sprague, 
 539 ; O^Nell v. Sears, 2 Sprague, 52 : 
 The Thornton, 2 Bened. 429. The 
 last three are American decisions. 
 
 (w) The John S. Smith, 27 Fed. Rep. 
 398. 
 
 (o) The City of Paris, 14 Blatchf. 
 531 ; The Hudson Citi/, 38 Fed. Rop. 
 446 ; The Grcenpoint, 31 Fed. Rep. 
 231 (ferry-boat whose view was 
 obstructed by car float).
 
 486 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 29. 
 
 Eiding by a 
 lightship. 
 
 Ship in stays ; 
 precautions 
 before going 
 about. 
 
 anchor. It was held that under the particular circumstances 
 she had no right to be under way at all {p). 
 
 In The John Femvick (q), it was held to be the duty of a 
 vessel casting off from her moorings at night to warn an 
 approaching vessel by exhibiting a light. 
 
 In America, it has been held that a ferry steamer starting 
 from her slip when there was another vessel in her way which 
 she ought to have seen (r). or a vessel which she knows to be 
 brought up in her track, but which, owing to a heavy snow- 
 squaU, she cannot see {s) , is in fault for a collision with the 
 vessel riding. 
 
 A tug salvor started to tow to sea a yacht brought up on a 
 lee shore, without getting up the yacht's anchor. The anchor 
 fouled that of another yacht, which consequently drove ashore 
 and was damaged. It was held, in America, that the tug was 
 
 liable (0- 
 
 A schooner, not being able to get her anchor, set her sails 
 to break it out of the ground. In consequence of having her 
 canvas set, she fouled another schooner at anchor. She was 
 held in fault ; and the crew of the other schooner not to be 
 in fault for not giving her chain, which might have avoided 
 the collision (m). 
 
 In shifting berth in dock or elsewhere, if check lines are 
 necessary to control the shipway in a high wind, it is negli- 
 gence not to use them (x) . 
 
 If a vessel rides by, or makes fast to, or runs foul of, any 
 lightship or buoy, in addition to the obligation to make good 
 all damage, She incurs a penalty of fifty pounds (?/) . 
 
 A vessel in stays — " in irons " — is almost as helpless for 
 the purpose of keeping out of the way of another as a ship 
 at anchor. It is the duty of other ships to keep clear of her. 
 Before going about it is the duty of tliose on board " to take 
 a due look round beforehand to ascertain that no ship is in 
 the neighbourhood likely to come uj)on them" (s). 
 
 (p) The Borussia, Swab. 94. 
 
 [q) L. R. 3 A. & E. 500. 
 
 (r) The Columbus, Abbott, 384. 
 
 (s) The Rockaivay, 19 Fed. Rej). 
 449; TheB.S. (?>tf^ory,6Blatchf.528. 
 
 (0 The Addie B., 43 Fed. Rep. 
 163. 
 
 («) The Melvma, 43 Fed. Rep. 77. 
 
 [x] The British Empire, 24 Fed. 
 Rep. 493 ; and cases supra, p. 228. 
 
 (y) 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, s. 666. 
 
 \z) The Sea Nymph, Lush. 23 ; see 
 also The Ida and The Wasa, 15 L. T. 
 103 ; The Allan and The Flora, 14
 
 GOING ABOUT. 487 
 
 If weather permits, a sliip must have such canvas on her Article 29. 
 that she can be kept under command and be able to stay (a). 
 Upon simihir grounds, it would seem to be negligence in a 
 ship to be hove-to unnecessarily in the track of ships, a vessel 
 hove-to being almost helpless, and therefore an obstruction to 
 the navigation (b). 
 
 It has been held by the Privy Council that a ship should 
 not wear without reason when she can stay ; and a ship has 
 been held in fault for a collision with another astern when she 
 wore unnecessarily (c). In America a schooner wearing so 
 close ahead of another ship that the latter could not clear her 
 was held in fault (d). 
 
 If a vessel misses stays the duty of those on board is to get Missing stays. 
 her under command again as soon as possible (e). 
 
 Where it is the duty of a ship under the regulations to Ships working 
 keep out of the way, she should not stand so close to the jq company, 
 other ship, before going about, that if she misses stays a 
 collision must take place. It will be no excuse that she was 
 struck by a squall while in the act of going about (/). A 
 full-rigged ship, with the wind aft, meeting a brig and a 
 schooner, both close-hauled on the starboard tack, came into 
 collision with the brig, owing to the sudden and unexpected 
 going about of the schooner. It was held that she ought not 
 to have stood so close to the other ships as to make a collision 
 inevitable if either of them went about ( g) . So, a sailing ship 
 is in fault if she goes about unnecessarily under the bows of 
 a steamship (h). 
 
 Where two ships are turning through a narrow channel, 
 one astern of the other and on the same tack, the duty of the 
 sternmost ship is to keep a good look-out, and be ready to go 
 about, if necessary, the instant the other goes about, so as 
 not to risk a collision by standing on while the other is in 
 
 L. T. 860 ; The Eleanor and The {d) The Saxonia, 2 Mar. Law Gas. 
 
 Alma, ibid. 240. O. S. 417. 
 
 (a) The Stirlinffshire and The Africa, (<?) 'The Ei>iffston-bi/-{iea, oW-Roh. 
 2 Mar. Law Gas. O. S. Dig. 672 ; 152 ; The Lake St. Clair and The 
 The Falkland and The Navigator, Br. Underwriter, '6 Asp. M. G. 361. 
 
 & Lush. 204. (/) The Kingslon-by-lSea,ubi supra; 
 
 (b) See supra, p. 390. The Plato and The Fersevernnce, Holt, 
 
 (c) The Falkland a,nd. The Navigator, 262. 
 
 ubi supra. (</) The Mobile, Swab. 69 ; ibid. 127. 
 
 (A) See T/ie Orwell, supra, p. 415.
 
 488 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 29. 
 
 Rule in 
 America as 
 to beating 
 out tacks. 
 
 stays, or has not gatliered way on the other tack (/). It 
 seems to have been considered by the Privy Council that a 
 ship in stays, or just gathering way on the port tack, should 
 apprise another ship approaching her on the starboard tack 
 of her inability to keep out of the way (k). But a sailing 
 ship turning up the Thames was held not to blame for 
 giving no notice to a steamship astern of her intention to go 
 about (/). 
 
 The rule in America as to ships working to windward in 
 narrow channels is that they must " beat out their tacks," 
 and not go about before the depth of water or exigencies of 
 the navigation require it (w). Vessels are expected to know 
 the channel and the point at which other ships will be com- 
 pelled to go about {n). A ship going about before she gets 
 to the edge of the channel, and thereby causing a collision 
 with a passing steamship, was held in fault (o). But the rule 
 as to " beating out tacks" does not apply so as to preclude a 
 ship from going about before she reaches the shoal water in 
 order that she may be able to weather a point of land, or 
 other object, on the next tack {p) ; nor has another vessel, whose 
 duty it is to keep out of the way, a right to assume that she 
 will go about as soon as she reaches the edge of the tide or 
 eddy {q). The rule does not appear to have been expressly 
 recognized in any Court in this country. In 27ie Palatine (r), 
 where there seems to have been room for its application, it 
 was not referred to. 
 
 Where two vessels were beating to windward in company 
 on the same tack, and the one to leeward had to go about to 
 clear a third ship, the vessel to windward was held in fault 
 for not having observed the other tacking, and was held 
 liable for a collision with her which followed. It was held 
 that she ought to have gone about at the same time as the 
 vessel to leeward (s) . 
 
 (i) The Friscilla, L. R. 3 A. & E. 
 125. 
 
 (k) The Lake St. Clair and The 
 Under ivriter, 3 Asp. M. C. Stil ; and 
 see The Leonidan, Stuart's Vice-Ad. 
 Rep., Lower Canada (185«), p. 226. 
 
 {I) The Falatme, 1 Asp. M. C. 468. 
 
 {in) Thorp v. Hanunond, 12 Wall. 
 408 ; The Empire State, 1 Bened. 57 ; 
 The Bridgeport, 6 Blatchf. 3 ; The 
 
 Charlotte JRaab, Brown, Adm. 453. 
 
 {n) The Nellie D., 5 Blatchf. 245. 
 
 [o) The Nereus, 3 Bened. 238. 
 
 (p) The Vicksburg, 7 BlatcM. 216 ; 
 The Empire State, supra. 
 
 (q) Haight v. Bird, 26 Fed. Rep. 
 539. 
 
 (r) 1 Asp. M. C. 468. 
 
 (*) The Commodore Jonei, 25 Fed. 
 Rep. 506.
 
 GOING ABOUT. 
 
 489 
 
 Wliether a sliip, being in stays, is required to hold herself Article 29. 
 in stays to allow another vessel to pass, is not clear. Two Wliether a 
 American eases are contradictory on the point. In The hold herself 
 Empire State {f) the Court said that it is the duty of a ship iu stays for 
 to beat out her tack and come about on the other tack with 
 proper despatch ; and that " she is not obliged to remain in 
 the wind for a steamer to pass her." On the other hand, in 
 The W. C. Redfield (u), it was held that a sailing ship was in 
 fault for not holding herself in stays to allow a tug and her 
 tow to pass clear. 
 
 There are decisions of the American Courts to the effect 
 that it cannot be imputed to a ship as a fault that she is 
 sluggish iu going about {x) : and that she is not wrong in 
 fore-reaching or shooting ahead in the wind's eye whilst 
 going about (y) ; but if, iu going about, she executes the 
 manoeu\Te in an unexpected and unseamanlike fashion, she 
 will be held in fault for a collision thereby occasioned (s). 
 
 Fishing boats have a right to fish on the high sea, and to Extra oaro 
 be fast to thou' nets, whether their fishing ground is in the p^SI- over 
 track of ships or not. It is the duty of other ships to take fishing 
 
 . grounds, 
 
 greater precautions when passmg over a fishing ground, so as 
 
 to keep clear of the fishing boats, and not make them cast off 
 
 from their nets {a). Bringing up upon certain fishing 
 
 grounds where drift-net fishing is being carried on is forbidden 
 
 by statute (A). 
 
 Vessels navigating iu an unusual manner or by an im- Vessels 
 
 proper course do so at their own risk. By the bye-laws in "jj^'^f^'.^^far 
 
 force in the Tyne (clause 17), all vessels proceeding to sea manner or 
 
 are required to keep on the south side of mid-channel ; and ^t their own 
 
 (clause 20) vessels crossing the river take upon themselves "'^^• 
 
 the responsibility of doing so with safety to the passing 
 
 {t) 1 Bened. 57. See also The 
 Renovator, 30 Fed. Rep. 194. 
 
 (m) 4 Bened. '227. See also The 
 Arthur Gord<jn and T'he Independence, 
 Lush. 270 ; The Lake fit. Clair and 
 The Underuritcr, supra ; and cases 
 supra, p. 168, note (/). 
 
 {x) The Charlotte Raab, Brown, 
 Adm. 453. 
 
 (y) 1 l'ar8on8onShipping(2nded.), 
 578, note. 
 
 (s) The B. C. Terri/'SO Fed. Rep. 
 711. 
 
 (a) The Coltcmhus, 2 Mar. Law Gas. 
 0. S. Dig. 730 ; Murphy v. Piilyrave, 
 21 L. T. 20!) (Irish case); The Mar - 
 gnrel and The Tnxcnr, 15 L. T. 86 
 But see The Pacijic, 9 V. D. 124, 
 where a steamship going eight or 
 nine knots at niglit over trawling 
 ground in the North Sea was lield 
 free from blame. 
 
 (b) 46 & 47 Vict. c. 22.
 
 490 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 29. traffic. A vessel outward bound, coming out of the Tyne 
 dock on the south side of the river, and either intentionally, 
 or under the influence of the tide, crossing over to the north 
 side of the river, came into collision on the north side with 
 two steamships also going down the river. She was held in 
 fault for the collision, as she should not have attempted to 
 cross when there was risk of collision (c). 
 
 It was held in The Smyrna (d) that a usual and proper 
 precaution for vessels to take when navigating a winding 
 river against a strong stream is to keep under the points in 
 the slack of the tide, so as to avoid descending vessels which 
 are swept across the river into the opposite bight by the 
 stream setting off the point. In the Thames, vessels are 
 required to navigate in this manner round certain points (e). 
 But, except where local enactments provide otherwise, the 
 rule would seem to be different under the present law of 
 " starboard side " in the narrow channels (/). 
 
 In New York harbour, where ferry-boats are constantly 
 coming out from their slips or docks at right angles to the 
 course of vessels navigating the river, the law requires vessels 
 navigating the river to keep in mid-channel, or if they go 
 along the shore to go very slowly {g). 
 
 Where two steamships were meeting in a narrow channel, 
 one going with and the other against the tide, and it was 
 necessary for one of them to stop, it was held by the Supreme 
 Court in America that the vessel going against the tide 
 should have stopped at once, as she could do so the more 
 readily (A). And in The Tahibot (r), it was recently laid 
 down in the Admiralty Division that it is a prudent rule for 
 a steamship navigating a river against the tide to wait before 
 rounding a point until a vessel coming from the opposite 
 direction has passed clear, and a steamer was held in fault 
 for not observing this rule in the river Scheldt. 
 
 (c) The Henrtf Morton, 2 Aa]p.M.C. (e) See Appendix, p. 541; The 
 466. As to the duty of ships to keep Margaret, 9 App Cas. 873. 
 
 on their proper side and in the usual (/) See Article 25. 
 
 track in rivers, see supra, pp. 440 (ff) The Favorita, IS AVall. 598. 
 
 seg. ; and The Java, 14 WaU. 189. (/;) The Galatea, 2 Otto, 439. As 
 
 (d) 2 Moo. P. C. N. S. 435. to the Thames, see infra, p. 541. 
 ' (i) (1891) P. 184.
 
 SEAMANSHIP — ORDINARY PRECAUTIONS. 491 
 
 The duties imposed upon a fleet of warships in regard to Article 29. 
 other vessels are considered under Ai-t. 27 {k). Fleet of 
 
 A vessel warpinof down the Thames ag^ainst the flood tide "^^'a^'^^"?'^- 
 1 11 • P n 11 • 1 7\ Sbipsbouud 
 
 was held m fault for a collision thereby occasioned (/) ; down the 
 
 and a steamship proceeding down the Thames at night !|;!!i'i^^^t^tijg 
 
 against a flood tide is required to exercise the greatest flood. 
 
 caution (m). 
 
 A steamship is not justified in leaving a wharf in the Ships drop- 
 Thames in a dense fog. If under way under such circiim- fl^remost^**'™ 
 stances, it has been said that she should drop up, head upon 
 tide, with her anchor on or near the bottom, so as to be able 
 to bring up at once in case of emergency (ii). The duty of a 
 ship so navigating to warn a ship approaching her from 
 astern was insisted upon in T/ie Juno (o). 
 
 A keel in the Goole reach of the river Ouse was held in 
 fault for driving through a narrow part of the fairway 
 without her anchor on the bottom or near it ( /;) . 
 
 It would probably be held to be the duty of a ship 
 dropping through a fairway in this manner to exhibit a 
 light over her stern, or in some other way to warn ships that 
 she is approaching them stern foremost [q). 
 
 By 43 Vict. c. 29 (Canada), Art. 27, ships are required to Rafts 
 keep out of the way of rafts. (Canada). 
 
 Although a vessel may run a warp across a navigable Warps, 
 channel (r), she must slack it to allow other vessels to 
 cross («), and warn an approaching vessel of its presence {f). 
 
 A steamship that damaged another by negligently moving Moving pro- 
 ber propeller in a New York slip was held in fault {/(). ^"^ " mcoc v. 
 
 A tug attempted to pull a brig out of dock past a sloop, In crowded 
 which had refused, on request, to move, and damaged the ^ °'^ ** ' ^^ "^'' 
 sloop. It was held that the tug was alone liable ; but for 
 her refusal to move, and for other reasons, the sloop was 
 deprived of her costs {x). 
 
 {k) Vide p. 458, .lupra. (r) The Echo, 19 Fed. Rep. 463 ; 
 
 \T) The Hope, 2 W. Rob. 8. The Fulda, infra. 
 
 (m) The Trident, 1 Sp. 217. («) The Maverick, 1 Spr!ii,mo, 23. 
 
 («) The AfjuadUUma, 6 Asp. M. C. [t) The Fulda, 31 Fed. Rep. -iSl. 
 
 390. (m) The City of Mecca, 20 PVd. Rep. 
 
 {o) 7 Asp. M. C. 506. 159. 
 
 {p) The lialph Cre>/ke,6 Atip.M.C {.v) Duane v. Stcaintufi Emma J. 
 
 19. Kennedy, 5 Fed. Rep. 20(5. 
 
 (q) See Thelndian Chief, 14 P. D. 24. 
 
 move.
 
 492 
 
 THE KEGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 29. 
 
 Tug' working 
 at ship ashore. 
 
 Telegraph 
 ships. 
 
 Eddy tide. 
 
 Risk of 
 smelling 
 ground . 
 
 the 
 
 Being under 
 way in thick 
 weather ; 
 stress of 
 weather. 
 
 A steam lighter undertook to push out of the way a craft 
 that was obstructing her dock. The way she gave the craft 
 caused her to strike the wharf and sink. The lighter was 
 held to be alone in fault (//). 
 
 A tug working at a vessel ashore in a fairway is required 
 to make way for passing vessels (s). 
 
 The enactment relating to ships engaged in lajdng or 
 repairing telegraph cables, and the duty of other ships to 
 keep clear of them, has been already referred to {supra, 
 pp. 816, 344). 
 
 If a vessel enters an eddy tide, and is thereby prevented 
 from answering her belm, and goes into collision with 
 another ship, it is no excuse that the eddy prevented her 
 from answering her helm [a] , unless the action of the tide 
 could not have been anticipated or provided against (b) ; 
 and the effect of the tide on other ships must be known and 
 allowed for (c). 
 
 In the ease of a steamship navigating the Groole reach of 
 the river Ouse, where the water was so shallow that there 
 was risk of her smelling the ground and failing to answer 
 her helm, it was held to be her duty, by occasionally stopping 
 her engines, to diminish her way, and so be well under 
 control in case of emergency : and she was held in fault for 
 neglect of this precaution {d). 
 
 If the weather is such that an object cannot be seen in 
 time to avoid it, a vessel has no right to be imder way at all. 
 In such weather she should bring up on the fii'st opportunity, 
 and not get under way unless obliged to do so {e). In thick 
 and bad weather generally, it is the duty of a vessel under 
 way to exercise more than ordinary care to avoid doing 
 damage to other ships (,/). " Stress of weather " is an excuse 
 
 (y) The Lime Bock, 55 Fed. Rep. 
 126. 
 
 (s) The Cherokee, 15 Fed. Rep. 
 119. 
 
 (a) The La Plata, Swab. '220, 223 ; 
 The Russia, 3 Beued. 471 : The City 
 of Ptl-ing, 14 App. Cas. 40 ; The 
 Fred Jai'ism, 49 Fed. Rep. 254 ; The 
 Sammic, 36 Fed. Rep. 568. 
 
 (*) The Rhondda, 8 App. Cas. 549. 
 See The Britannia, 46 Davis, 130. 
 
 (c) The Frantz Sigel, 14 Blatchf. 
 480. 
 
 [d) The Ralph Creyke, 6 Asp. M. C. 
 19, supra. 
 
 [r) The Lancashire, L. R. 4 A. & 
 E. 198 ; The Otter, L. R. 4 A. & E. 
 203 ; The Aguadilltnia, 6 Asp. M. C. 
 390, supra. And see supra, pp. 378, 
 384. 
 
 (/) The Flint, C Not. of Cas. 271 ; 
 The John Marley and The William 
 Tell, 13 L. T. 413.
 
 SEAMANSHIP ORDINARY PRECAUTIONS. 
 
 493 
 
 frequently put forward for omitting to exercise ordinary Article 29. 
 care, but it is one whioli the Court is very unwilling to 
 accept (//). 
 
 In squally weather it is the duty of a ship not to approach yuiuding: too 
 another so near that if a squall strikes her she will go in craft, 
 collision with the other. A vessel will be held in fault if, 
 without necessity, she navigates so close to another that her 
 view is obstructed, and so she cannot see a third ship in time 
 to avoid her {h) ; or that she is afPected by the wash or suction 
 of the ship aliead, and will not answer her helm (/). A 
 steamship passing another ashore so close that, when the 
 latter set her propeller in motion to work her off, she was 
 canted by the race from the propeller and struck a third ship, 
 was held in fault (k) . An overtaking ship must not approach 
 the ship ahead so close that, upon the latter stopping (/) or 
 slightly changing her course {m), a collision cannot be avoided ; 
 nor may she pass the other at such speed that the latter is 
 drawn against her by the suction she sets up («). 
 
 A brig on the starboard tack endeavouring to pass a collier 
 driving up the Thames with the tide was caught by a heavy 
 squall which burst her foretopsail and did other damage. 
 The brig came up into the wind and drove against the collier. 
 She was held solely in fault for the collision, because, having 
 reason to expect squalls, she should have given the other 
 vessel a wider berth (o). 
 
 A barge turning down the Thames on a squally night 
 stood so close to a ship at anchor that, upon her missing stays 
 owing to a squall, she ran into her. The barge was held 
 solely in fault (p). 
 
 In America, a steamship passing so close to a sloop at 
 anchor that the boom of the latter was driven against her by 
 a sudden gust of wind was held solely in fault (q). A tug 
 
 (ff) The Uhla, 19 L. T. 89 ; Thr Fed. Rep. 703. 
 
 Flint, ubi Kupra. (I) The Hackensack, 'SI Fed. Rep. 
 
 {h) The Znllverein, Swab. 96 ; and 800. 
 
 see Mai/hew v. Boi/ce, 1 Stark. 423. (m) The Laura V. Roue, 28 Fed. 
 
 ii) The General iFilliamMcCandlass, Rep. 104. 
 
 fi Bened. 223, 226 ; The Mariel, 32 [n) The Ohio, 91 Fed. R.>p. 547. 
 
 Fed. Rep. 103 ; The City nf lirocktor,, \o) The Globe, 6 Not. of Caw. 27/). 
 
 37 Fed. Hep. 897. As to" the effect {/;) The Flato und The Terneveriiiee, 
 
 of suction, see The C'hiear/o, 71 Fed. Holt, 2*^2. 
 
 Rep. 537. (<?) '^'h'! George Law, 3 Bened. 396. 
 
 [k) The F. ^ F. M. (No. 1), 45
 
 494 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 29. took her tow SO close to a ship at anchor that, upon her 
 suddenly altering her course to clear the ship at anchor, the 
 tow line parted, and the tow fouled the ship at anchor. The 
 tug was held in fault for the collision (r). And where a 
 steamship at sea sighted a schooner seven miles off, and 
 shaped her course so as to pass within a cable's length of 
 her, it was held by the Cu-cuit Court that for two ships 
 approaching each other at the rate of eighteen miles an hour 
 such a course was " very far from an exercise of reasonable 
 prudence " (s). 
 
 Where a ship, which had been ashore, came off unex- 
 pectedly and received damage in a collision with another 
 ship which was near her, it was held that the latter was not 
 bound to take such precautions that, at whatever time the 
 ship ashore floated, she would not come against her (t). 
 
 A ship driving over a sand on which she had been ashore 
 came into collision with another brought up just clear of the 
 sand. It was held that the former was not in fault for the 
 collision, and that it was the result of inevitable accident. 
 The ship that had been ashore could not have let go her 
 anchor whilst driving over the sand without risk to herself, 
 and if she had let go when clear of the sand, the collision 
 would not have been avoided {u) . 
 
 If a ship steers a course to take her alongside another ship 
 to speak her, or for any other purpose, she does so at her own 
 risk (x) . And a vessel that allows herself to swing, or takes 
 up a berth, alongside another moored to the shore or at 
 anchor, takes the risk of any damage she may receive in the 
 operation {i/) . The Supreme Court of the United States held 
 a steamship solely in fault for a collision with a pilot boat 
 from which she was taking a pilot and which was plainly 
 visible to her, although the pilot boat had no masthead light 
 and crossed the bows of the steamship (s). The duty of a 
 
 (r) The City of Philadelphia v. See The Bellerophon, 3 Asp. M. C. 
 
 Gavngnin, 62 Fed. Rep. 617. 58. 
 
 («) The Benefactor, \\Bla.tchi.2bA. [y) The Chalmette, 52 Fed. Rep. 
 
 (if) The Coxon, 2 Mht. Law Cat*. 174, where the rudder-yoke of the 
 
 0. S. Dig. 549. stationary ship holed her : The Moon- 
 
 {u) The Thornley, 7 Jur. 659 ; and light, 50 Fed. Rep. 478 ; The Harry, 
 
 see The Buckhurst, 6 P. D. 152. 15 Fed. Rep. 161. 
 
 [x) The Thames, 5 C. Rob. 345. (s) The City of Washington, 2 Otto,
 
 SEAMANSHIP OKDINaHV PKKCAUTIONS. 
 
 495 
 
 steamship not to have much way on when approaching her Article 29. 
 pilot boat has been insisted upon [a). 
 
 In another case (h), before the same Court, two tugs making 
 for the same vessel in order to get tlie contract to tow came 
 into collision. It was held that the proper and usual way for 
 tugs to come alongside was to come up on the quarter heading 
 the same way as the vessel, and that the tug which was ahead 
 of the vessel was in fault for not rounding to and coming up 
 under the ship's stern. 
 
 A steam-tug unnecessarily entering a narrow cut leading 
 to the Bute Docks, after a signal had been made by the 
 harbour authority for sailing ships to enter, was held in fault 
 for a collision (e) . 
 
 The Supreme Court in America has held that a vessel 
 undertaking to pass another in a narrow channel (d), or navi- 
 gating such a channel in weather that makes it dangerous (?), 
 does so at her own risk. Where a ship was ashore in such a 
 place, it was held that, whether she went ashore by her OAvn 
 negligence or not, another vessel attempting to pass her was 
 in fault for running into her (f). 
 
 Where the leading vessel of two steamers proceeding down 
 a river with the stream, and bound to the same place on its 
 banks, rounded-to at a proper place to land her passengers, 
 and the following vessel, instead of stopping and rounding- 
 to under her stern, attempted to turn ahead of her and a 
 collision occurred, the following vessel was (in Canada) held 
 solely in fault (r/) . 
 
 Though prudence requires a ship to avoid unnecessarily Crossinjj- lines 
 crossing the track of vessels bound upon well-known courses ' ^raftK^ 
 to and from a centre of commerce, it is not negligence for 
 her to do so (//). 
 
 31 ; and see supra, p. 352, for cases 
 of collision with pilot boats. 
 
 (a) The Amgar, 115 Fed. Rep. 
 440. 
 
 {b) Sturgis v. (Jlowjh, 21 How. 451. 
 Cf. Latham v. Hamilton, G3 Fed. Rep. 
 856. where both tups were held in 
 fault for ;i CDllision bctwoeu one of 
 thfrn and the schooner for whioli 
 they were racing. 
 
 [c) The Effort, 5 Not. of Cas. 27fl. 
 
 {d) The Merrimac, 14 Wall. 199; 
 The Deroniaii, 110 Fed. Rep. 58,S. 
 
 (e) The Mohlcr, 21 Wall. 230. 
 
 (/) The Ellen S. Terry, 7 Ironed. 
 •101. 
 
 («/) The Crescent v. The lioulnnd 
 Ilitt. Stuart's Rep. (1S58) (Vice- 
 Adni. Ct., Lower (Janiula). 281). 
 
 (/() The Iberia, 40 Fed. Rep. 893.
 
 496 
 
 THE REOUT,\TTONS. 
 
 Article 29. 
 
 Vessel of 
 peculiar 
 construction, 
 or otherwise 
 dangerous 
 to others. 
 
 Stowing 
 anchors and 
 spars in dock. 
 
 Eafts. 
 
 Coming out of 
 and entering 
 dock. 
 
 If a vessel is of a construction or is in a condition (^) wliich 
 is specially dangerous to other vessels, it is her duty to warn 
 approaching vessels of the fact. Where a ship of war carried 
 on her stem under water a projecting ram or spur, it was said 
 that under ordinary circumstances it would have been her 
 duty to apprise a vessel coming alongside of the risk she ran 
 in approaching her {k) . 
 
 Special precautions are required of a ship in a disabled 
 condition, of a ship hove-to and unable to keep clear of other 
 ships, as well as of other ships approaching the disabled 
 vessel (/) ; of a tug with a ship in tow, and of both the tug 
 and her tow, so as not to damage each other when taking 
 the tow-line on board, and during the performance of the 
 towage (w) . It is the duty of a ship unable to keep out of 
 the way in compliance with the regulations to hail the other 
 ship, and of the latter herself to keep out of the way (»). 
 
 Apart from local regulations upon the subject, it is negli- 
 gence in a dock or crowded waters to carry the anchor outside 
 the rail, or not to stow and rig in spars and other hamper 
 likely to injure other craft (o). 
 
 In America, it is held that if a ship is damaged by a raft 
 of such a size or construction as to be a danger to other 
 vessels being navigated with ordinary care, thu wwner of the 
 tug in charge of it is liable (/>). 
 
 Where a vessel is coming out of dock or harbour, or 
 executing a manoeuvre in the course of which an alteration 
 of her helm is necessary, another ship approaching her is 
 justified in acting upon the assumption that the necessary 
 measures will be taken by the former vessel with proper skill 
 and despatch, and that her course will be that which is obvi- 
 ously intended. A schooner coming out of St. George's Dock 
 in the Mersey, the tide being flood and the wind southerly, 
 saw a tug with a ship in tow coming down the river towards 
 
 (i) As a steamship with no steam : 
 The Bou-den, 7S Fed. Eep. 649. 
 
 {k) The Bdkrophon, o Asp. M. C. 
 58 ; and see The Batavier, 1 Sp. 378. 
 
 {I) The Arthur Gordon and The 
 Independence, Lush. 270 ; and see 
 Mtpra, pp. 8, 167. 
 
 (w) See supra, pp. 179, 188 seq. 
 
 (w) The Lake St. Clair and The 
 Vndenvriter, 3 Asp. M. C. 361. 
 
 {o) The Sontag, 40 Fed. Rep. 174 ; 
 The Palmetto, 1 Biss. 140 ; The Kolon, 
 9 Ben. 197 ; The Industrie, 27 Fed. 
 Rep. 767. Cf. supra, pp. 13, 18. 
 
 {p) The Niagara, 44 Fed. Rep. 
 775 ; The Athabasca, 45 Fed. Rep. 
 651.
 
 SEAMANSHIP ORDINARY PRECAUTIONS. 497 
 
 her. She put her hebn hard-a-port and scandalized her main- Article 29. 
 
 sail in order to get her head to point down the river. Owing 
 
 to the flood tide catcliing her under the starboard bow she did 
 
 not answer her helm readily, and came into collision with the 
 
 tug. If she had run up her outer jib, which she did not 
 
 do, she would have answered her helm better, and would have 
 
 kept clear of the tug. The latter had kept her course in the 
 
 expectation that the schooner would set her jib and straighten 
 
 herself in the river, as she was intending to do. It was held 
 
 that the schooner was solely in fault for the collision, and that 
 
 the tug did right in acting upon the assumption that the 
 
 schooner's jib would have been run up, and that she would 
 
 have straightened herself and kept on the tug's starboard 
 
 side (q). 
 
 As a general rule a vessel entering a dock must wait until 
 all outgoing vessels are clear (/•) . 
 
 It has been held in America to be the duty of a ship that Rounding a 
 is about to round a blind corner, or navigating under high ^"^ ''orner. 
 land which hides her from other craft, to give some notice of 
 her presence to approaching vessels. So, where two ships 
 approaching a lofty vessel from opposite sides rounded under 
 her stern so close that neither saw the other's lights until it 
 was too late to avoid collision, both were held to be in 
 
 fault (0- 
 
 Dumb barges or lighters that drive with the tide have little Dumb bargea. 
 or no control over their own movements, and cannot keep out 
 of the way of other craft. In the absence of any rule or 
 custom, they are not required to navigate in the shallow 
 water of a river, so as to leave the deep channel open to 
 vessels of greater drauglit, but in the Thames, where they 
 do not carry anchors, they are justified in going on after being- 
 overtaken by a fog, until they come in contact with some- 
 thing to which the}'' can make fast (u). It is therefore the 
 
 (q) The Ulster, 1 Mar. Law Gas. [r] Taylor v. Burqir and Another, 
 
 O. S. 231. Cf. The Frunconia, 2 H Asp. M. C. 364 (1898). 
 
 P. D. 8; The i)/-yM>7(t', (1901) P. 68 ; (.v) The Gamma, 103 Fed. Rep. 
 
 The Sanliyhl, (1904) P. 100; The 703; The R. H. Jraferman and The 
 
 Servia, 42 DavJH, 144, supra, p. 322 ; Transfer No. 8, 82 Fed. Rep. 478. 
 
 Walsh V. Brooklyn ami New Yorh {t) The A/lmni/, 7-1 Fed. Rep. 311 . 
 
 Ferry Co., 68 Fed. Rep. 507 ; 'Hi' («<) The Ralph Creylce, 6 Asp. M. C. 
 
 Hackeniiaek, hYeA.'Rep. 121. 19; The Rosi of Fnylanil, 6 Anp. 
 
 M. C. 304. 
 
 M. K K
 
 498 
 
 THE REOULATIONS. 
 
 Article 29. 
 
 Speed iu 
 
 narrow 
 
 channels. 
 
 Special 
 precautions 
 required at 
 launch. 
 
 dut}^ of other vessels, and particularly of steamships, to keep 
 out of their way. In order to do this, they must know, in 
 each case, the set of the tide and probable course of the 
 lighter (,r). 
 
 In a river, harbour, or narrow channel, steamships must 
 not go at a rate of speed which will endanger passing vessels 
 by the suction it sets up (//), or will raise a swell which may 
 sink or damage barges and other craft. In the Thames, and 
 some other rivers, there are bye-laws to this effect. Whatever 
 the rate of speed required by local bye-laws, if a ship, though 
 not exceeding that rate, endangers other craft, she will be 
 held in fault (z) . But a vessel sunk or damaged by the swell 
 of a passing remedy cannot recover if she was mismanaged, 
 overladen (a), or unfit to encounter the ordinary wash of river 
 traffic (/>). In the Suez Canal, five-and-a-half knots; in the 
 Manchester Ship Canal, six miles an hour ; in the Tees, six 
 miles an hour ; and within half a mile of the shore in the 
 port of Portsmouth, seven miles an hour are the highest rates 
 of speed allowed by the local rules. Where a rate of speed is 
 specified by a local rule of navigation or Act of Parliament, 
 the rate over the ground, as distinguished from the rate 
 through the water, is prima, facie intended (c) . 
 
 Where a vessel is being launched, the law oasts upon the 
 persons in charge of the launch the obligation of conducting 
 it with the utmost precaution, and of giving such notice as is 
 reasonable and sufficient to prevent injury to passing vessels. 
 In T/ie AndahiHian (d), although notice of the intended 
 launch was posted up in a conspicuous place, flags were flying 
 on the ship to be launched, and two tugs with boats were 
 employed to warn passing vessels, a vessel that was passing 
 
 (x) The Swallow. 3 Asp. M. C. 371 : 
 The Otroi Wallis, L. R. 4 A. & E. 
 175. For American decisions to the 
 same effect, see Fretz v. B/i/l, 12 
 How. 466 ; Pearce v. Pnffe, 24 How. 
 228 ; Butterjield v. Boyd. 4 Blatchf . 
 356. 
 
 [y) Sup: a, p. 493. 
 
 {z) The Batavier. 1 Sp. 378 ; 9 
 Moo. P. C. 286. See The Duke of 
 Cornwall, 1 Pr. Adm. Dig. 201 ; 
 Smith V. Dobson, 3 M. & G. 59 ; The 
 
 (Miimb'w. 61 Fed. Pep. 220 : The 
 iVa/estie, 48 Fed. Rep. 730 ; The 
 Monmouth and The Parifan, 44 Fed. 
 Rep. 809. 
 
 (ff) Liixford V. Larfie. o C. & P. 
 421. 
 
 ih) The Pilfirim, .i7 Fed. Rep. 
 670. 
 
 (c) The R. L. Alston. 8 P. D. ;;. 
 
 (d) 2 P. D. 231. See also The 
 Vianna. Swab. 405.
 
 PRECAUTIONS AT A LAUNCH. 
 
 490 
 
 was not warned, and those in charge of the launch were held Arti cle 29 . 
 responsible for a collision with her. 
 
 In The Blenheim (f), Dr. Lushington said, with regard to 
 the duty of those in charge of the launch : — '* Such reason- 
 able notice of a launch shall be given as shall prevent danger 
 or reasonable chance of danger to other vessels navigating in 
 the river. That is the first great principle and rule in these 
 cases. As all other vessels have a right to navigate in a 
 river, no person shall interfere with tliat navigation without 
 such reasonable notice of a launch as may prevent the chance 
 of an injury to them. What is reasonable notice depends on 
 local circumstances, the breadth of the river, the number of 
 vessels passing, and other circumstances of that kind. It must 
 be not a mere general notice of a launch on a particular day ; 
 the notice must so specify the time of the launch that vessels 
 navigating up and down the river may not be damaged or 
 incur danger." 
 
 In The Andalnaian (/) the duty of those in charge of a 
 launch was thus stated : " The law throws upon those who 
 launch a vessel the obligation of doing so with the utmost 
 precaution, and giving such notice as is reasonable and suffi- 
 cient to prevent any injurj' happening from the launch ; and, 
 moreover, the burden of showing that every reasonable pre- 
 caution has been taken, and every reasonable notice given, 
 lies upon her and those na\'igating the launch." This state- 
 ment of the law was cited and acted upon by Butt, J., in The 
 Georcje Roper [(/). In the same case the learned judge pointed 
 out that, " when you set a vessel of large size, without engines 
 and without a helm, and with only a tug to manage her, off 
 the ways at a speed of seven knots across the fairway of the 
 river Mersey, the utmost precautions are only reasonable." 
 He held that the people in charge of the launch were in fault 
 for not taking every possible step to assure themselves that no 
 vessel was approaching the ways before the launch was started. 
 He also expressed his opinion that in the Mersey the tug or 
 tugs attending a launch should be decorated with flags in the 
 usual way when a launch is about to take place (//). 
 
 {e) 4 Not. of Cas. '•i9'S. w:iw used by Sir li. rhilliiuurr in 
 
 (/) -2 P. D. 231. r/ie Glengan-i/, 2 P. D. 235. 
 
 (y) 8 P. D. 119. Siniiliir languape (/*) See also Tlif Glniijarrii, 2 P. I). 
 
 K K 2
 
 500 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 29. 
 
 Small craft 
 not required 
 by law to 
 keep out of 
 the way of 
 heavy ships. 
 
 In The Cachapool (i), it was held that a vessel at anchor in 
 the way of a launch was in fault for a collision with the 
 launch. Notice had been given her at six o'clock of the 
 intended launch, which took place at half- past ten ; and 
 shortly before that hour a tug had been sent by those in 
 charge of the launch to endeavour to get the ship at anchor 
 to allow the tug to tow her out of the way. 
 
 In The Glengarry {k),\i was held that all proper precautions 
 were taken, and that the vessel under way (a tug with 
 barges in tow) was solely in fault for steaming across the 
 path of The Glengarry at the moment she was being started. 
 
 Even after proper notice of a launch has been given, it 
 must not take place so long as other vessels are in the way. 
 If it is customary for the harbour-master to superintend or be 
 present, it should not take place in his absence (/). 
 
 There is no rule in law requiring small vessels to keep out 
 of the way of larger ones, though it may be much easier for 
 them to do so than for the larger ship to take the steps 
 required by the regulations. A large ship going at a slow 
 speed in a narrow channel cannot alter her course rapidly, 
 and may be unable to do all that is necessary to avoid colli- 
 sion. But, so far as she can do so, she must comply with the 
 regulations ; and in such a case it will be the duty of the 
 smaller vessel to take such precautions as are rendered necessary 
 by the comparatively helpless condition of the larger ship {m). 
 
 The paramount duty of both craft to do what is necessary 
 to avoid collision is brought out more distinctly by the 
 American than by the English cases. A small sailing boat, 
 in a flat calm, was struck by a steamship with a heavy barge 
 lashed alongside. The sailing boat was held in fault (as 
 well as the steamship), because she did not use her oars to 
 get out of the way of the steamship {n) ; and a schooner of 
 130 tons, becalmed in a difficult position in a river, was held 
 in fault for not using her sweeps, or having a boat to tow 
 
 235, on this point ; Malster v. Hum- 
 phreys, 3 Fed. Rep. 535. 
 
 (») 7 P. D. 217. As to these cases, 
 see The fFesternlancl, supra, p. 22. 
 
 {k) 2 P. D. 235. 
 
 \l) The United States, 12 L. T. 33. 
 
 [m] See The La Flatu, Swab. 220 ; 
 on app., ibid. 298 ; The Arthur 
 Gordon and The Independevce, Lush. 
 270. 
 
 (h) The Bay Queen, 42 Fed. Rep. 
 271.
 
 rules. 
 
 LOCAL RULES TO REMAIN IN FORCE. 501 
 
 ahead, so as to avoid a steamship that struck her (o). lu Article 29. 
 
 New York harbour, where large steamships cannot take up 
 
 their berths in their slips without swinging against the ends 
 
 of the piers, it is held to be the duty of small craft moored 
 
 at the piers to shift, so as not to be crushed by the big 
 
 ships (/)). 
 
 Me-sercatioii of liu/es for Hurhour-s <tnd LiUind Nitcujutlon. 
 
 Article 30. 
 
 Nothiiuj in tlicne ralcx >ihaU interfere with the operation of a Article 30. 
 ■special rule duhj made hy loenl authoritif, relative to the navigation Local rules 
 
 of ant/ harbour, river, or inland icaters. uot affected 
 
 '' ' ' by the general 
 
 This Article is identical with Art. 25 of the Regulations 
 of 1884. It must be read together with the preliminary 
 paragraph {supra, p. 332), which directs that the regulations 
 shall be followed " upon the high seas, and in all waters 
 connected therewith navigable by seagoing vessels." The 
 effect of local rules in all waters within the King's 
 dominions to which the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, 
 applies, is saved by 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, s. 421. 
 
 Local rules have not, in all cases, been recognised by the 
 Courts as of equally binding effect with the sea regulations ; 
 but there is no doubt that an infringement of a local rule 
 made by a competent authority and applicable to the case 
 will, unless excused by special circumstances, be held to be 
 negligence contributing to a collision {q). A bye-law made 
 under a local Act required ships coming into the Tyne to 
 keep on the north side of the river. The Raithwaite Hall, 
 coming in from the sea in a thick fog, was in collision, on 
 the south side of the river, with a vessel bound out. In the 
 absence of proof of negligence on the part of the latter. The 
 Raithwaite Hall was held to be in fault for the collision (/•). 
 In this case Sir II . Phillimore said, with regard to the effect 
 
 (o) The B. K. fVashburn, 19 Fed. Yourri and The Spearman, 1(1 App. 
 Rep. 788. _ Ca8. 276. 
 
 (j») The Etruria, 88 Fed. Rep. oSo 
 [q) See Cayzer v. Carron Co., Th 
 Margaret, 9 App. Cas. 873; The 
 
 (>•) The Raithwaite Hall, "2 Asp. 
 The M. C. 210.
 
 502 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Effect of 
 infringement 
 
 Article 30. of local rules : " There should, however, be no misunder- 
 standing as to the effect of these and similar bye-laws 
 governing the navigation of a river. It cannot be held that, 
 because they or any of them are disobeyed, the vessel dis- 
 obeying them is therefore to be held to blame. They are 
 only evidence of what it is the duty of a vessel to do under 
 the circumstances named in the particular bye-law. As such 
 e\adence, however, they are an important element in every 
 case that comes within their provisions ; and if it should 
 appear that by the breach of one of them a ship has occasioned 
 or contributed to a collision, the existence of such a bye-law 
 would afford the very strongest reason for holding that a ship 
 had been guilty of a breach of duty and was to blame for the 
 collision " {s). 
 
 An infringement of some, but not of all, local rules will 
 cause the ship to be held in fault under 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, 
 s. 419 {t). 
 
 There are local rules in force at and in the following 
 places and waters : Arundel, Avon, Belfast, Berehaven, 
 Blyth, Boston, Bristol, Caledonian Canal, Carron Eiver, 
 Chatham, Clyde, Cork, Cowes, Dartmoiith, Deptford, Dublin, 
 Falmouth, Galway, Grloucester and Berkeley Canal, Holyhead, 
 Humber, Ipswich, Limerick, Londonderry, Manchester Ship 
 Canal {t(), Medway, Mersey, Mersey and Irwell Navigation, 
 Milford, Newport (Mon.), Newry, Orwell, Ouse (Upper and 
 Lower), Pembroke, Plymouth, Portland, Portsmouth, 
 Queenstown, Runcorn and Weston Canal, Ryde, Solent, 
 Southampton, Suir, Tees, Thames, Tyne, Warkworth, 
 Waterford, Weaver Na\'igation, Whitby, Windermere, 
 Woolwich, Youghal. Some of these rules are full and 
 almost identical with the sea regulations ; others are scanty 
 and antiquated. Some deal with ships' lights, speed, 
 
 («) As to the obligation to obe}- 
 local rules, the recognition of them 
 by an Admiralty Court, and proof 
 of them, see The Henry Morton, 2 
 Asp. M. C. 466; The Peerless, 13 
 Moo. P. C. 484 ; The Smyrna, 2 Moo. 
 P. C. N. S. 435. As to the effect of 
 a breach of a local statutory rule or 
 duty, see The United Service, 8 P. D. 
 56 ; Atkinson v. Newcastle and Gates- 
 
 head Waterworks Co., 2 Ex. D. 441. 
 Ignorance of a local rule is no 
 excuse for disobeying it : The River 
 Derwent, 6 Asp. M. C. 467. 
 
 (<) See supra, pp. 55 seq. 
 
 [u] These ruits have not, however, 
 been confirmed by the Board of Trade 
 as required by sect. 198 of the Man- 
 chester Ship Canal Act, 1898.
 
 LOCAL RULES TO REMAIX IN FORCE. 
 
 508 
 
 anchorage ground, docking ; others with local matters foreign Article 30. 
 to the subject of this work. 
 
 These rules derive their force either from local Acts, or 
 from the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, s. 421 (2), which gives 
 His Majesty power to make rules where they cannot he made 
 otherwise; or from 10 & 11 Vict. c. 27, giving dock and 
 harbour authorities similar power ; or from 28 & 29 Vict. 
 c. 125, relating to dockyard ports {x). 
 
 There are local rules in force in some foreign rivers and 
 waters, such as the Bosphorus, the Danube, the Suez Canal, 
 the inland waters and lakes of the United States and Canada, 
 and probably many other foreign waters (//). Whether the 
 words of Art. 30 as to " rules made by local authority " apply 
 to foreign as well as to British rules, has not been decided. 
 
 The " Inland Waters " rules of America contain many 
 additions to and alterations of the general collision regu- 
 lations (s). They are applicable in Boston, New York, 
 Baltimore, Gralveston, San Francisco, and other harbours and 
 waters of the seaboard of the United States, the limits of 
 which are set out in the London Gazette, 9th July, 1895. 
 
 Difficulties arise in some cases where the local rules are Local rules 
 
 not consistent with the general regulations ; but it appears ^^^ ^^^. 
 
 ° ^ _ '- ^ regulations 
 
 that in the waters in which they are in force the local rules applying in 
 must be obeyed without regard to the general regulations, if "^'"^ ^'^ ^"' 
 the latter conflict with them. At a time when there was no 
 bye-law in force in the Thames requiring sailing ships to 
 carry lights, a Trinity sailing ballast-lighter was run down in 
 the river when carrying no lights. It was held that, not 
 being a sea-going vessel, she was not required by the sea 
 regulations to carry lights, and that she was not required to 
 carry them under the local rules, there being no rule on the 
 
 (;x) The dockyard ports for which 
 rules have been made are Berehaveu, 
 Chatham, Deptford, Pembroke, 
 Plymouth, Portland. PortHmouth, 
 Queensto'wn, Sheemess, and Wool- 
 wich. See OrderH in Council of 
 29th Feb. 1868 ; 29th June, 1878 ; 
 19th May, 188-3 : 29th Juue, 1888 ; 
 15th Aug. 1890; 22nd Nov. 1890; 
 17th Sept. 1900 (Portsmouth); 26th 
 Sept. 1901 (Berehavcn) ; .')th Dec. 
 1902 (Portland). There are also 
 
 rules for Gibraltar : Ord. in Council, 
 7th March, 1898 ; London Gazette, 
 13th Jan. 1899. 
 
 [y] The Smyrna, 2 Moo. P. C. N. S. 
 447 ; The Clievcden, (1894) App. Cas. 
 625, are decisions upon Danube rules. 
 The Sea Rules ajiply to the Elbe. 
 
 (-) These, togetlior with the Ameri- 
 can rules fur the Great Lakes and 
 Western rivers, are set out in " The 
 Rules of the Road at Sea," above 
 mentioned.
 
 504 
 
 THE REGULATIONS. 
 
 Article 30. 
 
 Customary 
 course. 
 
 subject («). Sir R. Philliraore expressed an opinion that the 
 power of the Thames Conservators did not enable them to 
 make bye-laws for sea-going ships, and their powers applied 
 to river craft only. It seems, however, that the existing 
 Thames bye-laws are binding on all ships in the Thames. It 
 appears that where the local rules do not conflict mth the 
 general rules, the latter are supplementary to the local 
 rules (b) ; several recent cases (c) show the difficulties, both of 
 construction and locality, which arise where the sea regu- 
 lations are applied in conjunction with local rules. For 
 example, in the estuary of the Thames it is extremely difficidt 
 to draw the line at which the sea regulations begin, and the 
 Thames rules cease, to operate. As the former contain a 
 " starboard side " rule, and the latter do not, the matter is one 
 which ought not to be left to the Courts to decide (d). 
 
 Local rules, though not made by any competent authority, 
 may, by long usage and well-recognised practice, establish a 
 custom, the infringement of which will be negligence. The 
 obligation to obey such a custom of the river was upheld by 
 the Privy Council in T//e Fyenoord. That case was decided 
 under sect. 297 of 17 & IS Vict. c. 104, by which it was 
 enacted, in effect, that vessels going up the Thames should 
 keep on the north or starboard side. The Fyenoord, a foreign 
 ship, was navigating on the south side, and came into collision 
 with a vessel bound down. It was held that, even if the 
 statute was not binding on foreign ships, a custom had 
 emanated from the statute that ships should navigate in 
 accordance with it, and that The Fyenoord was to blame for 
 transgressing the custom {e). 
 
 {a) The C. S. Butler, L. R. 4 A. & 
 E. 238. 
 
 {b) Supra, p. 318. 
 
 (c) H.ff., The Harvest, 11 P. D. 
 90 ; The Minnie, (1894) P. 336 ; The 
 Winsianley, (1896) P. 297 ; The Car- 
 lotta, (1899) P. 223. 
 
 (d) In America the Secretary to 
 the Treasury has power to define 
 
 by bearings ' ' the line dividing the 
 high seas from rivers, harbours, and 
 inland waters": Act of Congress, 
 19th Feb. 1895, c. 102; 28 Stat. 
 672, s. 2. 
 
 (e) The Fyenoord, Swab. 374. See 
 also, as to local custom. The Smyrna, 
 2 Moo. P. C. N. S. 447 ; Kennedy v. 
 The Sarmatian, 2 Fed. Rep. 911.
 
 DISTRESS SIGNALS. 50!^ 
 
 Diatre-s-s Si(/>ia/.s. 
 
 Article 31. 
 
 W/ien a ve-s.se/ is in di.'ifi'oi.s, mid n'qi(ire.s (i.s.si.sfaii<r t'roni Article 31. 
 other ve-sfie/.s, or from the shore, fhr folhwiiui shull hr fhr Distress 
 4g}wh to he iiml or displayed hi/ her, either together or '*'^'^^''- 
 separately, viz. : — 
 
 In the daytime — 
 
 1. A yun or other explosive signal fired at intervals of 
 
 ahoat a minute ; 
 
 2. The International Code signal of distress indicated hi/ 
 
 N. C. ; 
 
 '3. The distant signal, consisting of a square flag, havimi 
 either above or heloic it a hall, or anything resem- 
 bling a hall ; 
 
 4. A contin/ioNs sounding /rifh any fog-signal apparatus. 
 At night — 
 
 1. A gun fired at intervals of about a minute : 
 
 2. Flames on the ship {as from a Imniing tar Itarrel, oil 
 
 barrel, 8^c.) ; 
 
 'i. RocJiets or shells, throiring stars of any colour or de- 
 scription, fired one at a time, at sitort intervals ; 
 
 4. A continuous sounding with any fog-signal apparatus. 
 
 This Article corresponds witli Art. 27 of the Regulations 
 of 1884. The "continuous sounding with any fog-signal 
 apparatus " is new. These distress signals are made under 
 a different section (sect. 434) of the Merchant Shipping 
 Act, 1894, to that (sect. 418) under which the collision 
 regulations are made (/'). 
 
 (/) They were inserted iu the Collision Regulations of 18.S0 and l,s84, 
 apparently by mistake.
 
 oo; 
 
 APPENDIX I 
 
 THE REGULATIONS FOR PRP:VENTING 
 COLLISIONS AT SEA («). 
 
 Preliminary . 
 
 These rules shall be followed by all vessels upon the high 
 seas and in all waters connected therewith, navigable by sea- 
 going vessels. 
 
 In the following rules every steam vessel which is under 
 sail and not under steam is to be considered a sailing vessel, 
 and every vessel under steam, whether under sail or not, is to 
 be considered a steam vessel. 
 
 The word " steam vessel '' shall include any vessel propelled 
 by machinery. 
 
 A vessel is " under way " within the meaning of these rules 
 when she is not at anchor, or made fast to tlie shore or 
 aground. 
 
 HULES CONCERNING LiGHTS, &C. 
 
 The word '' visible " in these rules, when applied to lights, 
 shall mean visible on a dark night with a clear atmosphere. 
 
 Art. 1. The rules concerning lights shall be complied with 
 in all weathers from sunset to sunrise, and during such time 
 no other lights which may be mistaken for the prescribed lights 
 sliall be exhibited. 
 
 Art. 2. A steam vessel when under way shall carry — 
 (a) On or in front of the foremast, or if a vessel without 
 a foremast, then in the fore part of the vessel, at 
 a height above the hull of not less than twenty feet, 
 and if the breadth of the vessel exceeds twenty 
 feet, then at a height above the hull not less than 
 such breadth, so, however, that the light need not 
 be carried at a greater heigJit above the hull ihau 
 forty feet, a bright wiiito liglit, so constiucted as 
 to show an unbroken light over an arc of the 
 horizon of twenty points of tlio compass, so fixed 
 
 (a) Made by Order iu Coimcil of 27th Nov. 1896.
 
 508 APPENDIX I. 
 
 as to throw the light ten points on each side of the 
 vessel, viz., from right ahead to two points abaft 
 the beam on either side, and of such a character 
 as to be visible at a distance of at least five miles, 
 (b) On the starboard side a green light so constructed as 
 to show an unbroken light over an arc of the horizon 
 of ten points of the compass, so fixed as to throw 
 the light from right ahead to two points abaft the 
 beam on the starboard side, and of such a character 
 as to be visible at a distance of at least two miles. 
 {(i) On the port side a red light so constructed as to show 
 an unbroken light over an arc of the horizon of ten 
 points of the compass, so fixed as to throw the light 
 from right ahead to two points abaft the beam on 
 the port side, and of such a character as to be visible 
 at a distance of at least two miles. 
 l^dj The said green and red side lights shall be fitted with 
 inboard screens projecting at least three feet for- 
 ward from the hght, so as to prevent tliese lights 
 from being seen across the bow. 
 {e) A steam vessel when under way may carry an addi- 
 tional white light similar in construction to the 
 light mentioned in sub-division (a). These two 
 lights shall be so placed in line with the keel that 
 one shall be at least fifteen feet higher than the 
 other, and in such a position with reference to each 
 other that the lower light shall be forward of the 
 upper one. The vertical distance between these 
 lights shall be less than the horizontal distance. 
 Art. 3. A steam vessel when towing another vessel shall, in 
 addition to her side lights, carry two bright white lights in a 
 vertical line one over the other, not less than six feet apart, 
 and when towing more than one vessel shall carry an additional 
 bright white light six feet above or below such lights, if the 
 length of the tow, measuring from the stern of the towing 
 vessel to the stern of the last vessel towed, exceeds 600 feet. 
 Each of these lights shall be of the same construction and 
 character, and sliall be carried in the same position as the white 
 light mentioned in Art. 2 (a), except the additional light, which 
 may be carried at a height of not less than fourteen feet above 
 the hull. 
 
 Such steam vessel may carry a small white light abaft the 
 funnel or aftermast for the vessel towed to steer by, but such 
 light shall not be visible forward of the beam. 
 
 Art. 4. — (a) A vessel which from any accident is not under 
 command, shall carry at the same height as the white light 
 mentioned in Art. 2 (a), where they can best be seen, and, if a 
 steam vessel, in lieu of that light, two red lights, in a vertical 
 line one over the other, not less than six feet apart, and of such 
 a character as to be visible all round the horizon at a distance 
 of at least two miles; and shall by day carry in a vertical line 
 one over the other, not less than six feet apart, where they can
 
 THE REGULATIONS OF 1897. 
 
 best be seen, two black balls or shapes, each two feet in 
 diameter. 
 
 (b) A vessel employed in laying or in picking up a tolegTa[)h 
 cable shall carry in the same position as the white light nieu- 
 tioued in Art. 2 ^^a), and. if a steam vessel, in lieu of that light, 
 three lights in a vertical line one over the other, not le^s than 
 six feet apart. The highest and lowest of the-<e lights shall be 
 red, and the middle light shall be wliite, and they shall be of 
 such a character as to be visible all round the horizon, at a 
 distance of at least two miles. By day she shall carry in a 
 vertical line one over the other, not less than six feet apart, 
 where they can best be seen, three shapes not less than two feet 
 in diameter, of which the highest and lowest shall be globular 
 in shape and red in colour, and the middle one diamond in 
 shape and white. 
 
 (c) The vessels referred to in this Article, when not making 
 way through the water, shall not carry the side lights, but when 
 making way shall carry them. 
 
 (d) The lights and sha])es required to be shown by this 
 Article are to be taken by other vessels as signals that the 
 vessel showing them is not under command and cannot, there- 
 fore, get out of the Avay. 
 
 These signals are not signals of vessels in distress and re- 
 quiring assistance. Such signals are contained in Art. .'^1. 
 
 Art. .5. A sailing vessel under way, and any vessel being 
 towed, shall carry the same lights as are prescribed by Art. 2 
 for a steam vessel under way, with the exception of the white 
 lights mentioned therein, which they shall never carry. 
 
 Art. 6. Whenever, as in the case of small vessels under way 
 during bad weather, the green and red side lights cannot be 
 fixed/these lights shall be kept at hand lighted and ready for 
 use; and shall, on the approach of or to other vessels, be 
 exhibited on their respective sides in sufficient time to prevent 
 collision, in such manner as to make them most visible, hnd 
 so that the green light shall not be seen on the port side nor 
 the red light on the starboard side, nor, if ]iracticable, more 
 than two points abaft the beam on their respective sides. 
 
 To make the use of tlio'^e poi-table lights more certain and 
 easj, the lanterns containing them shall each be painted out- 
 side with the colour of the light they respectively contain, and 
 shall be ]irovided with proper screens. 
 
 Art. 7. Steam vessels of le.ss than forty, and vessels under 
 oars or sails of less than twenty, tons gross tonnage, respec- 
 tively, and rowing boats, Avhen under way, shall not be obliged 
 to carry Ihe lights mentioned in Art. 2 (a), (h) and fc), but 
 if they do not carry them they shall be provided with the fol- 
 lowing lights: — 
 
 1. Steam vessels of less than Forty tons shall carry: 
 
 Ca) In the fore pari of the vessel, or on or in fionf of the 
 funnel, where it can best be seen, ;ind al a heiglit 
 above the gunA\ale of not loss than niiK^ foot, a 
 bright white light constructed and fixed as pre- 
 
 509
 
 '10 APPENDIX I. 
 
 scribed in Art. 2 (a), and of such a character as to 
 be visible at a distance of at least two miles, 
 (b) Green and red side lig-hts constructed and fixed as pre- 
 scribed in Art. 2 (b) and (c), and of such a character 
 as to be visible at a distance of at least one mile, or 
 a 'combined lantern showing- a green light and a red 
 light from right ahead to two points abaft the beam 
 on their respective sides. Such lantern shall be 
 carried not less than three feet below the white 
 light. 
 
 2. Small steamboats, such as are carried by sea-going ves- 
 
 sels, may carry the Avhite light at a less height than 
 nine feet above the gunwale, but it shall be carried 
 above the combined lantern, mentioned in sub-divi- 
 sion 1 (b). 
 
 3. Vessels under oars or sails, of less than twenty tons, shall 
 
 have ready at hand a lantern with a green glass on one 
 side and a red glass on the other, which, on the approach 
 of or to other vessels, shall be exhibited in sufficient time 
 to prevent collision, so that the green light shall not be 
 seen on the port side nor the red liofht on the starboard 
 side. 
 
 4. EoAving- boats, Avhether under oars or sail, shall have ready 
 
 at hand a lantern showing a white light, which shall be 
 temporarily exhibited in sufficient time to prevent 
 collision. 
 
 The vessels referred to in tliis Article shall not be obliged to 
 carry the lights prescribed by Art. 4 (a), and Art. 11, last 
 paragraph. 
 
 Art. 8. Pilot vessels, when euQ-aQ-ed on their station on 
 pilotage duty, shall not sliow the lights required for other 
 vessels, but shall carry a white H^ht at the masthead, visible 
 all round the horizon, and shall abo exhibit a flare-up light or 
 flare-up lights at short intervals, which shall never exceed 
 fifteen minutes. 
 
 On the near anproacli of or to other vessels they shall have 
 their side lights lighted, readv for use. and shall flash or show 
 them at short intervals, to indicate the direction in which they 
 are heading, but the green light shall not be shown on the port 
 side, nor the red lis-ht on the starboard side. 
 
 A pilot vessel of such a class as to be obliged to go alongside 
 of a vessel to put a pilot on board, may show the white light 
 instead of carrying it at the masthead, and mav. instead of the 
 colourerl lio-hts above mentioned, liave at hand ready for use a 
 lantern with a green glass on the one side and a red glass on 
 the other, to be used as prescribed above. 
 
 Pilot vessels, when not enc-aged on their station on pilotage 
 duty, shall carrv lights similar to those of other vessels of their 
 
 tonnage. 
 
 FA steam pilot vessel pxclnsivelv emrtlnved for the service of 
 l^ilots licensed or certified bv anv pilotao-e authoritv or the 
 committee of any pilotage district in the United Kingdom when
 
 THE REOm.ATIONS OF 1897. 
 
 eugased on her station ou pilotapo duly and in British waters 
 and not at anchor shall in addition to the lights required for 
 all pilot boats earrv at a distance of eip-ht feet below her whito 
 masthead li^ht a i-ed li-ht visible all round the horizon and 
 of such a character as to 1)0 visible on a dark night with a clear 
 atmosphere at a distance of at least two miles, and al'^o the 
 coloured side lio-hts re(|uive(l io be carncl bv vessel when 
 
 under way. j • d *• i 
 
 AVheu eno-aoed on her station on pilotag-e duty, and in tsritisji 
 waters, and'at anchor, she shall carry in addition to the lights 
 reciuired for all pilot boats the red light above mentioned, 
 but not the coloured side lights. 
 
 When not engaged on her station on pilotage duty she shall 
 carry thp same lights as other steam vessels]. (Added to 
 Art' 8 bv Order in Council. Julv 7(h, 1897.) 
 
 Art 9 Fishing-vessels and fisbing-boats. when under way 
 and when not recpiired bv this Article to carry or show the 
 lights herein-after specifier! shall carry or show the lights pre- 
 ^cu-ibed for vessels of their tonnage under way. 
 
 (a) Open boats, bv which is to be understood boats not 
 protected from the entry of sea water by means of a 
 continuous deck. Avhen (Migap-ed in any fishing »t 
 nio-ht with outlving tackle extending not more than 
 150 feet horizontally from the boat into the seaway, 
 shall carrv one all-round wliite lio-ht. 
 
 Open boats. Avhen fishing at night, with outlying 
 tackle extending more than loO feet horizonlally From 
 the boat into the seawaA-. shall carry one all-round 
 white light, and in addition, on approaching or being 
 approached bv other vessels, shall show a second white 
 lio-ht at least 8 feet beloAv the first light and at -a 
 horizontal distance of ai least 5 feet away from it in 
 the direction in wliich the outlying tackle is attached. 
 (h) Vessels and boats, except open bonts as definerl i" «"^- 
 division faV when fishing with drift nets, shall, so 
 lono- as the nets are avIioIIv or partly m the water, 
 carry two white lio-hts where they can best be se^en. 
 Such lio-hts shall be plnced so that the vertical dis- 
 tance between fhem shall be not le^s than 6 feet and 
 not more than 15 feet, and so that the horizontal 
 distance between them, measured in a line with the 
 keel, shnll be not less than 5 fpai anrl not more than 
 10 feel. Th<> lower of the-e two lio-hfs shall be in the 
 direction of the nets, and both of them shall b(^ of 
 such a character as to show all round the horizon, and 
 to be visible at a distance of not less than 3 miles. 
 
 Within the Aferliterranean Sea and in the seas 
 borrlerino- the coi.sts of Japan and Korea sailing fish- 
 ing vessels of less than 20 tons gross tonnaire shall 
 not be oblirred to carrv the h.wei- of these two lio-hts; 
 shoulfl thev. however, not carry it, thov shall show 
 in the same position Tin the direction of the not or 
 
 11
 
 <512 APPENDIX I. 
 
 gear) a white light, visible at a distance of not less 
 than one sea mile, on the approach of or to other 
 vessels. 
 
 (c) Vessels and boats, except open boats as defined in sub- 
 
 division (^a), Avhen line-fisliing with their lines out 
 and attached to or hauling their lines, and when not 
 at anchor or stationary within the meaning of sub- 
 division (h), shall carry the same lights as vessels 
 fishing with drift-nets. When shooting lines, or fish- 
 ing with towing lines, they shall carry the lights pre- 
 scribed for a steam or sailing vessel under way 
 respectively. 
 
 Within the Mediterranean Sea and in the seas 
 bordering the coasts of Japan and Korea sailing fish- 
 ing vessels of less than 20 tons gross tonnage tshall 
 not be obliged to carry the lower of these two lights; 
 should they, however, not carry it, they shall show 
 in the same position (in the direction of the lines) 
 a white light, visible at a distance of not less than 
 one sea mile on the approach of or to other vessels. 
 
 (d) Vessels, when engaged in trawling, by which is meant 
 
 the dragging of an apparatus along the bottom of 
 the sea — 
 
 1. If steam-vessels, shall carry in the same posi- 
 tion as the white light mentioned in Article 2 (a), 
 a tricoloured lantern so constructed and fixed as to 
 show a wliite light from right ahead to two points 
 on each bow, and a green light and a red light over 
 an arc of the horizon from two points on each bow 
 to two points abaft the beam on the starboard and 
 port sides res])ectively: and not less than 6 nor more 
 than 12 feet below the tricoloured lantern a v/hite 
 light in a lantern, so constructed as to show a clear 
 uniform and unbroken light all round the horizon. 
 
 2. If sailing-vessels, shall carry a white light in a 
 lantern, so constructed as to show a clear uniform 
 and unbroken light all round the horizon, and shall 
 also, on the approach of or to other vessels, 'ishow 
 where it can best be seen a white flare-up light or 
 torch in sufficient time to prevent collision. 
 
 All Lights mentioned in sub-division (d) 1 and 2 
 shall be visible at a distance of at least 2 miles. 
 
 (e) Oyster dredgers and other vessels fishing with dredge 
 
 " nets shall carry and show the same lights as trawlers. 
 
 (f) Fishing-vessels and fisliing-boats may at any time use 
 
 a flare-up light in addition to the lights which they 
 are by this Article required to cany and show, and 
 they may also use working lights. 
 (o;) Every fishing-vessel and every fishing-boat under loO 
 feet in length, when at anchor, shall exhibit a white 
 liffht visible all round tlie horizon at a distance of 
 at least one mile.
 
 THE REGULATIONS OF 1897. ^^^ 
 
 Every fishing- vessel of 150 feet in length or up- 
 wards, when at anchor, shall exhibit a white light 
 visible all round the horizon at a distance of at least 
 one mile, and shall exhibit a second light as provided 
 for vessels of such length by Article 11. 
 
 Should any such vessel, whether under 150 feet in 
 length, or of 150 feet in length or upwards, be 
 attached to a net or other fishing gear, she shall on 
 the approach of other vessels show an additional white 
 light at least 3 feot below the anchor light, and at a 
 horizontal distance of at least 5 feet away from it 
 in the direction of the net or gear, 
 (h) If a vessel or boat when fishing becomes stationary in 
 consequence of her gear getting fast to a rock or 
 other obstruction, she shall in daytime haul down the 
 day-signal required by sub-division He): at night 
 show the light or lights prescribed for a vessel at 
 anchor; and during fog, mist, falling snow, or heavy 
 rain-storms make the signal prescribed for a vessel 
 at anchor. (See sub-division d, and the last para- 
 graph, of Article 15.) 
 (i) In fog, mist, falling snow, or heavy rain-storms, drift- 
 net vessels attached to their nets, and vessels when 
 trawling, dredging, or fishing with any kind of drag- 
 net, and vessels line fishing with their lines out, 
 shall, if of 20 tons gross tonnage or upwards, respec- 
 tively, at intervals of not more than one minute make 
 a blast; if steam-vessels, with the whistle or syren, 
 and if sailing-vessels with the fog-horn; each blast 
 io be followed by ringing the bell. Fishing vessels 
 and boats of less than 20 tons gross tonnage shall 
 not be obliged to give the above-mentioned sicnals; 
 but if they do not, they shall make some other efficient 
 sound signal at intervals of not more than one 
 minute. 
 (k) All vessels or boats fishing with nets or lines or trawls, 
 when under way, shall in diiytime indicate their occi7- 
 pation to an approaching vessel by displaying a 
 basket or other efficient signal Avhei^e it can best be 
 seen. If vessels or boats at anchor have thpir gear 
 out, they shall, on the appi'oach of other vessels, show 
 the same signal on the side on which those vessels 
 can pass. 
 Art. 10. A vessel which is IxM'ng overtaken by another shall 
 show from her stern to such last-mentioned vessel a while light 
 or a flare-up lijrht. 
 
 The white liaht rerpn'red to bo shown by this .'Article may be 
 fixed and carried in a lantern, but in such case the lantern shall 
 be so constructed, fitted, and screened that it shall throw an 
 unbroken licrht over an arc of the liorizon of twelve points of 
 the compass, viz., for six points from right aft on each side nf 
 the vessel, so as to be visible at a distance of at least one mile.
 
 614 APPENDIX I. 
 
 Such lig-lit shall be carried as nearly as practicable on the same 
 level as the side lights. 
 
 Art. 11. A vessel under 1.50 feet in length, when at anchor, 
 shall carry forward, where it can best be seen, but at a height 
 not exceeding twenty feet above the hull, a white light in a 
 lantern so constructed as to show a clear, uniform, and un- 
 broken light visible all round the horizon at a distance of lat 
 least one mile. 
 
 A vessel of 150 feet or upwards in length, when at anchor, 
 shall carry in the forward part of the vessel, at a height of not 
 less than twenty, and not exceeding forty, feet above the hull, 
 one such light, and at or near the stern of the vessel, and at 
 such a height that it shall be not less than fifteen feet lower 
 than the forward light, another such light. 
 
 The length of a vessel shall be deemed to be the length 
 appearing in her certificate of registry. 
 
 A vessel aground in or near a fairway shall carry the above 
 light or lights and the two red lights prescribed by Art. 4 (a). 
 
 Art. 12. Every vessel may. if necessary in order to attract 
 attention, in addition to the lights which she is by these rules 
 required to carry, show a flare-up lio-ht or use any detonating 
 signal that cannot be mistaken for a distress signal. 
 
 Art. 13. ISTothing in these rules shall interfere with the 
 operation of any special rules made by the Government of any 
 nation Avith respect to additional station and signal lights for 
 two or more ships of war or for vessels sailing under convoy, or 
 with the exhibition of re^^og-nition sio-nals adopted by ship- 
 owners, which have been authorized by their respective Govern- 
 ments and duly registered and published. 
 
 Art. 14. A steam vessel proceeding under sail only, but 
 having her funnel up. shall carrv in daytime, forward, where 
 it can best be seen, one black ball or shape two feet in diameter. 
 
 Sound Signals for Fog, &c. 
 
 Art. 15. All signals prescribed by this Article for vessels 
 under way shall be given: 
 
 1. By "steam vessels" on the whistle or siren. 
 
 2. By "sailing vessels and vessels towed " on the fog-horn. 
 The words " prolonged blast " used in this Article shall mean 
 
 a blast of from four to six seconds' duration. 
 
 A steam vessel shall be provided witli an efficient whistle or 
 siren, sounded by st^am or some substitute for steam, so placed 
 that the sound may not be intercepted by any obstruction, and 
 with an efficient fo"^o--horn. to be sounded by mechanical means, 
 and also with an efficient bell.* A sailing vessel of twenty tons 
 gross tonnage or upwards shall be provided with a similar 
 foff-horn and bell. 
 
 In fog, mist, falling snow, or heavy rain storms, whether by 
 
 * In all cases where the rules require a bell to be used a drum may be 
 substituted on board TurVisb vessels, or a srong' where such articles are 
 used on board small sea- going vessels.
 
 THE REGULATIONS OF 1897. ^^^, 
 
 day or night, the signals described in this Article shall be used 
 as follows; viz.: — 
 
 (a) A steam vessel having way upon her shall sound, at 
 
 intervals of not more than two minutes, a prolonged 
 blast. 
 
 (b) A steam vessel under way, but stopped and having no 
 
 way upon her. sliall sound, at intervals of not more 
 than two minutes, two prolonged blasts, with an in- 
 terval of about one second between them. 
 
 (c) A sailing vessel under way shall sound, at interval of not 
 
 more'than one minute, when on the starboard tack one 
 blast, when on <lie port tack two blasts in succession, 
 and when with the ^ind abaft the beam three blasts in 
 succession. 
 Cd) A vessel, when at anclior, shall, at intervals of not more 
 than one minute, ring the bell rapidly for about five 
 seconds, 
 (e) A vessel, when towing, a vessel employed in laying or in 
 pick i no- up a telegraph cable, and a vessel under way, 
 which IS unable to get out of the way of an approach- 
 ing vessel through being not under command, pr 
 un*able to mana'uvre as required by the'^e r\\\es, shall, 
 instead of the signals prescribed in sub-divisions (a) 
 and (c) of this Article, at intervals of not more than 
 two minutes, sound three blasts in succession, viz., 
 one prolonged blast followed by two short blasts. A 
 vessel towed may give this signal and she shall jiot 
 give any other. 
 Railing vessels and boats of less than twenty tons gross 
 tonnao-e ""shall not be obliged to give the above-mentioned 
 signals, but if thev do not, they shall make some other efficient 
 sound signal at intervals of not more than one minute. 
 
 Speed of Ships to be Moderate in Fog, &c. 
 
 Art. IG. Every ve.ssel shall, in a fog, mist, falling snow, or 
 heavy rain storms, go at a moderate speed, having careful 
 regard to the existing icircumstances and conditions. 
 
 A steam vessel hearing, ai)parently forward of her beani, the 
 fog-signal of a vessel the jiosition of which is not ascertained, 
 shall so far as the circumstances of the case admit, stop her 
 eno-iAes, and then navigate with cnntion until danger ol colli- 
 sion is over. 
 
 Steering and Sailing Eules. 
 
 Freliminary—Risk of Collision. 
 
 Risk of collision can, when circumstances jiermit, bo ascer- 
 tained by carefully watching the compass bearing of an 
 approaching vessel. Tf \he bearing does not appreciably 
 change, such risk should be deemed to e.xist. 
 
 AiT IT When two sailing vessels are approaching one
 
 516 APPENDIX I. 
 
 another, so as to involve risk of collision, one of them shall 
 keep out of the way of the other, as follows, viz.: — 
 
 (a) A vessel which is running- free shall keep out of the way 
 
 of a vessel which is close-hauled. 
 
 (b) A vessel wliich is close-hauled on the port tack shall keep 
 
 out of the way of a vessel which is close-hauled on 
 the starboard tack. 
 
 (c) When both are running- free, with the wind on different 
 
 sides, the vessel which has the wind on the port side 
 shall keep out of the way of the other. 
 
 (d) When both are running- free, with the wind on the same 
 
 side, the vessel which is to windward shall keep out 
 of the way of the vessel Avhich is to leeward. 
 
 (e) A vessel which has the wind aft shall keep out of the way 
 
 of the other vessel. 
 Art. 18. When two steam vessels are meeting end on, or 
 nearly end on, so as to involve risk of collision, each shall alter 
 her course to starboard, so that each may pass on the port side 
 of the other. 
 
 This Article only applies to cases where vessels are meeting 
 end on, or nearly end on, in such a manner as to involve 
 risk of collision, and does not apply to two vessels which 
 must, if both keep on their respective courses, pass clear 
 of each other. 
 The only cases to which it does apply are, when each of the 
 two vessels is end on, or nearly end on, to the other; in 
 other words, to cases in which, by day, each vessel sees the 
 masts of the other in a line, or nearly in a line, with her 
 own ; and by night, to cases in which each vessel is in such 
 a ^Dosition as to see both the side lights of the other. 
 It does not apply, by day, to cases in which a vessel sees 
 another ahead crossing her own course; or by night, to 
 cases where the red light of one vessel is opposed to the red 
 light of the other, or where the green light of one vessel 
 is opposed to the green light of tlie other, or where a red 
 light without a green light, or a green light without a red 
 light, is seen ahead, or where both green and red lights are 
 seen anywhere but ahead. 
 Art. 19. When two steam vessels are crossing, so as to in- 
 volve risk of collision, the vessel which has the other on her own 
 starboard side shall keep out of the way of the other. 
 
 Art. 20. When a steam vessel and a sailing- vessel are pro- 
 ceeding in such directions as to involve risk of collision, the 
 steam vessel shall keep out of the way of the sailing vessel. 
 
 Art. 21. Where by any of these rules one of two vessels is to 
 keep out of the way, the other shall keep her course and speed. 
 Note. — When, in consequence of thick Aveather or other 
 causes, such vessel finds herself so close that collision cannot 
 be avoided by the action of the giving-way vessel alone, she 
 also shall take such action as will best aid to avert collision. 
 (See Arts. 27 and 29.) 
 
 Art. 22. Every vessel which is directed by these rules to keep
 
 THE REGULATIONS OF 1897. 517 
 
 out of the way of another vessel shall, if the circumstances of the 
 case admit, avoid crossing ahead of the other. 
 
 Art. 23. Every steam vessel which is directed by these rules 
 to keep out of the way of another vessel shall, on approaching 
 her, if necessary, slacken her speed or stop or reverse. 
 
 Art. 24. NotAvithstauding anything contained in the^^e rules, 
 every vessel, overtaking any other, sliall keep out of the way of 
 the overtaken vessel. 
 
 Every vessel coming up with anotlier vessel from any direc- 
 tion more than two points abaft her beam, i.e., in such 
 a position, with reference to the vessel which she is over- 
 taking, that at night she would be unable to see either of 
 that vessel's side lights, shall be deemed to be an overtak- 
 ing vessel; and no subsey^uent alteration of tlie bearing 
 between the two vessels shall make the overtaking vessel 
 a crossing vessel within the meaning of these rules, or 
 relieve her of the duty of keeping clear of the overtaken 
 vessel until she is finally past and clear. 
 
 As by day the overtaking vessel cannot always know with 
 certainty whether she is forward of or abaft this direction 
 from the other vessel, she should, if in doubt, assume that 
 she is an overtaking vessel and keep out of the way. 
 
 Art. 25. In narrow channels every steam vessel shall, when 
 it is safe and practicable, keep to that side of the fairway or 
 mid-channel which lies on the starboard side of such vessel. 
 
 Art. 26. Sailing vessels under way sliall keep out of the way 
 of sailing vessels or boats fishing with nets, or lines, or trawls. 
 This rule shall not give to any vessel or boat engaged in fishing 
 the right of obstructing a fairway used by vessels other than 
 fisliing vessels or boats. 
 
 Art. 27. In obeying and construing these rules, due regard 
 shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision, and to 
 any special circumstances which may render a departure from 
 the above rules necessary in order to avoid immediate danger. 
 
 Sound Signals for Vessels in Sight of one Another. 
 
 Art. 28. The words "short blast " used in this Article shall 
 mean a blast of about one second's duration. 
 
 When vessels are in sight of one another, a steam vessel 
 under way, in taking any course authorized or required by 
 these rules, shall indicate that course by the following signals 
 on her wliistle or siren, viz.: — 
 
 One short blast to mean, " I am directing my course to star- 
 board." 
 
 Two short blasts to mean, " I am directing my course to 
 port." 
 
 Three short blasts to mean, " My engines are going full 
 speed astern."
 
 518 '■ APPENDIX T. 
 
 No Vessel undek. any Circumstances to neglect puopek 
 
 Precautions. 
 
 Art. 29. Nothing in these rules shall exonerate any vos.sel, or 
 the owner, or master, or crew thereof, from the consequences of 
 any negiect to carry lights or signals, or of any neglect to keep 
 a proper look-out, or of the neglect of any precaution Avhich 
 may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the 
 special circumstances of the case. 
 
 Reservation of Rules for Harbours and Inland 
 
 Navigation. 
 
 Art. 30. Nothing in these rules shall interfere with the 
 operation of a special rule, duly made by local authority, rela- 
 tive to the navigation of any harbour, river, or inland waters. 
 
 Distress Signals. 
 
 Art. 31. When a vessel is in distress and requires assistance 
 from other vessels or from the shore, the following shall be the 
 signals to be used or displayed by her, either together or 
 separately ; viz . : — 
 
 In the daytime — 
 
 1. A gun or other explosive signal fired at intervals of 
 
 about a minute; 
 
 2. The International Code signal of distress indicated by 
 
 N. C; 
 
 3. The distant signal, consisting of a square flag, having 
 
 either above or below it a ball or anything resembling 
 a ball; 
 
 4. A continuous sounding with any fog-signal apparatus. 
 
 At night — 
 
 1. A gun or other explosive signal fired at intervals of 
 
 about a minute ; 
 
 2. Flames on the vessel (as from a burning tar-barrel, oil- 
 
 barrel, &c.); 
 
 3. Rockets or shells, throwing stars of any colour or de- 
 
 scription, fired one at a time, at short intervals; 
 
 4. A continuous sounding with any fog-signal apparatus.
 
 LOCAL RULES. -510 
 
 APPENDIX II. 
 
 LOCAL RULES UF NAVIGATION (a). 
 
 THE CLYDE. 
 
 Bye-laws of bth August, 1889 {b), made under 21 6: 2i Vict. c. 149 The Clyde. 
 
 (Local), aud du Vict. sess. 2, c. b (Local). 
 
 i. {^Vessels over sixty tons to have pilot.) 
 
 2. {^In daytime one hand, at night and in fog two liands, 
 
 on the look-out.) 
 
 '6. {^Steam vessel or dredger turning or unable to keep oat 
 
 of the way to sound four or more blasts or strokes of her bell; 
 
 thereupon the other vessel to keep out of the way.) 
 
 4. {lards to be peaked; bowsprits and jibbooms run in or 
 topped.) 
 
 5. {Anchors to be laid so as not to interfere with fairioay. 
 Bowsprits and jibbooms of vessels aground to be rigged in.) 
 
 6. {Vessels not to anchor or moor above Bowling, or inside 
 the river walls.) 
 
 7. {Small boats prohibited in certain parts of the river.) 
 
 8. {Scows to have coamings eighteen inches high.) 
 
 11. (At night and in dense fog speed not to exceed four miles 
 an hour.) 
 
 14. When steam vessels proceeding- in opposite directions are 
 approaching one another, each shall, when within fifty yards 
 of the other, slow her engines, and each shall alter her course 
 to starboard, so that each shall pass to the port side of the other. 
 
 15. When two steam vessels are proceeding- in the same 
 direction, but with unequal speed, the slower vessel shall, when 
 about to be overtaken, be kept sufficiently to the left or port 
 side of the channel as to leave a free passage for the faster 
 vessel, and shall be slowed, aud, if necessary, the engines 
 stopped, as soon as the faster vessel comes within fifty yards 
 of her; and tlie engines of the faster vessel shall also bo slowed, 
 when within fifty yards of the slower vessel, until the latter 
 shall be passed; and it sliall bo sufficient intiuiatioii to the 
 slower vessel of the faster vessel's purpose of passing hei- that 
 the bell of the faster vessel be twice rung and her engine 
 
 («) For a list of waters for which lioad at Sea," by Mr. 11. Stuart 
 
 there are local rules, see above, Moore, 
 p. 502. Those which are not con- 
 tained in this Appendix will be {b) It is understood that a revision 
 
 found set out in " The Rules of the of these bye-laws is in progress.
 
 520 'APPENDIX II. 
 
 Local rules whistle be twice sounded; but the faster vessel shall not 
 
 (The Clyde), attempt to pass the slower until the latter shall have given her 
 
 room to pass safely. Failing that being done, the person in 
 
 charge of the faster vessel shall report the offence to the pilot 
 
 board in order that such offence may be dealt with. 
 
 Note. — The faster vessel should not claim to pass the slower 
 at a narrow or otherwise difficult part of the river, and only 
 when the course is free of other passing vessels. 
 
 16. A steam vessel meeting or overtaking any sailing vessel, 
 or tug with sailing vessel or timber raft in tow, shall slow her 
 engines within fifty yards of such vessels, and shall continue 
 slowing until she shall have passed the same; and when about 
 to pass any vessel aground or at anchor shall slow her engines 
 at least 150 yards from such vessel, and so continue until she 
 shall have passed the same. 
 
 17. Every vessel when being overtaken by another vessel 
 after dark shall show from her stern a white light until the 
 other vessel shall have passed. 
 
 18. Vessels coming out of dock shall signify the same by a 
 prolonged blast of the steam whistle of not less than five 
 seconds' duration, and in cases where a vessel is not under 
 steam the tug boat in attendance shall make the same signal. 
 
 19. Every steam vessel under her own steam, crossing from 
 one side of the river towards the other side, shall keep out of 
 the way of vessels navigating up and down the river. 
 
 20. (Steamships to go dead slow past dredging machines, 
 diving bells, and river works.) 
 
 21. (Steamships to go dead (c) slow past notice boards to 
 that ejfect.) 
 
 22. 61, and 102. (Steamships to go dead slow in certain parts 
 of the river.) 
 
 23. (Tugs not to tow vessels alongside or abreast of each 
 other, except certain small craft ; toio not to exceed 160 yards 
 in length.) 
 
 25. (Order of berthing of vessels arriving together at a 
 wharf.) 
 
 •jC sf* V T^ ^ 
 
 32. Every vessel when on the river shall conform to the 
 Board of Trade Rules with regard to lights; and every vessel 
 moored to the buoys shall, between sunset and sunrise, have a 
 white light exhibited in a globular lantern of not less than eight 
 inches in diameter, placed in a conspicuous situation, and raised 
 at least twelve feet above the deck, so as to show a clear, uni- 
 form, and unbroken light all round the horizon. 
 
 33. (Sunken vessel to be lit by two red lights and a white 
 light. A look-out man to be on board or in a boat, and to show 
 red flags in daytime.) 
 
 (c) I.e., not exceeding five miles an hour.
 
 LOCAL RULES. 521 
 
 As to Launches. Loail rules 
 
 34. (^Two simll boats to lie in the rivei- 2UU yards above and "^^^ Clyde). 
 below the launch; pilot of launch to show red flag with 
 " launch " in white letters five minutes before launch : the 
 boats thereupon to show similar flags; no craft in the river 
 to pass boats so signalling until launch is over; if launch 
 delayed, pilot to show white flag and boats to withdraw their 
 red flags ; tiventy-four hours' notice of launch to be given to 
 harbour-master ; delay of traffic by launch.) 
 
 ***** 
 
 110. t^Horse boats and steam ferry boats to carry white light 
 twelve feet above the deck.) 
 
 By Order in Council of 23rd Februarj', 1891, it was directed that :— 
 Every dredger raoored in the River Clyde, within the juris- 
 diction of the Clyde Trustees, shall, between sunset and sun- 
 rise, exhibit three bright lights from globular lanterns of not 
 less than eight inches in diameter, placed in triangular form, 
 not less than six feet apart, on the top of the framework 
 athwartships, and of sufficient power to be distinctly visible, 
 with a clear atmosphere, on a dark night at a distance of at 
 least one mile. 
 
 By an ordtr of 24th November, 1894, signal regulations for vessels 
 entering and leaving Queen's Dock and Cessnock Dock were confirmed by 
 the Board of Trade. 
 
 HUMBER. 
 
 The following rules were made under the powers of 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, Humber. 
 by Order in Council of 8th February, 1890 {d). They are to be read in 
 connection with rules made by Order in Council of 7th March, 1S87, 
 applicable to certain parts of the Humber, Trent, and Ouse. An infringe- 
 ment of them brings a ship within the penalty of 35 & 36 Vict. c. 85, s. 17 ; 
 TheRipon, 10 P. D. 65. 
 
 1. All vessels, as well sailing vessels as steamers (e.xcept 
 dumb-craft), while navigating, or anchored, or moored in the 
 River Humber, or in any part of the River Ouse below the 
 North Eastern Railway bridge crossing the River Ouse at or 
 near Hook, or in any part of the River Trent, at or below 
 Gainsborough, shall observe and obey the '' Regulations for 
 Preventing Collisions at Sea," set out in the first schedule 
 annexed to an Order in Council made in pursuance of and for 
 the time being in force under the Merchant Shi[)piug- Act 
 Amendment Act, 1862, or any statutory modification thereof, 
 with the exceptions and additions made in the following rules. 
 
 2. All vessels as aforesaid when at anchor in flio Rivor 
 Humber, or in any part of the River Ouse below the North 
 
 {d) See London Gazette, 1890, Vol. I. p. 796.
 
 522 APPENDIX 11. 
 
 Local rules Eastern Railway bridge crossing the River Ouse at or near 
 (Humber). Hook, or in any part of tJie River Trent at or below Gains- 
 borough, shall, between sunset and sunrise, instead of the light 
 prescribed by Art. 8 of the said regulations, exliibit from the 
 forestay, or otherwise near the bow of the vessel, where it can 
 best be seen, a white light in a globular lantern of eight inches 
 in diameter, and so constructed as to show a clear, uniform, and 
 unbroken light visible all round the horizon at a distance of at 
 least one mile; and in addition thereto, all vessels having two 
 or more masts shall exhibit another white light at double i^e) 
 the height of the bow light, at the main or mizen peak, or the 
 boom topping lift, or other position near the stern where it can 
 best be seen. 
 
 3. Dumb-craft shall, between sunset and sunrise, exhibit in 
 the forepart of the craft a white light behind an opal frosted 
 or ground colourless glass shade, and distinctly visible on all 
 sides, not less in height above deck or above any cargo or other 
 obstruction on the deck: — 
 
 {1) When at anchor, than hve feet; 
 
 (2) When being towed, than three feet; and the sternmost 
 
 of the craft towed shall also exhibit a white light at 
 
 the stern. 
 
 4. Every passenger ferry steamer plying between Hull and 
 New Holland while under way and in motion shall in all 
 weathers, between sunset and sunrise, carry at the stern a 
 bright white light so constructed as to show an unbroken and 
 uniform light over an arc of the hoiizon of twelve points of the 
 compass, so fixed as to throw the light from right astern to six 
 points on each side of the ship, and of such a character as to be 
 visible on a dark night with a clear atmosphere at a distance of 
 at least one mile. 
 
 5. Every dredger moored in the River Humber or off any 
 pier or quay shall, between sunset and sunrise, exhibit at the 
 head a white light in a globular lantern of not less than eight 
 inches in diameter, and a similar light at the stern, and in 
 addition thereto an amber light four feet above each of the 
 said white lights, all the said lights to be so constructed as to 
 show a clear, uniform, and unbroken light, visible at a distance 
 of at least one mile. 
 
 6. Every vessel shall be navigated with care and caution, 
 and at a speed and in a manner which shall not involve risk of 
 collision by causing a swell, or endanger the safety of other 
 vessels or moorings, or cause damage thereto, or to the river 
 banks. Special care and caution shall be used in navigating 
 such vessel where there is much traffic, and when passing- 
 vessels employed in dredging or removing sunken vessels or 
 other obstructions. If the safety of any vessel or moorings is 
 endangered, or damage is caused thereto, or to the river banks 
 
 {e) This means not less than double ; twenty-five feet from the deck held 
 to comply with the rule : The Mayncta, 15 P. D. 101.
 
 LOCAL RULES. 523 
 
 by a passing steam vessel, the onus sliall lie upon the raaster Lnral rules 
 or owner of such vessel to show that she was navigated witli (Humber). 
 care and caution, and at such a speed and in manner directed 
 by these rules. 
 
 7. (Steamships approaching ivreck-removing craft, or craft 
 laying or removing buoys or drawing moorings, are to go dead 
 slow 300 yards before reaching such craft and 100 yards after 
 passing them.) 
 
 8. Any vessel whicli, from unavoidable circumstances, may 
 be compelled to anchor in the fairway of the river, shall, witli 
 as little delay as may be, remove to a proper roadstead, or 
 otherwise proceed on her course. 
 
 9. In interpreting- these rules the term "dumb-craft'" shall 
 include canal boats, mud-barges, and other barges, lighters, 
 vessels " without masts," and vessels without either deck or 
 mast, sloops, keels with their masts lowered, and rafts. 
 
 MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL (/) . 
 
 Manchester 
 1. Vessels to be at owners' rifk. 2. Anchors, sails, spars, &c. to be Ship Canal, 
 stowed. 3. Cargo aud draft of water to be declared. 
 
 4. The maximum speed in the canal must not exceed :5ix 
 miles an hour, unless a special permit has been obtained from 
 the company's manager. 
 
 o. Sails not to be used. 6. Vessels to be navigated with care, e.specially 
 when approaching locks or dredgers. 7. Burden of proof on vessel doing 
 damage. 8. Vessels to have their own ropes and fenders. 9. Signals. 
 10. Signals at swing bi'idges. 11. Signals at locks. 12. Vessels not to 
 impede entrances to locks. 13. Lockinaster to direct vessels in locks. 
 14. Engines not to be used when moored in locks. 
 
 15. When vessels proceeding in oppo.sile directions are ap- 
 proaching one another, each vessel must be steered as closely as 
 possible with safety to her own starboard side of the canal, so 
 that they may pass on the port side of each other; each vessel 
 must reduce laer speed to dead slow, or, if necessary, stop alto- 
 gether, so as to pass in safety. When vessels meet in the tidal 
 portion of the canal when the tide is running, the vessel pro- 
 ceeding against (he tide must give way, or tie up if necessary, 
 until the vessel coming with the tide or stream has passed, and 
 when vessels meet in the non-tidal portion of the canal, the 
 vessel bound up the canal must give way, or tie up if necessary, 
 until the vessel coming down has passed. 
 
 16. When one vessel is following another without the inten- 
 tion of passing, she must not approach nearer to the leading 
 vessel than one furlong or eighth of a mile. 
 
 (/) These bye-laws have not Canal Act. It appears that the Soa 
 
 (November, 190?') been confirmed Rules do not apply to the Manchester 
 
 by the B(j;ird of Trade as required Sliip Canal. Cf. The Hare, (1901) 
 
 by sect. 198 of the Manchester Ship i'. 331.
 
 524 APPENDIX II. 
 
 Local rules 17- No vessel must overtake another within half a mile of 
 
 (Manchester any lock or swing bridge. Every vessel when being overtaken 
 Ship Canal), must keep as far as possible to starboard side of mid-channel; 
 
 and if after sunset, a white light must be shown over the stern. 
 
 The vessel overtaking must pass on the port side of the vessel 
 
 overtaken. 
 
 18. Wherever the slopes of the canal will permit, small craft 
 must be kept entirely out of the track of sea-going vessels. 
 
 19. Whenever vessels under way may require to depart from 
 the course laid down for them in these regulations for the pur- 
 pose, for instance, of proceeding to or from any quay, wharf, 
 works, or lock, or for any other reason, the responsibility of 
 doing so in safety, having reg*ard to passing traffic and to works 
 in operation or otherwise, will rest upon the person in charge 
 and the owners of isuch vessel (g). 
 
 20. Bridge gauges ; headway. 21. Dredgers working to hoist black ball 
 or white light on the side clear for traffic ; red light on the oth.-jr side ; 
 dredgers moored to show oidinary lights. 22. Hopper barges not to open 
 doors. 23. Obstructions to be repoited. 24. Rubbish net to be discharged. 
 25. Marials accidentally discharged to be reported. 26. Notice to be given 
 of vessels sunk. 27. Vessels to be properly ballasted. 28. Vessels to be 
 mooi'ed in j)roper places ; never to naoor or anchor in fairway ; signals and 
 other precautions when moored. 29. Watchman to be on board. 30. Vessels 
 to be moored at orders of company's servants. 31. Towing not allowed 
 except by order ; length of tow line and of tows. 32. Fires and lights. 
 33. Explosives. 34. Timber not to be floated. 35. Discharging cargo. 
 36. G-angways. 37. Quays to be kept clear of cargo. 38. Nuisances. 
 39. Dogs and dangerous animals, 40. Smoking. 41. Defacing dock prem- 
 ises. 42. Horses and vehicles. 43. Cranes. 44. Labourers. 45. Passes. 
 46. Notice of leaving berth. 47. Obstructing officers. 
 
 The schedule of signals provides that : 1. Lights are to be in accordance 
 with the sea regulations. 2. Vessels are to whistle when approaching 
 others. 3. Or when overtaking others. 4. If a vessel is obliged to stop 
 when another is following, she is to give three blasts, one short, one long, 
 and one short. 5. When approaching a lock or swing bridge vessels are to 
 whistle, when from Manchester, one long and one short blast ; when from 
 Eastham, one long blast; no whistle to be sounded if, by day, the lock or 
 bridge signals are against the ship. 6. Fog- signals to be according to the 
 sea regulations. 7. If a vessel is aground or disabled, b}' day, three black 
 balls or shapes vertically, and bell to be rung ; by night, three red lights 
 vertically, and bell to be rung. 
 
 There are bye-laws for vessels passing through the estuary and other 
 locks, and bye-laws for pilots and pilotage. Pilotage is not compulsory. 
 
 MEKSEY. 
 
 Mersey "^^^ following rules were made by Order in Council of 1 7th September, 
 
 1900, under 60 & 61 Vict. c. 21 (Mersey Channels Act, 1897), and the 
 Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 : — 
 
 RULES concerning the lights or signals to be carried 
 and co7icermng the steps for avoiding collision to he taken 
 by vessels navigating the River Mersey, and the sea chan- 
 nels or approaches thereto, between the Rock Lighthouse 
 and the furthest point seawards to ivhich such sea chan- 
 nels or approaches respectively are for the time being 
 buoyed on both sides. 
 
 1. Every vessel of whatever description used in navigation 
 iff) See The Sal/dan, Ship. Gaz. Feb. 22nd, 1908.
 
 LOCAL RULES. 525 
 
 when in any part of the River Mersey or in the sea channels or Local rules 
 approaches thereto, as above defined, shall on and after the (Mersey). 
 seventeenth day of September, one thousand nine hundred, 
 observe and obey the Regulations for Preventing- Collision at 
 Sea made in pursuance of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, 
 hereinafter called the " general regulations," and which mav 
 from time to time be in force, with the exceptions and additions 
 mentioned in the following- rules (h). 
 
 2. A vessel when lying- at any stage shall carry the light 
 prescribed by Arts. 2 and .5 of the general regulations and 
 Rule 5 hereof. 
 
 3. A vessel being- towed shall, in addition to the lights pre- 
 scribed by Art. 5 of the general regulations, carry the white 
 light at her stern prescribed b}' Rule .5 hereof, and if such 
 vessel is a steam vessel with steam up, she shall, although 
 being towed, also carry the masthead light prescribed by 
 Art. 2 (a), and may carry the additional light allowed by 
 Art. 2 (e) of the general regulations. 
 
 4. — (a) A steam vessel, when towing another vessel or 
 vessels, or when attached for the purpose of towing or 
 manoeuvring such vessel or vessels, shall carry the compulsory 
 lights prescribed by Art. 3 of the general regulations, and such 
 steam vessel when towing or attached as aforesaid to a vessel 
 of four hundred and fifty feet or u]iwards in length shall carry 
 the additional bright white light prescribed by the said Art. 3. 
 
 5. In lieu of Art. 10 of the general regulations, a vessel 
 under way shall carry at her stern a white light. The light 
 shall be fi.xed and carried in a lantern so constructed, fitted, 
 and screened that it shall throw an unbroken light over an arc 
 of the horizon of tAvelve points of the compass, viz.. for six 
 points from rig:ht aft on each side of the vessel, so as to be 
 visible at a distance of at least a mile. Such light sliall be 
 carried as near as practicable on the same level as the side 
 lights. 
 
 Provided that the vessels referred to in Art. 7 of the general 
 regulations Cviz.. steam vessels of less than forty and vessels 
 under oars or sails of less than twenty tons gross tonnage 
 respectively, and rowing boats) shall not be obliged to carry 
 the light prescribed by this rule, but if they do not carry such 
 light they shall, when l)eing overtaken by another vessel, show 
 from the stern a white light or a flare-up light, as required by 
 Art. 10 of the general regulations. 
 
 6. In lieu of Art. 11 of the general regulations, a vessel 
 when at anchor, except when lying at any stage, shall carry in 
 the forward part of the vessel, at a height of not less than 
 twenty, and not exceeding forty feet above the hull, a white 
 light in a lantein sn constriu'tefl as to show a clear, uniform, 
 and unbroken li<rht visible all round the horizon at a distance 
 of at least a mile, and at or near the stern of the ve.ssel, and at 
 
 '//") The numbers quoted in these rules rofcr to tlio articles in tlio goniTul 
 regulations made on the 27th November, 1896.
 
 526 
 
 APPENDIX II. 
 
 Local rules such a lieig-lit that it shall not be less than fifteen feet lower 
 
 (Mersey). than the forward light, another such light. 
 
 Provided that a vessel within Art. 7 of the general regula- 
 tions (viz., steam vessels of less than forty and vessels under 
 oars or sails of less than twenty tons gross tonnage respec- 
 tively, and rowing boats) when at anchor shall not be obliged 
 to carry the lights prescribed by this rule; but if they do 
 not carry them, each of such vessels shall carry, in a place 
 where it can best be seen, and at a heig'ht above the gunwale 
 of not less than nine feet, a white light in a lantern so con- 
 structed as to show a clear, uniform, and unbroken light visible 
 all round the horizon at a distance of at least a mile. 
 
 7. A steam vessel when at anchor, except when lying at any 
 stage, shall, between sunrise and sunset, carry in the forward 
 part of the vessel, at a height of not less than tAventy. and not 
 exceeding forty feet above the hull, a black ball not less than 
 two feet in diameter. 
 
 Provided that in the case of a steam vessel within Art. 7 of 
 the general regulations, such black ball may be carried at a 
 height above the gunwale of not less than nine feet. 
 
 8. A vessel, having- on board any explosive except ship's 
 ammunition, shall, when at anchor, carry a red light, in n 
 globular lantern not less than ten inches in diameter, six feet 
 above the forward white lig-ht prescribed by Rule 6 hereof. 
 
 Provided that a vessel entitled to carry and carrying the 
 white light prescribed by the proviso to Rule 6 shall carry the 
 red light above described not less than three feet above such 
 white light. 
 
 9. A ves'^'el anchored to mark t]ie position of a wreck or other 
 obstruction shall carry in all weathers, from sunset to sunrise, 
 two bright white lights, in lanterns so constructed as to show 
 a clear, uniform, and unbroken liorht visible all round the 
 horizon, at a distance of at least a mile, which lights shall be 
 placed horizontally on a cross-yard on the foremast at a heig-ht 
 not exceeding twenty feet above the hull, and not exceeding- 
 twenty feet a])art. and the said vessel shall carry in all 
 weathers, between sunrise and sunset, two black balls placed 
 as hereinbefore ordered witli reg-ard to the lights afore- 
 mentioned. 
 
 10. A ves^iel of three hundred and fiftv feet or upwards in 
 length when at anchor shall, durins- fog, mist, or falling snow, 
 or heavv rain storms, whether by day or night — 
 
 n.") Ring in the forward part of the vessel the bell pre- 
 scribed by Art. lo (d) of the general regulations. 
 
 ^2.) SoTind at or near the stern of such vessel a loud-toned 
 g-ong- or a loud -toned triang-le or other loud-toned 
 article that cannot be mistaken for a bell, whistle, 
 siren, or fog-horn. 
 
 The bell shall be rung, and the gong, triangle, or other 
 article sounded resper^tively, for a period of about five seconds, 
 at intervals of not more than one minute.
 
 LOCAL KULES. 
 
 527 
 
 The leng-th of a vessel shall bo deemed to be the long-th Looiil rules 
 appearing- in her certificate of registry. ^' '''■''^>^ 
 
 11. Every steam vessel under wpy shall, wlieu it is safe and 
 practicable,' keep to that .side of the fairway or mid-channel 
 which lies on the starboard side of such vessel. 
 
 Dredgers. 
 
 12. The word "dredger" shall mean any vessel fitted with 
 ]dant or apparatus for dredging or excavating, or fitted Avith 
 apparatus for eroding or dispersing sand and other material. 
 
 13. A dredger when at work or in position for working shall 
 carry the following lights and signals, viz.: — 
 
 Lights between sunset and sunrise: — 
 
 (^l.)_(a) Forward.— Iw the forward part of the dredger, 
 at a height of not less than twenty and not exceeding forty 
 feet above the hull, a white light in a lantern so constructed 
 as to show a clear, uniform, and unbroken light, visible nil 
 round the horizon at a distance of at least a mile. 
 
 (b) Amidships. — Three such white lights placed in tri- 
 angular form, not less than eight feet apart, the base of_ the 
 triano'le to be at least ten feet'higher than the forward liorht. 
 and to be also hio-her than and clear of the framework, funnels, 
 or any other erections upon tlie dredger. 
 
 (^e^ ^-f^ _One such white lisht at or near the stern of the 
 dredger, and at such a heia-ht that it shall not be less than 
 fifteen feet lower than the forward light. 
 
 (2.) A. dredger, when not making any way through the 
 water, shall not carry side or stern lights, but when making 
 way shall carry the usual red and green side lights and the 
 steVn light prescribed by Kule 5 hereof. 
 
 Signals between sunrise and sunset: — 
 Amidships.— ^TYivee red balls, of not less than two feet in 
 diameter, placed in triangular form not less than eight feet 
 apart, the base of the triangle to be higher than and clear of the 
 framework, funnels, or any other erections upon the dredger. 
 
 14. The lights and signals required to be carried by Eule 13 
 are to be taken bv other ves^^els as sio-nals that the vessel show- 
 ino- them is not under command, and cannot therefore get out of 
 
 the way. . . o i • 
 
 15. A dredger when not at work nor m position for working 
 shall carrv the ordinary lio-hts and signals required to be 
 carried bv vessels for avoiding collisions, as provided by these 
 rules and by the rules and res-ulations now and from time to 
 time in force under the Merchant Shipping Kc\. 1801, and ilic 
 Mersey Channels Act. 1897.
 
 528 
 
 APPENDIX II. 
 
 Local rules 
 
 (Suez Canal). 
 
 SUEZ CANAL. 
 
 The substance of the regulations for the navigation of the Suez Canal (of 
 October, 1899) is as follows :— The maximum speed is to be five-and-a-third 
 knots. All ships over 100 tons are to take pilots ; " but the responsibility 
 as regards the management of the ship devolves solely on the captain " (?) ; 
 yards are to be braced forward ; jibbooms to be in ; and a kedge ready to 
 let go astern ; a boat with hawser is to be towed astern ; watch to be kept 
 by day and night ; hands are to be ready to let go, ease or cut hawsers ; 
 hawsers of ships moored to be eased to passing craft ; speed to be slackened 
 when passing works, dredgers, and other craft, and bow anchors ready to let 
 go ; whistles to be blown on approaching curves in the canal or other craft ; 
 • ' whenever a collision appears probable, no ship must hesitate to run 
 aground and thus avoid collision. The expenses consequent upon a ground- 
 ing under these circumstances shall be defrayed by the ship in fault " ; an 
 overtaking ship not to pass the other ahead whilst under way, or except as 
 directed ; sailing craft not to navigate at night ; no steamship to navigate 
 at night except she has approved searchlights ; usual ships' lights to be 
 carried ; searchlights to be extinguished when moored in certain parts of 
 the Great Bitter I^akes, and when coming to Port Said from the south; 
 stern light to be red when accidentally stopped, and whistle to be sounded 
 foiu- or five times to approaching craft : ships moored to show white light 
 at stern and two white lights on free side of channel ; navigation at night 
 to be at ships' risk ; no ship to anchor in canal ; whistle not to be sounded 
 in port, except as danger signal; ship aground to wear pennant at mast- 
 head by way and to show red light, or if fast aground, two red lights at 
 night ; ship mof)red, pennant at half-mast and by night the lights above 
 stated: square flag at mast-head to mean "slacken your speed" ; v\hite 
 light above two red lights to be shown by ships stopped by reason of 
 damage or anchored in certain parts of Great Bitter Lakes ; 
 dredgers and hoppers (A-) . 
 
 signals for 
 
 TEES, RIVER. 
 
 Tees River Bye-laws dated the 2nd May, 1887, made under the Tees Conservancy 
 
 Act and the Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act, 1847, provide: — 
 (3) owner and master, and also pilot, if any, to be responsible for observance 
 of bye-laws ; (5) ships to be moored under direction of harbour-master, and 
 anchors to be buoyed ; (6) ships at anchor or moored to have sails furled, 
 yards, davits, bowsprits, &c. to be peaked and rigged in ; (7) anchors of 
 ships moored to be inboard clear of gunwale or hanging from hawse pipe ; 
 (8) three ships only abreast at staiths, &c. ; (9) ships at staiths, &c. not to 
 lay anchor in channel ; (10) ships not to lie between tiers: (13) steamships 
 to carry the regulation lights, except that "in case of a steamship having 
 no foremast it shall be sufficient if the said white light {the masthead Uflht) 
 be at a height not less than twelve feet above the hull, fixed on a staff not 
 more than thirty feet from the stem : and in the case of a steam vessel not 
 exceeding twelve feet in breadth, it shall be sufficient if such hght be at a 
 height not less than six feet above the hull, fixed on a staff not more than 
 twdve feet from the stem " ; (15) steamship in tow or under sail and not 
 under steam to carry side lights only ; (17) a "bright white light" to be 
 shown from the stern of a ship being overtaken ; (18) vessels at anchor and 
 also outside vessel of tier to exhibit riding light; (19) open cargo and 
 fishing craft and rafts to use the regulation lantern with green and red 
 
 (i) As to the owner's liability, see 
 The Guy 3Iannering, 7 P. D. 132. 
 
 {k) There is a practice in the Suez 
 Canal for a southward going vessel, 
 meeting a northward going vessel, 
 
 to tie up until the latter has passed 
 her. As to this, and as to the navi- 
 g-ation in general of the Canal, see 
 The Clan Ctimming, (1907) P. p. 311,
 
 LOCAL RULES. 
 
 529 
 
 slides ; (20) ships to obey harboui'-master. As to the navigation of the Local rules 
 river, there are the following rules : — (Tees). 
 
 21. Every vessel navigating the river sliall keep the star- 
 board side, so that the port-helm ma}- always be applied to 
 clear vessels proceeding in the opposite direction {I). 
 
 22. Ever}' steam vessel when approaching another vessel on 
 an opposite course or from an opposite direction shall, before 
 approacliing within 100 yards, slacken her speed, and keep as 
 near as possible to the starboard side of the river, so as to 
 afford the greatest facility for passing the approaching 
 vessel (m). 
 
 23. Every steam or other vessel (and whether being towed 
 or towing another vessel) must so approach the river from 
 sea as to enter on that side of the cliannel reserved for their 
 navigation. 
 
 24 . All vessels when under way, requiring to pass over a part 
 of the channel which is not within that portion reserved for 
 their navigation, for the purpose of proceeding to or from 
 landings, moorings, or other places, must take upon themselves 
 the responsibility of doing so in safety with reference to the 
 passing traffic; and any vessel continuing its navigation after 
 reaching such landing, mooring, or other place, must again 
 proceed to the side of the fiver specified as the proper side for 
 its navigation, so soon as practicable, and take upon itself 
 the responsibility of doing so in safety, with respect to the 
 passing traffic. 
 
 25. Vessels crossing the river, and vessels turninG:, must take 
 upon themselves the responsibility of doing so safely with 
 reference to the passing traffic (n) . 
 
 26. No steam vessel shall at any time be navigated in any 
 part of the river at a higher rate of speed than a maximum 
 rato of seven statute miles per hour over the ground (o). 
 
 27. Whenever there is a fog, no steam vessel shall be navi- 
 gated in any parf of the river at a higher rate of speed than 
 three miles per hour. 
 
 28. When steam vessels are proceeding in the same direction, 
 but with unequal speed, the vessel which steams slowest shall, 
 when overtaken, keep sufficiently to that bank of the river 
 which is on her own starboai'd side, and shall offer no obstruc- 
 tion whatever, by crossing the channel or otherwise, to the free 
 passage of the faster vessel, and shall ease and, if necessary, 
 stop tho engine as soon a^^ a faster vessel comes within 100 
 
 (l) See The Thetford, 6 Asp. M. C. 
 179, a decision upon a similar rule 
 in the Tyne ; infra, p. .'545. 
 
 (?h) The.'ie rules apply whf-nevcr 
 two vessels navigating at all near 
 the centre of the river arc approach- 
 ing one another, even though in sunh 
 po.sitinns as to show one another their 
 greoii lights. L'nless there is extreme 
 necessity, they must both of them 
 
 M. 
 
 port. The Mary Lohden, 6 Asp. M. C. 
 '262, flefifled under the corresponding 
 Rules 17 and 18 of 1870. 
 
 (n) See note (m), I'lipra. 
 
 (o) An earlier rule, which did not 
 state whether the s))eod was over the 
 ground or through the water, occa- 
 sioned the decision in The R. L. 
 Alston, 8 P. D. 5. 
 
 M M
 
 530 APPENDIX II. 
 
 Local rules yards, and in like manner the faster vessel shall ease its engine 
 (Tees). when it comes within 100 yards of the slower vessel, until it 
 
 has passed the vessel so overtaken; and, that ignorance of the 
 approach of the faster vessel may not be pleaded by the master 
 of the slower vessel, it shall be sufficient intimation of such 
 approach if the steam-whistle of the faster vessel be three 
 times sounded; bvit no vessel overtaking any other vos-sel will 
 be justified in passing such vessel at any of the points or 
 tixrnings of the river, or at any dock entrance. 
 
 29. Every steam vessel other than a steam vessel em})loyed 
 in towing, meeting, or overtaking any sailing vessel or steam 
 tug with sailing vessels in tow, shall ease its engines before 
 arriving within 100 yards of, and until it shall have passed, 
 the sailing vessel or steam tug and trains. Every steam tug 
 and train, when meeting another vessel, shall, in proper time, 
 put their helms to port, and, when overtaken, shall keep suffi- 
 ciently to the proper side of the river to allow the vessel over- 
 taking them to pass. 
 
 30. All vessels towing in from sea with a long scope of tow- 
 line must shorten the .same on getting inside the river, and 
 before reaching the Eston Wharf. The tOAv-line, when so 
 shortened, must not exceed twenty-five fathoms in length. 
 
 31. Every steam tug or other steam vessel towing a vessel 
 into the port which shall not already have a pilot on board, 
 and (whether showing a signal for a pilot or not, shall be bound 
 to ease, or stop if necessary, to enable a pilot to board the 
 vessel, unless the master thereof shall have })reviously informed 
 the master of the steam vessel that he did not intend to take 
 a pilot. 
 
 32. iSTo vessel shall be allowed to drift in any part of the 
 river or harbour. Every vessel must be properly navigated, 
 or moored clear of the navigable channel. Vessels proceeding 
 to any dock, and arriving off the entrance of such dock before 
 the signal for admission is hoisted, must keep on either side of 
 the navigable channel, and out of the fairway of the river or 
 dock traffic, until the signal is hoisted for their reception. 
 
 33. No steam tug or other steam vessel shall tow two or more 
 vessels alongside each other, nor shall tow more than one raft 
 of timber when such rafts exceed 1-50 feet in length or thirty 
 feet in breadth. 
 
 34. A steam vessel shall not tow at one time more than six 
 keels, wherries, or other boats. 
 
 35. (Vessels to he properly manned.) 
 
 36. Every steam vessel having any vessel or vessels in tow 
 shall attend upon the vessel or vessels in tow until such vessel 
 or vessels is or are properly moored or secured. 
 
 * * ;(: * * 
 
 42. (Vessels lilcehi to he damaqed hy surge of pnssivq craft 
 may show red flag or red, light ; thereupon passing steam 
 vessels to go dead sloro whilst within TOO yards of the signal.) 
 
 43. No steam ves.sel shall go more than a speed of six statute 
 miles per hour over the ground in that part of the river Tees
 
 LOCAL RULES. 531 
 
 between the Commissioners' Graving Dock and Bamlett's Local rules 
 Bight; nor at a greater speed than five statute miles per hour (Tees), 
 over the ground between Bamlett's Bight and Stockton Bridge. 
 
 44. {Steamships' engines to be stopped ivlien ivithin fijtij 
 yards of small boats coming alongside.) 
 
 45. (Vessels approaching landing steps to ring bell or 
 sound ivhistle.) 
 
 THAMES. 
 
 The following bye- laws for the navigation of the River Thames are made Thames, 
 under the Tliames Conservancy Act, 1894. lu addition to these bye-laws, 
 there are in force bye-laws relating to the Tower Bridge passage and 
 navigation. 
 
 1. (Repeals former bye-laws, as from confirmation by the 
 Board of Trade of the present bye-laivs.) 
 
 2. {Title; commencement.) 
 
 3. These bye-laws shall be applicable to the Thames as 
 defined by the Thames Conservanc}^ Act, 1894, and to all places 
 over which the Cou.servators have jurisdiction to make bye- 
 laws under the provisions of the said Act, except where the 
 same or any of them are expressly limited to any particular 
 part or parts of the river or place. 
 
 4. In these bye-laws the words and expressions hereinafter 
 mentioned shall have the meanings hereby assigned to them 
 respectiveh'. unle'^s there be something in the subject or con- 
 text repugnant to such construction, viz.: — 
 
 The expression " the Thames " or " river " means and in- 
 cludes so much of the Rivers Thames and Isis respectively 
 as are between the town of Cricklade, in the county of 
 Wilts, and an imaginary straight line drawn from the 
 entrance to Yantlet Creek, in the county of Kent, to the 
 City Stone, opposite to Canvey Island, in the county pf 
 Essex, and so much of the River Kennet as is between the 
 common landinq: place at Reading, in the county of Berks, 
 and the River TJiames, and so much of the River Lee and 
 Bow Creek respectively as are below the south boundary 
 stones in the Lee Conservancy Act, 1868, mentioned, and 
 all locks, cuts, and works within the said portions of rivers 
 and creeks: Provided that no dock, look, canal, or out 
 ex'sting at the passing of the Thames Conservancy Act, 
 1894, and constructed un lor the authority of Parliament, 
 and belonging to any body corporate ostablis;hod under 
 such authority, and no bridge over the River Thames or 
 the River Kennet belonging to or vested in any county 
 council or municipal authority, or to or in any railway 
 companv. shall bo deemed to form part of the Thames. 
 
 ("Person" "horse." defined.) 
 
 The word "vessel" includes any ship, litrhter, keel, barge, 
 launch, houseboiif, pleasure or other boat, randan, wherry, 
 skis', dingey, shallup, piinf, canoe, yacht, raft, floal. fioat 
 
 M M 2
 
 532 APPENDIX II 
 
 Local rules of timber, or craft whatever, whether navigated by steam 
 
 (Thames). or otherwise. 
 
 The word " lighter " means any dumb -barge or other like 
 craft for carrying goods, or any sailing barge with her 
 mast and gear lowered on deck. 
 
 The expression " steam vessel " includes any vessel propelled 
 by machinery. 
 
 The expression "steam launch" includes any ves-^el pro- 
 pelled by steam, electricity, or other mechanical power, not 
 being "used solely as a tug or for the carriage of goods, and 
 not being certified by the Board of Trade as a passenger 
 steamer to carry two hundred or more passengers. 
 
 {Definitions of "pleasure boat," &c.) 
 
 The expression " steam whittle " includes any efficient sound 
 signal approved by the Conservators. 
 
 The word " master," when used in relation to any vessel, 
 means any person, whether the owner, master, or other 
 person, lawfully or wrongly having or taking the com- 
 mand, charge, or management oT the vesse'l for the time 
 being. 
 
 (Definitions ; "harbour-master," &g.) 
 
 The expression " under way " applied to a vessel means when 
 she is not at anchor or made fast to the shore or aground. 
 
 The word " visible," when applied to lights, means visible 
 on a dark night with a clear atmosphere. 
 
 5. There shallbe maintained as far as practicable between 
 London Bridge and the Tower Bridge a navigable passage, 
 not loss than 200 feet wide for vessels passing up and down 
 the river. 
 
 6. There shall be maintained as far as practicable l)etween 
 the Tower Bridge and Barking Creek a navigable passage, not 
 less than 300 feet wide, for vessels pa'fsing up and down the 
 river, and in all parts of the river where the navigable passage 
 shall be in the stream between tiers of vessels, the space for the 
 navigable passage shall bo reckoned from the vessel in each of 
 the said tiers nearest to the other or opposite tier. 
 
 7. No float or floats or raft or rafts of timber, either singly 
 or together exceeding sixty feet in length ^excepting timber in 
 one length) and tAventy feet in Avidth, shall be permitted iogo 
 into or pass along any part of the river, nor shall any following 
 float or raft of timber go Avithin the distance of 300 yards of 
 any other such float or raft. 
 
 8. All vessels navigating Gravesend Reach are to keep to the 
 northward of a line defined bv a skeleton beacon erected upon 
 the India Arms Wharf on Avitli the hio-h chininev at tlie Cement 
 Works at Northflcet, and all A-essels intending to anchor in the 
 Reach are to bring up to the southward of that line. A lantern 
 is placed on the above beacon Avhich shoAvs Cat night) a bright 
 light to the northAA\ard of the same line and a red light to the 
 southAvard of it over the anchorage ground (p). All vessels so 
 
 {p) A vessel to the southward of buoy for the purpose of bringing 
 this line, and moving from buoy to up at the first one that is vacant, is
 
 LOCAL RULES. 533 
 
 auchoring and rouiaiuiug- beyond a period of twenty-four hours Local rules 
 are to be moored. (riianu's). 
 
 9. Any vessel slipping or parting from her anchor shall leave 
 a buoy to mark the position of such anchor. 
 
 This bye-law shall not apply to vessels belonging to the Con- 
 servators employed in raising a wreck or to any wreck in charge 
 of the Conservators. 
 
 10. No anchor shall be allowed to lie or remain in the river 
 outaide of the line of the tiers, and if any anchor of any vessel 
 shall be so allowed to lie or remain in the river outside of the 
 line of anv of the tiers the harbour-master mav deliver or cause 
 to be delivered on board the vessel from which such anchor is 
 put out a notice in writing, signed by him, requiring the master 
 of such vessel forthwith to remove such anchor, and if the same 
 be not so removed after the delivery of such notice, the 
 harbour-master may remove or cause to be reuioved such 
 anchor, and the expenses of such removal shall be recoverable 
 from the owner or owners, or the master of the said vessel, to 
 the use of the Conservators, as provided by the Thames Con- 
 servancv Act, 1894. 
 
 1 1 . No vessel shall navigate or lie in the river with its anchor 
 or anchors a-cock-bill, nor with its anclior or anchors Iianging 
 by the cable perpendicularly from the hawse unless the ring 
 shall be awash (g), except during such time as may be neces- 
 sary for fishing or catting such anchor or anchors or for getting 
 such vessel under way. or for bringing up. 
 
 12. (Steam vessels not to be navigated or moored near 
 Wooliutch Arsenal or Victualling Yard, Deptford.) 
 
 13. The engine or engines of any steam vessel shall not be 
 set in motion during the time such steam vessel is moored in 
 the river, except with the permission of the Conservators or 
 their harbour-master. 
 
 14. The master of every steam vessel navigating the river 
 shall be on one of the ])addle boxes or -on the bridge of such 
 steam vessel, and shall keep or cause to be kept a proper look- 
 out during the whole of the time it is under way, and shall 
 
 uot " uavigatin.ii- Gravesend Reach " this rule, was held rcspunsible fur 
 
 in breach of this rule. T/w Citij of the damages caused by her anchor 
 
 Belhi, 6 Asp. M. C. 269. to a barge which collided with her 
 
 (q) Under former rules, which in a fog. The Hose of Eiiijlmul, (5 
 
 required the stock to be awash, it Asp. M. C. 304. A vessel which, 
 
 was held that the stock might proceeding along the line of buoys 
 
 nevertheless be under water. The iu the anchorage ground in Graves- 
 
 Orwell, Ad. Div. May, 1887; The end Reach, and finding them all 
 
 /. li. Hindc, (1892) P. 231. In The occupied, gets her anchor a-cock-bill 
 
 Six Sisters, (1900) P. 302, it was held for the j)urposc of coming to anchor, 
 
 that, in the circumstances of that does uot do so before it is " abso- 
 
 case, it was negligent to have the lutely necessary." Of. Thf Cit;/ of 
 
 pea of the anchor only four feet Delhi, (i Asp. M. C. 2G9 ; The Mar- 
 
 under water, though the ring was gurel, (i P. D. 70 ; The J. li. Uiml, , 
 
 awash. A vessel made fast to (1892) P. 231 ; The Diiimtanboiouyh, 
 
 another, and having her anchor ibid. 'MVi ; The Monte Rosa, (1893) 
 
 stock out of the water in breach of P. 23.
 
 5.34 APPENDIX II. 
 
 Local rules remove or cause to be removed any person, other than the crew, 
 (Thames). who shall be on the paddle boxes or bridge of such steam vessel. 
 Above Teddington Lock this bje-law shall apply only to 
 sleam vessels used for the carriage of passengers or for pur- 
 poses of excursions which are not steered from the bows or 
 bridge . 
 
 15. {Precautions in taking in or discharging ballast.) 
 
 16. No lighter or sailing barge shall be navigated on the 
 river below Jiattersea Bridge without having a freeboard of at 
 least iifteen inches, such freeboard to be measured amidships, 
 and coamings (if any) may be included in such measurement, 
 but in no case must the top of tlie gunwale be less ihan three 
 inches above the water's edge, when such craft is decked and 
 hatched, or less than six inches above the water's edge when 
 such craft is open. 
 
 17. {Penalties for intoxication and use of abusive or in- 
 decent language, d'c.) 
 
 18. {As to payment of tonnage dues on vessels not entered 
 at the Customs.) 
 
 19. {Piers to be lighted or marked.) 
 
 20. No vessel shall be moored to or remain at any pier or 
 premises belonging to the Conservators without the permission 
 of the ofhcer in charge of such pier or premises being hrst 
 obtained, and shall move away when ordered by such ohicer so 
 to do. 
 
 21. {As to advertisements on vessels or river.) 
 
 22. All vessels navigating the river shall be navigated singly 
 and separately, except small boats fastened together or towed 
 alongside or astern of other vessels, and except vessels towed 
 by steam. 
 
 23. Vessels towed by steam navigating the river below the 
 Albert Bridge at Chelsea, shall, if more than two in number, 
 be placed two abreast (except vessels trading on any canal, and 
 not exceeding fourteen feet nine inches in width, which may 
 be placed three abreast), and not more than six {r) of any such 
 vessels shall be towed together at the same time, and no tow of 
 vessels shall exceed in length the following limits, namely: 
 Above Albert Bridge, 400 feet; between London Bridge land 
 the landing place at the end of Trinity Street, Charlton, 
 320 feet; below the said landing place, 400 feet; to be calcu- 
 lated from the stern of the vessel towing to the stern of the 
 aftermost vessel towed. 
 
 24. Vessels towed by steam navigating the river between the 
 Albert Bridge at Chelsea and Kingston Bridge may, if more 
 than two in number, be placed two abreast (except vessels 
 trading on any canal and not exceeding fourteen feet nine 
 inches in width, which may be placed three abreast), or may be 
 placed in a single line, but not more than six of any such vessels 
 sliall be towed together at the same time, and the distance 
 
 (r) See Gadney v. Bouffh, 40 L. T. 258.
 
 LOCAL RULES. ^^^ 
 
 between any two of the vessels so towed shall not exceed fifty Local rules 
 feet. (Thames). 
 
 25. \'essels towed by steam navigating the river above 
 Kingston Bridge shall be placed in a single line and not more 
 than four sucli vessels shall be lowed together at the same time, 
 and the distance between any two of the vessels so towed shall 
 not exceed forty feet. 
 
 26. Xo vessel exceeding 3Ui loot in length, and in the case of 
 a paddle-wheel steamer exceeding sixty-five feet in width 
 measured from the out«ide of the paddle boxes, and in iht' case 
 uf wther vessels exceeding thirty-six feet in width, which is used 
 uuly or principally for the carriage of passengers, or for the 
 purposes of excursions, shall be navigated in the river above 
 Black wall Pier. 
 
 For the purposes of this bye-law the length of a vessel shall 
 be deemed to be the length appearing in her certificate of 
 
 registry. 
 
 27. Any lighter navigating the river shall, when undei- way, 
 have at least one competent man constantly on board for the 
 navigation and management thereof, and all such craft exceed- 
 ing fifty tons, but of not more than 150 tons, burden shall, 
 when under way, have one man in addition, and all such craft 
 exceeding 150 tons burden shall, when under way, have two 
 men in addition on board to assist in the navigation and 
 management of the same, with the following exceptions: — 
 \Mien being towed by a steam vessel, or when being moved to 
 and fro between any vessels or places a distance not exceeding 
 
 200 yards. , 
 
 The word ' burden " in this bye-law shall have the same 
 meaning as the expression " burden tonnage," defined by the 
 Thames Watermens and Lightermens Act, 1893. 
 
 Lights and Signals, Steering .and Sailing. 
 Preliminary . 
 
 In obeying and construing the following bye-laws relating 
 to lights and signals and steering and sailing, due regard shall 
 be had to all dangers of navigation and of collision, and to any 
 special circumstances which may render a departure from them 
 necessary in order to avoid immediate danger. 
 
 Nothing in the following bye-laws shall exonerate any vessel, 
 or the owner, master, or crew thereof, from the consc(iuonc^s ot 
 anv neglect to carry lights or signals or to keep a proper look- 
 out or of any precaution which may be reciuired by the 
 ordinary practice of .seamen, or by the special circ.nnstances 
 of the case (s). 
 
 (s) Under this rule it was held tu the tid.-. -u^'ht t., h"^^.;" ^^y;; 
 
 that a barge fast at night to auother to warn parsing VHsels, by liK'bt .r 
 
 Strge attached to a Hhij, lying at otherwine, of her po.s.tion. fhe 
 
 tiers and swinging or about to awing .S^ Aub,„, (1907) t. GO.
 
 536 
 
 APPENDIX II. 
 
 Local rules Tlie ]bye-laws as to lights shall be complied with iu all 
 
 (Thames). weathers from sunset to sunrise, and during such time no other 
 
 lights, which may be mistaken for the lights prescribed by the 
 
 bye-laws, shall be exhibited. 
 
 In the following bye-laws, every steam vessel which is under 
 
 sail and not under steam is to be considered a sailing vessel, 
 
 and every vessel under steam, whether under sail or not, is to 
 
 be considered a steam vessel. 
 
 Lights required between Yantlet Creek and Teddington Lock. 
 
 28. A steam vessel other than a steam launch when under 
 way shall carry — . 
 
 (a) On or in front of the foremast, or if a vessel without a 
 foremast, then in the forepart of the vessel, at a heig-ht 
 above the hull of not less than twenty feet, and if the 
 breadth of the vessel exceeds twenty feet, then at a 
 height above the hull not less than such breadth, so, 
 however, that the light need not be carried at a greater 
 height above the hull than forty feet, a bright white 
 light 80 constructed as to show an unbroken light 
 over an arc of the horizon of twenty points of the 
 compass, so fixed as to throw the light ten points on 
 each side of the vessel, viz.: — from right ahead to 
 two points abaft the beam on either side, and of such 
 a character as to be visible at a distance of at least 
 two miles. Provided that steam vessels which navi- 
 gate both above and below London Bridge shall not 
 be required to carry their lights at a greater height 
 than twelve feet above the hull. 
 
 Steam vessels navigating above London Bridge 
 only, may carry the white light in any convenient 
 position above the hull. 
 
 (\>) On the starboard side, a green light, so constructed as 
 to show an unbroken light over an arc of the horizon 
 of ten points of the compass, so fixed as to throw the 
 light from right ahead to two points abaft the beam on 
 the starboard side, and of such a character as to be 
 visible at a distance of at least one mile. 
 
 (c) On the port side, a red light, so constructed as to show 
 
 an unbroken light over an arc of the horizon of ten 
 points of the compass, so fixed as to throw the light 
 from right ahead to two points abaft the beam on the 
 port side, and of such a character as to be visible at 
 a distance of at least one mile. 
 
 (d) The said green and red side lights shall be fitted with 
 
 inboard screens, projecting at least three feet forward 
 from the light, so as to prevent these lights from being 
 seen across the bow. 
 
 (e) A steam vessel, when towing another vessel, shall, in 
 
 addition to her side lights, carry two bright white 
 lights in a vertical line, one over the other, not less 
 than four feet apart. Each of these lights shall be
 
 LOCAL RULES. 537 
 
 of the same construction and cliaractor and shall ho Local rules 
 carried in the same position as the white iig-ht ^Yllich (Thame;*), 
 other steam vessels are required to carry. 
 
 Such steam vessel may carry a small white light 
 abaft the funnel or aftermast for the vessel towed to 
 steer by, but such light shall not be visible forward 
 of the beam. 
 
 29. A sailing vessel under way, and any vessel being towed 
 other than a lighter, shall carry the same lights as are pre- 
 scribed by bye-law 28 for a steam vessel under way, with the 
 exception of the white lights mentioned therein, which the} 
 shall never carry (t). 
 
 30. With the exceptions hereinafter named, a vessel under 
 loO feet in length, when at anchor (^u) or moored, shall carr}- 
 forward, where it can best be seen, but at a height not exceed- 
 ing twenty feet above the hull, a white light (^hereinafter called 
 the riding light) in a lantern so constructed as to show a clear 
 uniform and unbroken light, visible all round the horizon at a 
 distance of at least one mile. 
 
 A vessel of 150 feet or upwards in length, when at anchor, 
 shall carry in the forward part of the vessel, at a height of not 
 less than twenty and not exceeding forty feet above the hull, 
 one such light, and at or near the stern of the vessel, and at 
 such a height that it shall be not less than fifteen feet lower 
 than the forward light, another such light. 
 
 The exceptions are as follows: — 
 
 (^a) Where masted vessels are lying in tiers, the outermost 
 off shore masted vessel only of each tier shall carry 
 the riding light, 
 (b) Lighters lying at the usual barge moorings in the 
 river above Graveseud are not required to exhibit 
 the riding light, 
 (e) Every steam vessel, sailing vessel, or lighter moored 
 permanently head and stern in the river shall, in 
 addition to or in lieu of the riding light, exhibit 
 such light or lights as the Conservators shall from 
 time to time order or direct. 
 The length of a vessel shall bo deemed to be the length 
 appearing in her certificate of registry. 
 
 A vessel of 150 feet or upwards aground in or near a fairwaj' 
 shall carry the above light or lights {x). 
 
 31 . Every person in charge of a lighter, when under way and 
 not in tow, shall, between sunset and sunrise, when below 
 
 (t) A sailing barge with her mast (u) As to a vessel roundiug or 
 
 lowered, dredging stcru foremost, uwingiug to her anchor, see T/ir 
 
 assisted by her anchor ahead, is not ll'^rffa, (IS'Jo) P. Io6. 
 required by this rule to carry her 
 
 side lights. The Indian Chief, 14 {.t) iSvmhlr, she is not re(iuir((l in 
 
 P. D. 24. As to the duty of a ship the daytime to carry the two bulls 
 
 so navigating to wani an approach- of Art. 4 of the sea regulations : 
 
 ing vessel, see The Juno, 7 Asp. M. C. The (.'ar/otta, (18<J'J) P. 223. 
 506.
 
 538 APPENDIX II. 
 
 Local rules London Bridge, have a white light always ready, and exhibit 
 (Thames). the same on the approach of any vessel. 
 
 32. The person in charge of the sternniost or last of a line 
 of lighters, when being towed, shall exhibit, between sunset 
 and sunrise, a white light from the stern of his lighter. 
 
 33. A vessel, below London Bridge, Avhich is being overtaken 
 by another vessel, shall show from her stern to such other 
 vessel a white light or a flare-up light. 
 
 This bye-law shall not apply to boats, wherries, punts or 
 canoes, nor to lighters navigating above Barking Creek. 
 
 34. All vessels, when employed to mark the positions of 
 wrecks or other obstructions, shall exhibit two bright white 
 lights, placed horizontally, not less than six nor more than 
 twelve feet apart. 
 
 35. Every steam dredger moored in the river shall (exhibit 
 three bright white lights from globular lanterns, not less than 
 eight inches in diameter, the said three lights to be placed in 
 a triangular form at right angles to the keel, and to be of suffi- 
 cient (power to be visible at a distance of at least one mile, 
 and to (be Iplaced not less than six feet apart on the highest 
 part of the framework athwartships. 
 
 Fog and Steam Whistle Signals. 
 
 36. All signals prescribed by this bye-law for vessels under 
 way shall be given: — 
 
 (1) By steam vessels, on the whistle. 
 
 (2) By sailing vessels, and vessels other than lighters towed, 
 
 on the fog-horn. 
 
 The words "prolonged blast" used in this bye-law shall 
 mean a blast of from four to six seconds' duration. 
 
 A steam vessel shall be provided with an efficient whistle 
 sounded by steam or some substitute for steam, so placed that 
 the sound may not be intercepted by any obstruction, and with 
 an efficient fog-horn to be sounded by mechanical means, and 
 also with an efficient bell. A steam launch shall be provided 
 with a similar whistle, or other efficient sound signal to be 
 approved by the Conservators. A sailing vessel of twenty tons 
 gross tonnage or upwards shall be provided with a similar 
 fog-horn and bell. 
 
 In fog, mist, falling snow, or heavy rain storms, whether by 
 day or night, the signals described in this bye-law shall be used 
 as follows, viz.: — 
 
 (a) A steam vessel having way upon her shall sound at 
 
 intervals of not more than two minutes a prolonged 
 blast. 
 
 (b) A steam vessel under way, but stopped and having no 
 
 way upon her, shall sound at intervals of not more 
 than two minutes two prolonged blasts with an in- 
 terval of about one second between them. 
 
 (c) A sailing vessel under way shall sound, at intervals pf 
 
 not more than one minute, when on the starboard tack,
 
 LOCAL RULES. 
 
 639 
 
 one blast, when on the port tack, two blasts in sue- Local rules 
 cession, and when with the wind abaft the beam, three (Thames), 
 blasts in succession. 
 
 (d) A vessel when at anchor shall, at intervals ol uul more 
 
 than one minute, ring- the bell rapidly for about live 
 seconds. 
 
 ( e) A vessel when towing, and a vessel under way w hich 
 
 is unable to get out of the way of an approaching 
 vessel through being not under command or unable to 
 manoeuvre as required by these bye-laws, shall, in- 
 stead of the signals prescribed in sub-sections t^a) 
 and {C) of this bye-law, at intervals of not more than 
 two minutes, sound three blasts in succession, viz.: — 
 one prolonged blast followed b}' two short blasts. A 
 vessel towed may give this signal, and she shall not 
 give any other. 
 Sailing vessels of less than twenty tons gross tonnage shall 
 not be obliged to give the above-mentioned signals, but if they 
 do not they shall make some other efficient sound signal at 
 intervals of not more than one minute. 
 
 37. Every vessel shall, in a fog, mist, falling snow, or heavy 
 rain storms, go at a moderate speed, having careful regard to 
 the existing circumstances and conditions. 
 
 A steam vessel hearing apparently forward of her beam the 
 fog signal of a vessel, the position of which is not ascertained, 
 shall, so far as the circumstances of the case admit, stop her 
 eno-ines and then navigate with caution until danger of colli- 
 
 sion is over. 
 
 38. All steam and sailing vessels when in the fairway {ij) 
 uf the river and not under way shall, at intervals of about one 
 minute, ring the bell rapidly for about five seconds {z). 
 
 39. When two steam vessels are in sight of each other, and 
 are approaching with risk of collision, the following steam 
 signals shall be intimations of the course they intend to take: — 
 
 (a) One short blast of the steam whistle of about one second's 
 
 duration, to mean — " I am directing my course to star- 
 board." 
 
 (b) Two short blasts of the steam whistle, each of about one 
 
 second's duration, to mean—" 1 am directing my 
 course to port." 
 (^c) Three short blasts of the steam whistle, each of about two 
 seconds' duration, to mean—" My engines are going 
 full speed astern." 
 
 (y) A sailing barge, brought up necessarily the deep-water channel 
 
 above and in.-ide the We.st Blyth marked by buoy.s. T/i, Oliver, -I'l 
 
 buoy, was held to be in the fairway Fed. Rep. H48. 
 
 so as to be required to ring her bell. {z) A ship that has accidentally 
 
 ne Blxe Bell, (1895) P. 242 ; cf. The taken the ground is not miuiivd to 
 
 Clulha Boat 147, (1909) P. 36. In ring a bell : The Carlotta, [W^<d)i. . 
 
 America "fairway "has been defined 22:5, 229. And the rule (:i«) does 
 
 to mean " water upon which ves.sels not apply m clear weather: Ihc 
 
 of commerce habitually move " ; not llhein, 86 L. T. 266.
 
 540 
 
 APPENDIX II. 
 
 Local rules 40. When a steam vessel, in circumstances other than those 
 
 (Thames). mentioned in bye-law 36, is turning- round, or for any reason 
 
 is not under command and cannot get out of the ^^vay of an 
 approaching- vessel, or when it is unsafe or impracticable for 
 a steam vessel to keep out of the Avay of a sailing vessel, she 
 shall signify the same by four blasts of the steam whistle in 
 rapid succession, each blast to be of about one second's 
 duration (a). 
 
 41. A vessel coming out of dock shall signify the same by 
 a prolonged blast of the steam whistle of not less than four 
 seconds', nor more than six seconds', duration, except in the 
 case of a vessel coming out of the St. Katharine's Dock re- 
 quiring the bascules of the Tower Bridge to be raised in order 
 to get into position in the river, which shall signify the same 
 by a prolonged blast of the steam whistle of not less than fiye 
 seconds' duration, followed by three short blasts in rapid 
 succession. 
 
 In the case of a vessel not under steam, the tug boat in 
 attendance shall make the foregoing signals. 
 
 Sound Signals for Vessels in Sight of One Another. 
 
 42. The words " short blast " used in this bye-law shall mean 
 a blast of about one second's duration. 
 
 When vessels are in sight of one another, a steam vessel 
 under way, in taking any course authorized or required by 
 these bye-laws shall indicate that course by the following 
 signals on her whistle, viz.: — 
 
 One short blast to mean — " I am directing my course to star- 
 board." 
 Two short blasts to mean — " I am directing my course to 
 
 port." 
 Three short blasts to mean—" My engines are going full 
 speed astern." 
 
 43. The signals by whistle mentioned in the preceding bye- 
 laws shall not be made by means of a siren, or any instrument 
 other than an ordinary steam whistle or other efficient sound 
 signal previously approved by the Conservators, and shall not 
 be used on any occasion or for any purpose except those therein 
 mentioned, and no other signal by whistle or sound signal shall 
 be made by any vessel. 
 
 («) In 2Vie Longuewton, 6 Asp. 
 M. C. 302, a sailing barge was 
 found in fault for disregarding a 
 steamer's signal given under a 
 similar rule. The steamer's diffi- 
 culties were created by causes beyond 
 her control. It was not decided 
 whether, if this had not been the 
 case, the barge would necessarily 
 
 have been in fault for taking no 
 step ; but Sir James Hannen ex- 
 pressed the opinion that in any case 
 the prudent course for a sailing ship 
 would be to act at once upon hearing 
 the signal. See also The New PtUon, 
 (1891) P. 258; The Wega, (1895) 
 P. 156.
 
 LOCAL RULES. 
 
 541 
 
 Steering and Sailing. 
 
 44. When two sailing- vessels are approaching each other so 
 as to involve risk of collision, one of them shall keep out of the 
 way of the other, viz.: — 
 
 (a) A vessel which is running free shall keep out of the way 
 
 of a vessel which is close-hauled. 
 
 (b) A vessel which is clo.se-hauled on the i)ort tack shall keep 
 
 out of the Avay of a vessel which is close-hauled on the 
 starboard tack. 
 
 ( c) When both are ruunino- free, with the wind on different 
 
 sides, the vessel which has the wind on the port side 
 shall keep out of the way of the other. 
 
 ( d) "\^Tien both are running free, with the wind on the same 
 
 side, the vessel which is to windward shall keep out 
 of the way of the vessel which is to leeward. 
 
 (e) A vessel which has the wind aft shall keep out of the way 
 
 of the other vessel. 
 
 45. If a sailing vessel and a steam vessel are proceeding in 
 such a direction as to involve risk of collision, the steam vessel 
 shall keep out of the way of the sailing vessel. 
 
 46. When two steam vessels or steam launches, proceeding 
 in opposite directions, the one up and the other down the 
 river (&), are approaching each other so as to involve risk 
 of collision, they shall pass port side to port side (c). 
 
 47. Steam vessels navigating against the tide shall, before 
 the following points i^d), viz., Coalhouse Point, 
 
 Local rules 
 Thames). 
 
 rounding 
 
 (ft) In The Odessa, 4 At<p. M. C. 
 49.'< 'followed in T/'C Berr'Dtgton and 
 The Ostrich. Ad. Div. 9th March, 
 1883; but cf. The Joseph Rickett, 
 Ship. Gaz. March .5th, 1901), it was 
 held that these words, in former 
 rules, were not to be interpreted in 
 the .«ame way as the " end-on " rule 
 fArt. 18; of the sea regulations. 
 Two vessels approaching each other, 
 one bound up and the other down 
 the river, may be within the Thames 
 rule, although not end-on. or nearly 
 end-on, within the meaning of the 
 sea regulations. The Thames rule 
 applies if the ships are on courses 
 which involve risk of collisiou, but 
 not otherwise. See The Guildhall, 
 (1908) P. 29; (1908) A. C. 159 ; The 
 Lady Wodehouse (188.), 2 Times L. R. 
 2-t2. The rule does not apply to a 
 .ihip with no way on her, waiting 
 under a point for other ships to pass 
 clear. The Altyrr, Ad. Div. 27th Feb. 
 1885. 
 
 (c) In The Libra, 6 P. D. 139, it 
 was said by Brett, L. J., in the 
 
 Court of Appeal, that this (r. 46) 
 and the following rales (rr. 22 and 
 23 of 1880) are not mutually exclu- 
 sive of each other or inconsistent ; 
 and that, although the intention of 
 the rule as to waiting luider points 
 is that the state of things contem- 
 plated in the preceding rule shall not 
 arise, " nevertheless, if that state of 
 things does arise, there is nothiug 
 in [the latter, r. 23 of 1880], rule 
 which prevents [the former, r. 22 of 
 1880], under the circtimstjinces, from 
 applying. 
 
 {d) In The Margaret, 9 P. D. 47 : 
 9 A. C. 873. the meaniug vi this 
 expression was much discu.-<.sed. 
 Butt, J., and the House of Lords 
 held that it contemplates two vessels 
 in different reaches sighting each 
 other over the point, or at any rate 
 before they botli an-ive ott the ]>oint ; 
 differing from the view of the Court 
 of Appeal, that the rule a]>plies 
 when one of the ships is on, or otf 
 the pitch of, the point. " The jioint 
 begins where the vessel, . . . having
 
 542 
 
 APPENDIX II. 
 
 Local rules Tilburyness, Broadness, Stoneness, Crayfordness, Cold Har- 
 (Thamesj. bour Point, Jenningtree Point, Halfway House Point, or Cross- 
 ness, Maro-aretness, or Tripcoek Point, Bull Point or Gallions- 
 ness, Hookness, and Blackwall Point (e), wait (/) until any 
 other ivessels rounding the point Avith the tide have passed 
 clear (g). 
 
 48. Steam vessels and steam launches crossing- (h) from one 
 side of the river towards the other side, shall keep out of the 
 way of vessels navigating up and down the river. 
 
 49. Every steam vessel and steam launch, when approaching 
 another vessel so as to involve risk of collision, shall slacken 
 her speed, and shall stop and reverse, if necessary. 
 
 50. Steam vessels and steam launches navigating against the 
 stream above Kichmond Lock shall ease and, if necessary, stop 
 to allow vessels coming down with the stream to pass clear, 
 particularly when rounding points or sharp bends in the river. 
 
 51. Steam launches navigating above Richmond Lock shall, 
 where the channel or depth of water permits, be navigated in 
 mid-river. 
 
 52. Every vessel overtaking another vessel shall keep out of 
 the way of the overtaken vessel, which latter vessel shall keep 
 her course. 
 
 to go round, would, if nothing were 
 in the way, have to use its steerage 
 power for the piu"pose of continuing 
 in a proper course, and it ends where 
 the necessity for using that power 
 ceases " See also T/ie Jriiif/dcan 
 Grange. (1902) P. 208. 
 
 {e) The rule does not apply [sethhle] 
 to a vessel bound down, so soon as 
 she coTnes out of the South-West 
 India Dock. The entrance of the 
 dock is «bove the place at which the 
 rule begins to apply. See per Lord 
 Ulackburn, The Margaret, 9 A. C. 
 873, 880. 
 
 (/) This does not mean that she 
 is to wait in the slack water or 
 eddy under the point. " I think 
 the meaning of that is, that she 
 shall so far check her speed as to 
 prevent her coming up to the point 
 at the same time when the other 
 vessel would come there." Per 
 Brett, L. J., The Libra, 6 P. D. 139, 
 145 ; and see The Margaret, 9 P. D. 
 47, 50 ; and see per Lord Watson, 
 9 A. C. 885. 
 
 [g) Whether this means clear of 
 the point, or clear of each other, is 
 doubtful. See per Brett, L. J., .-ind 
 per Cotton, L. J., The Libra, ubi 
 supra. 
 
 (h) In The Schivan, 6 Asp. M. C. 
 408, this rule (r. 24 of 1880) was 
 held to apply to a vessel which. 
 
 having been at anchor with her head 
 down the river, was tundng, with 
 her head athwart the tide, for the 
 purpose of going up the river on the 
 flood. In The Hirer Derwent, 6 Asp. 
 M. C. 647, affirmed 7 Asp. M. C. 
 37, it was held that a vessel bound 
 up the river on a flood tide, on the 
 south side of mid-channel, and 
 turning across the river, with her 
 anchor dreds/ing. for the purpose of 
 getting her head on tide, did not 
 cease to be "crossing" so long as 
 she was moving towards the north 
 shore. Liudley and Lopes, L. JJ., 
 thought that the rule ceases to apply 
 after the f-hip has got across the 
 river so far as she can go in safety, 
 although she is still angling across 
 the stream ; Lord Esher, M. R., 
 expressed a contrHry opinion. The 
 rule does not apply to a steamship 
 turning round in the river, although 
 in process of turning part of her 
 length may cross the line of mid- 
 channel. The John EoVway, (1900) 
 P. 37. 
 
 When r. 48 (r. 24 of 1880) applies, 
 r. 53 (r. 25 of 1880) applies to vessels 
 proceeding up or down the river 
 and approaching her. The Schuairii, 
 The River Deruent, ubi supra ; The 
 Xeu- PrUnn, (1891) P. 258, as to 
 altering for third ship.
 
 LOCAL RULES. 
 
 543 
 
 Every vessel coining' up with another vessel from any direc- Local rules 
 tion more than two points abaft her beam, i.e.. in suoli a (Thames), 
 position, with reference to the vessel which she is overtakinfr, 
 that, at nig-ht, she would be unable to see either of that vessel's 
 side lights, shall be deemed to be an overtaking vessel, and no 
 subsequent alteration of the bearing between the two vessels 
 shall relieve the overtaking vessel of the duty of keeiiing clear 
 of the overtaken vessel until she is finally past and clear. 
 
 As by day the overtaking vessel cannot always know with 
 certainty whether >she is forward or abaft this direction, she 
 shall, if in doubt, assume she is an overtaking vessel and keep 
 out of the way. 
 
 53. Where, by the above bye-laws, one of two vessels is to 
 keep out of the way. the other shall keep her course (i) and 
 speed (j). 
 
 Lights required above Teddiiigton Lock. 
 
 54. Every steam ves.sel and steam launch shall, when navi- 
 gating in «r above Teddington Lock, carry and exhibit the 
 following lights and no other, that is to say: — 
 
 (a) On or before the foremast, or, if there be no foremast, 
 
 on the funnel, or on a staff at the bow, in either case, 
 at a height above the hull of not less than four feet, a 
 bright white light, so fi.xed as to throw the light ten 
 points on each side of the ves.sel, viz., from right 
 ahead to two points abaft the beam on either side, 
 which light shall, in the case of a steam launch regis- 
 tered under the provisions of the Thames Conservancy 
 Act, 1894, be behind a glass shade or slide, upon 
 which the registered number of such steam launch 
 shall be legibly and consjjicuously painted in black 
 hgures, and in the case of any other vessel the glass 
 shall be perfectly plain and clear. 
 
 (b) On the starboard side a green light so fixed as to throw 
 
 the light from right ahead to two points abafi the 
 beam. 
 
 (c) On the port side a red light so fixed as to throw the light 
 
 from right ahead to two i)oints abaft the beam. 
 
 (d) Every such light shall be of such a character as to be 
 
 visible at a distance of at least one mile. 
 
 (i) 111 The Hkerryvorc, Ad. Div. to approach either shore to avail 
 
 19th Auff. 1KH6, Sir J. Haiincii said hcrsflf of it. See al.w, hh to this 
 
 that "keep her course" did not rule. The Schwuu, (i Asj). M C. 
 
 mean, in the case of a vessel round- lO'J ; and The Itiver Berutnl, 7 Asp. 
 
 ing a point, that she was necessarily M. C. ;i7. 
 
 to keep at the same distance from (./) It is difficult to reconcil.- this 
 
 either shore. If there were a 'J clear w ith r. 10. 
 eye" elsewhere, she was at liherty
 
 544 
 
 APPENDIX II. 
 
 Local rules 55. The master of the vessel shall be responsible for the due 
 
 (Thames). carrying and exhibiting of such lights and no other. 
 
 (Articles 56 to 98 relate to the navigation and conservancy, 
 chiefly Teddington.) 
 
 Regulations as to Watermen, Lighters, Tugs, &c. 
 
 Thames- By sect. 80 of -I'l k 23 Vict. c. 13.3 fLocal), amended by 27 & 28 Vict. 
 
 Avatermen °- ^^^' *^*^ master, wardens, aud assistants of the Company of Watermen 
 
 and Lightermen of the River Thames are empowered, subject to the 
 approval of the Thames Conservators, to make bye-laws '.' for carrying into 
 effect the purposes of the Act," including, inter alia, the -making of " proper 
 regulations for the navigation of barges, lighters, boats, and other like 
 craft ... for the security of passengers . . . and for the orderly conduct 
 of traffic." Bye-laws have been made under the above Acts, some of which 
 have to be construed with reference to the Thames Rules. The following 
 are cases upon the Watermen's Act bye-laws : — Perl-ins v. Gingell, f)0 J. P. 
 277 ; Bo/lcs v. Mwell, 25 Q. B D. 335; mmorc v. Hunter, 3 C. P. D. 116 ; 
 Goldsmith V. Slattertj, 63 L. T. 273 ; Bvckham v. Gihhs, (1900) 1 Q. B. 394. 
 
 Tyne. 
 
 TYNE. 
 
 The River Tyue bye-laws of 15th November, 1884, are made under the 
 River Tyne Improvement Acts, and the Acts incorporated therewith. (See 
 the Tyne Improvement Acts of 1850, 1S52, 1857, 1859, 1861, 1865, and 
 1877; the Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act, 1847.) They provide 
 for (5) the mooring of vessels under the harbour-master's orders ; anchors 
 not to be let go ; (6) dismantling; (7) anchors to be on deck or hung from 
 hawse-pipe; (9) one vessel only to lie at a staith ; (10) vessels not to lie 
 between tiers; (11) steamers moored not to move engines. The rule as to 
 steamships' lights (12) is the same as Art. 3 of the Sea Regulations, except 
 as to steamships without foremast, which may carry the masthead light on 
 a staff, as in the Tees Rules {supra, p. 528); (13) steamshij^s towing to 
 carry a second light on the foremast or staff ; (14) steamships and sailing 
 ships being towed and steamships under sail to carry side lights only ; 
 (lo) stern light to be shown to overtaking ship ; (16) vessels at anchor, out- 
 side vessel of tier, and any other vessel so ordered by harbour- master, to 
 show riding light ; rafts and open boats to show either red and green side 
 lights, or lantern with red and green slide. 
 
 18. Every steam vessel shall be provided with a steam 
 whistle or other efficient steam sound signal, sp placed that 
 the sound may not be intercepted by any obstructions, and with 
 an efficient fog-horn, and with an efficient bell. Every sailing 
 vessel ishall be provided with a similar fog-horn and bell. 
 
 In fog, mist, or falling snow, whether by day or night, the 
 following signals shall be used: — 
 
 (a) Upon a steam vessel under way a prolonged blast shall 
 be made with the steam whistle or other steam sound 
 signal, at intervals of not more than two minutes. 
 (h) Upon a sailing vessel under way a like blast shall be 
 made with the fog-horn at intervals of not move than 
 two minutes.
 
 LOCAL RULES. ^"^'^ 
 
 (c) Upon a steam vessel aud a sailing vessel, if and wlien Local rules 
 anchored, the bell shall be rung- at intervals of not (Tyne). 
 more than two minutes (k). 
 
 As to Navigation. 
 
 19. Every vessel under way shall, when proceeding seaward, 
 bo kept to tlie .south of mid-channel, and when proceeding 
 inward from sea or up the river, to the north of mid-channel, 
 and so that in either case such vessel shall, with a port helm, 
 ahvays be and be kept clear of any vessel proceeding in the 
 opposite direction. 
 
 20. Every steam or oiher vessel (whether towing any other 
 vessel or not, or being towed) shall, unless prevented by stress 
 of Aveather, be brought into port to the north of mid-channel, 
 and be taken out of port to the south of mid-channel (I), (^m). 
 
 21. Every vessel when under way, and requiring to pass over 
 a part of the channel which is not within that half reserved 
 for its navigation, for the purpose of proceeding to or from 
 any landing, mooring, or other i)lace, shall bo navigated so as 
 to cause no obstruction," injury, or damage to any other vessel; 
 and every vessel continuing its navigation, after reaching sucli 
 landing or mooring, or other place, shall be navigated as soon 
 as practicable to the side of the river specified as tho_ proper 
 side for its navigation, and so as to cause no obstruction, in- 
 jury, or damage to any other vessel. 
 
 22. Every vessel crossing the river, and every vessel turning, 
 shall be navigated so as noc to cause obstruction, injury, or 
 damage to any other vessel (m). 
 
 23. When steam vessels proceeding in opposite directions 
 are approafhing each other they shall be ke])t on their proper 
 sides, and. if uoces-sary, speed shall be slackened, the vessel 
 
 {k) A tug moored to a poutoon at for her navigation. A vessel ma)' 
 
 the Fish Quay was held not to be at legitimately cross the river wlienever 
 
 fault for not ringing lur bell in a fog it is reasonably safe to do so, and it 
 
 as she w as not at anchor within this is the duty of other vessels proceeding 
 
 rule. Tfie Titan; The Riuiiblcr, 10 up or down the river to use the 
 
 Asp. 1\L C. 3o0. oidinary precautions for avoiding 
 
 (/) This means that a vessel coming collision with her. The Thf/foid, G 
 
 in from sea must not cross " so near Asp. M. C. 179 ; and see The Hcunj 
 
 as not to leave room for vessels going Morton, 2 Asp. M. C. 477, sHpra. 
 
 out of the river, and. if she is coming i>. IDO. See also Thr S/apmi, (190.')) 
 
 from the southward, before she tarns V. ;52, per Gorell Barnes, J., at p. .'57. 
 
 in, she mu.st leave a fairwav for all " It is a kiud of give and take ; but 
 
 vessels going out of the port." Ihe I do not think I aTu going too far in 
 
 John of Scott, (1897) P. U8 ; The .sayiug that the weight of the opera- 
 
 JlnrrtHt, 11 P. D. 14. ti<"» 'it the outset is principally upon 
 
 (w) These rules do not make a the vessel cros-;ing in tliis sense, that 
 
 crosMug vessel liable, wlu.tever the she mu.st see whether she has room 
 
 circuirihtances may be, if she comes to cross, and, if she has room, slie 
 
 in contact with another vessel which may crosH." 
 is on the side of the river prescribed 
 
 M. N N
 
 546 APPENDIX II. 
 
 Local rules g-oing- against the tide in all cases giving way to the one going 
 
 ^ ^ '' with the tide; and when steam vessels are approaching each 
 
 other so as to involve risk of collision, their helms shall be 'put 
 
 to port, and, if necessary, their engines shall be stopped or 
 
 reversed. 
 
 24. When any steam vessel (except a steam vessel when 
 towing sailing vessels) is approaching any sailing vessel or 
 steam tug- with sailing vessels in tow proceeding in the opposite 
 direction, the speed of such steam vessel shall, if necessary, be 
 slackened when it is within thirty yards of and until it shall 
 have passed the sailing vessel or steam tug and towed vessels. 
 
 25. Sea-going steam vessels shall not be navigated in the 
 port above the Low Lighthouse at a greater speed over the 
 ground than six knots or seven statute miles per hour, whether 
 going with or against the tide. 
 
 26. (Vessels not to cause risk of collision.) 
 
 27. {Steamship undble to keep out of the way of sailing ship 
 to sound four blasts of two seconds' duration ; then sailing 
 ship to keep out of way.) 
 
 28 . Every sailing or steam vessel overtaking any other vessel 
 shall be kept out of the way of the overtaken vessel, which shall 
 be kept on her course, and no obstruction shall be Avilfullj^ 
 caused by the overtaken vessel to the passage of the overtaking 
 vessel; and any vessel having passed another shall not cross 
 the bows of the passed vessel until at such a distance as will 
 not necessitate the stopping or easing of the passed vessel to 
 avoid collision. 
 
 30. {Scope of tow-line, except to eastward of Low Light- 
 house, North Shields, not to exceed twenty fathoms.) 
 
 31. {Not more than one vessel exceeding 200 tojis to be 
 towed by same tug.) 
 
 32. {Length of train of vessels in toiv not to exceed 450 feet 
 from stern of tug ; vessels not to be towed abreast: rafts not 
 to exceed 250 feet by 40 feet.) 
 
 33. {Not more than six keels, wherries, or boats to be towed 
 at once.) 
 
 34. {Two tugs towing same vessel not to be more than 
 100 feet apart, or, if toiving abreast, more than forty feet.) 
 
 35. {Vessels not to drift; off dock entrances vessels wait- 
 ing admission to keep out of fairway.) 
 
 37. {Vessels to have anchor ready to let go.) 
 
 39. Every vessel under way when overtaken by a fog shall 
 be navigated at a very moderate speed, and shall, as soon as 
 practicable, be moored or anchored out of the navigable 
 channel. Vessels shall not, without the permission of the har- 
 bour master, be got under way during a fog.
 
 LOCAL RULES. 
 
 547 
 
 40. (Engines to go dead slow 100 yards before reaching. Local rules 
 and fifty yards after passing, diving and other rraft of the (Tyne)- 
 Commissioners. ) 
 
 41. (And within 100 yards of ivreck-removinq craft.) 
 
 42. (A red flag or red light to he shon^n on dredgers on side 
 where chains are taut. Vessels to pass on other side.) 
 
 43. (Also lohere no passage between dredger and shore.) 
 
 44. (Vessels not to moor at Commissioners' white buoys.) 
 
 47. (Tug to attend vessel in toiv till moored.) 
 
 48. (Engines not to move ivithin fifty yards of boat coming 
 alongside.) 
 
 N N2
 
 548 
 
 APPENDIX III. 
 
 INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE 
 UNIFICATION OF CERTAIN RULES OF 
 LAW IN REOARD TO COLLLSIONS. 
 
 Traxslation of the Draft Convention. 
 Annexed to tlie Protocol of October 5th, 1909. 
 
 Art. 1. Where a collision occurs between sea-going ships 
 or between .«ea-going ships and vessels of interior navigation, 
 Hie fpiestion of making good the damages caused to the ships 
 or to any things or persons on board the ships is subject to the 
 foHowing provisions in whatever waters the collision takes 
 place . 
 
 Art. 2. If the collision is accidental, if it is caused by jorce 
 majeure, or if there is doubt as to the causes of the collision, 
 the damages are borne by those who have suffered them. 
 
 This provision is a]iplicable notAvithstanding the fact that 
 the vessels, or either of them, are at anchor at the time of the 
 casualty. 
 
 Art. 3. If the collision is caused by the fault of one of the 
 vessels, liability to make good the damage attaches to ihe one 
 who has caused it. 
 
 Art. 4. If two or more vessels are in fault the liability of 
 each vessel is in proportion to the degree of the faults respec- 
 tively committed. Provided that if, having regard to the cir- 
 cumstances, it is not possible to establish the degree of the 
 respective faults, or if it appears that the faults are equivalent, 
 the liability is distributed equally. 
 
 The damages caused, whether to the vessels or to their 
 cargoes or to the effects or other property of the crews, pas- 
 sengers, or other persons on board, are borne by the vessels 
 in the said proportion, but the vessels are not jointly liable 
 towards third parties. 
 
 The vessels in fault are jointly liable towards third parties 
 in respect of damages for death or personal injury, but a 
 vessel which has contributed a share of the damage greater 
 than that which under the first paragraph of this article it
 
 TRANSLATION OF THE DRAFT CONVENTION. 
 
 oupht strictly to bear as a rig-ht over in respect of its overpaid 
 pruportiou. 
 
 It is left to law of each country to determine, as regards 
 such .rio-ht over, the bearino- and eii'eets of auv contract or 
 provision of law which limits the liability of the owners of a 
 vessel towards persons on board. 
 
 Art. 5. The liability established by the preceding Articles 
 attaches in cases Avhere the collision is caused by the fault 
 of a pilot, even when the pilot is carried by compulsion of law. 
 
 Art. G. The bringing of an action for the recovery of 
 damages resulting from a collision is not subject either to a 
 protest or to any other special formality. 
 
 All statutory presumptions of fault in cases where li;ibili(y 
 for collision is concerned are abolished. 
 
 Art. 7. Actions for the recovery of damages arc barretl l)y 
 prescription after an interval of two years from the date of the 
 casualty. 
 
 The period Avithin which an action must be instituted for 
 the recovery of an overpaid proportion under ])aragraph o of 
 Article 4 is one year running from the date of payment. 
 
 The grounds for suspending or interru])tiug the said periods 
 of prescription are such as may be provided by the law of the 
 Court trying the case. 
 
 The High Contracting Parties reserve to themselves the riglit 
 to provide by legislation in their respective countries that tlie 
 said periods sliall be extended in cases where it has not been 
 possible to arrest the defendant vessel in the territorial waters 
 of the State in which the plaintiff has his domicile or his ])rin- 
 cipal place of business. 
 
 Art. 8. After a collision the master of each of the ve.ssels 
 in (collision is bound, so far as he can do so without serious 
 danger to his vessel, its crew and its passengers, to render 
 assistance to the other vessel, its crew and its pas.sengers. 
 
 Ho is likewise bound, so far as possible, to make known the 
 name of his vessel and the port to which it belongs, and also tlie 
 names of the ports from which it c()in(>s, and to which it is 
 bound. 
 
 A breach of the above provisions does not of itself impose 
 any liability on the owner of a vessel. 
 
 Art. 9. The High Contracting Parties whose legislalion does 
 not forbid infringements of the preceding Article bind them- 
 selves to take or to propose to their respective legislatures 
 the stops necessary for the prevention of such infringements. 
 
 The High Contracting Parties will communicate to one 
 another as Koon as possible, the laws or regulations which 
 have already been or may be hereafter pronuilgated in I heir 
 States for giving effect to the above undertaking. 
 
 Art. 10. A pari frnm any ConvenUons which may sidiso- 
 cj[ucntly be made, Iho [trovisions of this Convenlinii du not 
 
 549
 
 550 APPENDIX III. 
 
 affect in any way the nature or extent of the liability of ship- 
 owners as regulated by the laws of each country, nor do they 
 affect the legal obligations arising from contracts of carriage 
 or from any other contracts. 
 
 Art. 11. This Convention does not apply to ships of war, 
 nor to Government ships appropriated exclusively to a public 
 service. 
 
 Art. 12. The provisions of this Convention will be applied 
 as regards all persons interested when all the vessels con- 
 cerned in any action belonging to contracting States, and in 
 any other cases for which the national laws may provide: 
 
 Provided always that — 
 
 1. As regards persons interested who belong to a non- 
 
 contracting State the application of the above pro- 
 visions may be made conditional upon reci- 
 procity. 
 
 2. Where all the persons interested belong to the same 
 
 State as the Court trying the case the provisions 
 of the national law, and not of the Convention, are 
 applicable. 
 
 Art. 13. The provisions of this Convention are applicable 
 not only in the case of a collision, but also in all cases where 
 any act or omission of navigation or any failure to observe the 
 regulations has resulted in damage being caused by a vessel 
 to another vessel, or to any things or persons on board of either 
 vessel. 
 
 Art. 14. The delegates of the High Contracting Parties will 
 re-assemble at Brussels three years after this Convention comes 
 into force with the object of trying to find amendments which 
 could be introduced, and especially of extending, if possible, 
 the sphere of application. 
 
 Art. 15. States which have not signed this Convention are 
 allowed to adhere to it on request. Such adhesion shall be 
 notified through the diplomatic channel to the Belgian Govern- 
 ment, and by that Government to each of the other 
 Governments; it shall become effective one month after the 
 sending of the notification by the Belgian Government. 
 
 Art. 16. This Convention shall be ratified, and the ratifica- 
 tions shall be deposited in Brussels as soon as possible. After 
 an interval of one year from the day when the Convention is 
 signed the Belgian Government shall place itself in communi- 
 cation with the Governments of the High Contracting Parties 
 which have declared themselves prepared to ratify it, with a 
 view to deciding whether there is occasion for putting it into 
 force. 
 
 " The ;ratifications shall, in that case, be deposited at once, 
 and the Convention shall enter into force a month afterwards. 
 
 The protocol shall remain open another year in favour of the
 
 TRANSLATION OF THE DRAFT CONVENTION. 
 
 States represented at the Brussels Conference. After this in- 
 terval they can only adhere to it on conforming with provi- 
 sions of Article 15. 
 
 Art. 17. In the case of one or other of the High Contracting 
 Parties denouncing the Convention, such denunciation shall 
 not take effect until a year after the day on which it has been 
 notified to the Belgian Government, and the Convention shall 
 remain in force as between the other Contracting Governments. 
 
 In witness whereof, the Plenipotentiaries of the several 
 States have signed this Convention, and have affixed their seals 
 thereto. 
 
 551
 
 1 N 1) E X. 
 
 Abandoxmext, 
 
 liability of owners after, 87. 
 by crew, of ship injured iu collision, 104. 
 by owner, of ship sunk in collision, 107 seq. 
 after collision, 1U4, lOJ. 
 
 Abroad, collision, 200, 203. 
 
 Accident. See Inevitable Accident. 
 
 Action, 
 
 in rem, 73. 
 
 in personam, cannot be tacked to action in rem, 297. 
 
 in personam, bar to action in rem, 213. 
 
 against pilot, 62, 295. 
 
 successive actions by sufferers in collision, 78, 97, 301. 
 
 against owners resident abroad, 201. 
 
 stay of, where action pending elsewhere, 211. 
 
 where both ships are foreign, 199. 
 
 cargo action usually postponed to ship action, 291. 
 
 in rem, where judgment in pcrsonum unsatisfied, 290. 
 
 in rem, where damage but no collision, 76. 
 
 in rem, does not lie under Lord Campbell's Act, 1 14, 132, 211. 
 
 for damage to cargo, against carrying ship, 76. 
 in rem, against a public authority, 296. 
 for limitation of liability, 299. See Limitation, **)•<■., Avium 
 
 for. 
 consecutive collisions, 160. 
 separate actions for damage to property and person, 29.J. 
 
 Admiralty Jukisdiction, 
 limits of, 199, 303. 
 damage to property ashore, 78, 30 4. 
 for loss of life, 114. c ii- 
 
 wrong-doer can be sued personally, 62, 6<. bee W romj- 
 
 doer. 
 damage to cargo, 266 seq. 
 no damage lion foi', 76. 
 where there is damage but no collision, 76. 
 as betweiiu tug and t(jvv, 197.
 
 554 INDEX. 
 
 Admiralty Jurisdiction — continued. 
 where both ships foreign, 199. 
 of High Court, 303. 
 of County Courts, 304. 
 American law, 77. 
 
 Adrift, damage by craft sent, 65, 82. 
 
 Alteration of Course, 
 in fog, 327, 380. 
 causing risk, 28, 327. 
 for greater safety, 328. 
 "alter her course to starboard," (or port,) explained, 396. 
 
 America, Law of, 
 
 cargo-owners' remedy where both ships in fault, 131, 268. 
 
 infringement of the regulations, 60. 
 
 liability in case of compulsorj^ pilotage, 241. 
 
 liability of ship for negligence of those on board, 86. 
 
 as to tug and tow, 180. 
 
 as to division of loss, 109, 131, 192. 
 
 as to Admiralty jurisdiction, 77. 
 
 Anchor, 
 
 damage by an unbuoyed, 89. 
 
 damage by anchor a-cock-bill, 13, 18. 
 
 shij) dredging with her anchor, 340, 384, 398. 
 
 letting go, to avoid collision, 4, 10, 12. 
 
 slipping, to avoid collision, 27. 
 
 slipped anchor, damages, 27. 
 
 stowing, in dock, 496. 
 
 letting go, when compulsory pilot in charge, 230, 232. 
 
 coming to an anchor, duty of ship, 479. 
 
 anchor watch, 472. 
 
 riding to a single anchor with other craft to leeward, 479. 
 
 insufficient ground tackle or moorings, 93, 228, 481. 
 
 Anchor, Ship at, 
 
 meaning of term, 334, 340, 362. 
 
 burden of proof where one shijj is, 7, 30. 
 
 collision with, 30. 
 
 with ship fast to moorings, 13. 
 
 giving a foul berth to, 477 — 479. 
 
 duty to keep clear of, 30. 
 
 in an improper place, 30, 477, 482, 484. 
 
 in the track of ferry boat, 385. 
 
 on fishing grounds, 480, 489. 
 
 fishing boats fast to their nets, 489. 
 
 insufficient moorings, 9, 9.3, 481. 
 
 insufficient ground tackle, 228, 481. 
 
 precautions to be observed in coming to an anchor, 479. 
 
 making fast to another ship, 483, 486. 
 
 shifting berth, 482, 483.
 
 INDEX. 555 
 
 Anchor, Ship ax- continued. 
 
 duty of, to make snug, 480. 
 
 sheering about, 363, 481. 
 
 parting of cable or moorings, 93. 
 
 both ships dragging, 22, 481. 
 
 fog signal for, 367. 
 
 slipping, to avoid collision, 27, 485. 
 
 sheering, or giving chain, to avoid collision. 33, 481. 
 
 pilot's duty, as to bringing up, 230. 
 
 riding lights. Art. 1 1 . .361. 
 
 for fishermen. Art. 9. .365. 
 Art. 4 does not apply to, 346. 
 
 Appeal, 
 
 costs of, 310—312. 
 
 from registrar, costs of, 310. 
 
 upon question of seamanship, 293. 
 
 Approaching other Craft, 329, 493. 
 indications of risk, 324. 
 close shaving, 330. 
 speed, 432. 
 
 Aquilian Law, shij)0wners' liability by, 63. 
 
 Arrest. See Proceeding n in rem. 
 
 usually avoided by giving bail, 73. 
 
 of cargo to compel payment of freight, 75. 
 
 of foreign ship that has injured British property, 201. 
 
 ship in charge of compulsory pilot, not liable to arrest for 
 
 his fault, 217. 
 of wrong ship, 298, 306. 
 without reasonable cause, 299. 
 of ship, to compel owners to appear, 149. 
 of ship of foreign sovereign, 209. 
 of ship other than the wrong-doer, 74, n. 
 of mail ships, 210. 
 
 its connection with limitation of liability, 149. 
 ship when arrested is security for costs, 73. 
 
 Ashore, 
 
 collision with ship ashore, 25, 87. 
 
 tug working at ship ashore, 492. 
 
 ship putting herself ashore, to avoid collision, 27. 
 
 taking the ground alongside ship, 479. 
 
 ship ashore doing damage as she comes otf, 25, 494. 
 
 negligence of persons ashore causing collision, 159, 162. 
 
 duty to light a shi}! ashore in a fairway, Art. 1 1 . .361. 
 
 a ship sunk or ashore, 87 — 89. 
 
 Assessors, 
 
 power to order inspection by, 291. 
 advise Court upon questions of soamanshiii, 292. 
 take no part in tlie judgment of the Court, 292. 
 appeal upon matter of pure seamanship, 293.
 
 556 INDEX. 
 
 Astern, duty to warn ship, 491. 
 
 At Ak-chor. See Anchor, Shi}) at. 
 
 Average Contribution, 
 
 collisi(jn does not give rise to, 279, 283. 
 
 recoverable as damag-es, 113. 
 
 division of loss, formerly a form of average, 119, 137. 
 
 Bail, 
 
 usually given to avoid arrest, 73. 
 
 whether damage lien discharged by, 79. 80. 
 
 insufficient, 80. 
 
 foreign sovereign suing in British Court, 210. 
 
 cost of bail in salvage action recoverable, 110. 
 
 costs of bail, 80, 312. 
 
 judgment for amount in excess of, 80, 296. 
 
 failure to put in, after undertaking, 298. 
 
 arrest after undertaking to give bail, 299. 
 
 Bailees of ship or cargo, may recover for collision, 97. 
 
 Bankruptcy, 
 
 of owner of wrong-doing ship, 74, 79, 81. 
 of plaintiff, costs of repairs recoverable, 101. 
 
 Barge, 
 
 driving with the tide, 10, 13, 497. 
 
 damage by barge in charge of licensed waterman, 219. 
 
 whether damage lien attaches to, 78. 
 
 cargo on barge in tow, 266. 
 
 whether negligence to leave unattended, 476. 
 
 Barratry, 
 
 infringement of the regulations is not, 269. 
 
 collision by negligence is not, within bill of lading, 269. 
 
 Beaching after collision, 106. 
 
 Beacon, damage by stump of, 88. 
 
 Beating out Tacks, duty of ship as to, 416, 488. 
 
 Belgium, law of, as to compulsory pilotage, 207, 218. 
 
 Bell, 
 
 ship at anchor in a fog to use, Art. 1-3. .367. 
 Turkish ships do not use, 367. 
 
 Berth, 
 
 foul, 478, 481, 482. 
 
 taking up, in dock, 479, 484. 
 
 keeping a berth with a buoy, 483. 
 
 where duty to keep in proper condition, 90.
 
 INDEX. 557 
 
 Bill of Ladixg, 
 
 meaning of exception of collision in, 266. 
 
 effect of other exceptions;, 267. 
 
 collision by negligence is not barratry within, 269. 
 
 Blixd Corner, rounding, 23, 497. 
 
 Board of Trade, 
 
 instructions to surveyors as to lights, 34 1 . 
 
 opinion of, as to master's and pilot's respjnsibilitv, 210. 
 
 practice in regard to supplying depositions, 290. 
 
 Boat, 
 
 collision with, duty to stand by, 59. 
 
 fishing boats' lights, Art. 9. . 353. 8ee Fishing Boats. 
 
 hand lights for. Art. 7, .350. 
 
 application of regulations to, 319, 500. 
 
 Bond to Stop Arrest, 
 
 recovery by surety against co-owners, 302. 
 liability of master on, 302. 
 
 Bottomry Boxdholder on freight, his right when liability 
 limited, 166. 
 
 Bringing up, 
 
 precautions to be observed before, 478 seq. 
 foul berth, 478, 480, 482. 
 in improper place, 484. 
 shortening sail before, 480. 
 pili^t's duty with reference to, 230. 
 
 BtroYs, 
 
 system of buoj-age, 449. 
 
 vessel entitled to treat conical, as starboard hand, 449. 
 
 Burden of Proof, 
 
 collision with ship at anchor, 30. 
 
 ship neglecting to keep her course, 34, 405 seq. 
 
 of negligence, 29 seq. 
 
 failing to stoji and reverse before collision, 431. 
 
 where compulsory pilot in charge, 224. 
 
 sailing ship in flat calm, 416. 
 
 as to necessity of departing from the regulation?, 162. 
 
 as between the ship required to keej) her course and the 
 
 other, 34. 
 where defendants admit fault, 29. 
 in practice with plaintiff to prove ship sank in consequence 
 
 of collision, 103. 
 where (jualitiod pilot is not f)btainablo, 226.
 
 558 INDEX. 
 
 Cable, 
 
 jamming of, on windlass, 9, 232. 
 insufficiency of, 228, 481. 
 parting of, 9, 25, 33, 93. 
 
 Campbell's Act, Lord, 
 damages under, 114. 
 
 no action in rem under, 114, 133, 210, 297. 
 actions in personam may be brought in Admiralty Division, 
 
 211. 
 rule as to division of loss does not apply, 133. 
 application to foreigners and foreign ships, 210. 
 claims under, limitation of liability, 161, 165. 
 assessment of damages by jury, 302. 
 
 Canada, Law of, 
 
 division of loss, 122. 
 infringement of regulations, 42. 
 
 Care, 
 
 absence of ordinary care is negligence, 2. 
 
 in management of dangerous business, 36, 68. 
 
 what is ordinary, 2. 
 
 Cargo, 
 
 damage lien does not attach to, 75. 
 
 damage to, by carrying ship, no lien, 76, 271. 
 
 may be arrested to compel payment of freight, 75. 
 
 liability to arrest not affected by Act limiting liability, 164. 
 
 transhipment, after collision, 159. 
 
 Cargo Owner. See Carrier ; Bill of Lading. 
 not liable for collision, 94. 
 early law as to liability of cargo owner, 74, n. 
 recovery by, where both ships in fault, 95. 
 recovery by, against carrier, damages, 115. 
 action by, usually postponed to claim by ship, 294. 
 when collision is between ships of same owner, 95, 267. 
 his right to costs, 307. 
 shipowner's liability as carrier, 265 seq. 
 cargo on board barge in tow, 266. 
 effect of bill of lading as to collision, 266. 
 how affected by rule as to division of loss, 131, 268. 
 his rights where the carrier is a railway company, 164, 270. 
 liability of master, 270. 
 
 Admiralty jurisdiction in case of damage to cargo, 76, 270. 
 no average contribution from, in case of cargo sunk by 
 
 carrier's fault and afterwards raised, 279. 
 action for damage to cargo, 76, 97. 
 no lien for damage to cargo, 76, 271. 
 limitation action, issue whether one or both ships in fault, 300.
 
 INDEX. 559 
 
 Carrier, 
 
 shipowner's liability as, 265 seq. 
 
 whether shipowner is a common, 265. 
 
 shipowner's liability at common law, 265. 
 
 tug-owner's liability for goods in tow, 266. 
 
 shipowner's liability on the contract of carriage, lol, 163, 
 
 266. 
 bill of lading, what exceptions cover collision, 266. 
 collision by fault of carrying ship, 267. 
 
 the other ship, 266. 
 collision with other ship of same owners, 267. 
 how the rule as to division of loss applies to, 1.31, 268. 
 collision by negligence, not bai-ratr}', 269. 
 " perils of the sea," meaning of the exception of, 266, 269. 
 railway company carrying by sea, 164, 269. 
 liability of master, 270. 
 
 Admiralty jurisdiction in case of damage to cargo, 76, 270. 
 no average contribution in respect of cargo sunk by carrier's 
 
 fault and afterwards raised, 279. 
 entitled to limited liability in contract as well as tort, 160. 
 liability of, when carrjdng in ship of other owner, 164. 
 damage to, by carrying ship, no lien, 76, 271. 
 damages recoverable against, 115. 
 
 Certificates, Officers', 
 
 may be cancelled for collision, 281. 
 
 Chartered Ship, 
 
 lirtbilitj' for damage by, 66, 68, 81. 
 damage lien attaches to, 81. 
 
 Charterer, 
 
 liability of, for collision, 69, 175. 
 whether entitled to limit his liability, 157. 
 shipowner's liability to, for collision, 270. 
 
 Charter-party, loss of, recoverable as damages, 112. 
 
 Civil Law, shipowner's liability, 63. 
 
 Close-hauled, Ship, 
 
 meaning of the term, 390. 
 
 <m port or starboard tack, duty of, Art. 17. .385. 
 
 whether ship hove-to is, 390, 391. 
 
 should luff, rather than boar up, 466. 
 
 Close Shaving, 324, 330, 487, 493. 
 suction, effect of, 493. 
 
 Clydk, 
 
 local rules of navigation in, 519. 
 pilotage in, 249. 
 collision in, 318.
 
 560 INDEX. 
 
 Collision, 
 
 abroad, 200, 203. 
 
 in body of a county, 199, 200. 
 
 in foreign inland waters, 200. 
 
 in a dock, 200. 
 
 both sliips in fault. See Division of Loss. 
 
 witliout fault in either ship. See Inevituhle Accident. 
 
 four cases of. Lord Stowell's dictum, 117. 
 
 maritime lien for damage. See lAen, Damage. 
 
 civil law as to liability for, 63. 
 
 ships of the same owner, 95, 130, 267. 
 
 limitation of shipowner's liability for. See Limitation of 
 
 Liahilily. 
 with reference to insurance. See Insurance. 
 with reference to contract of carriage. See Carrier ; Cargo 
 
 Owner. 
 does not give rise to average contribution, 279, 283. 
 with pier in a foreign country, 204. 
 
 common law jurisdiction for collision on high seas, 200, 202. 
 liability by maritime law, 86. 
 actions for, are communis juri: , 199. 
 with tug or tow. See Tug and Toir. 
 with a King's ship, 94, 458 seq. 
 with lightship, llo, 164. 
 
 with dredger, wear, house, bridge, breakwater, or wharf, 77. 
 with trawl warp or tow line, 194, 3J8 (fLhe ^f'arnnc/;). 
 with raft, 36. 
 with ship ashore, 25, 88. 
 with ship lying dead, 30. 
 with ship of foreign sovereign, 209, 210. 
 with ship at anchor. See Anchor, S/iip at. 
 with ship at a wharf, 33. 
 with salvor, 11. 12, 65, 281. 
 witli barge driving with the tide, 10, 13, 497. 
 with two ships at once, 27, 160, 173. 
 with a ship being launched, 159, 162. 
 between foreign ships, 199. See Foreign Ships. 
 infringement of the Regulations. See Presumption of Fault. 
 what is the cause of action, 12, 13. 
 negligence causing collision, 12. And see Xegligence. 
 negligence of injured ship after, 103 seq. 
 caused by a previous collision, 25, 160. 
 where more than two ships involved, 27, 160. 
 beiween two ships caused by negligemo of a third, 12, 26. 
 two ships liable for damage to a third, 15. 
 causing loss of life. See Loss of Life. 
 meaning of exception of, in a bill of lading, 266. 
 what damages may be recovered. See Damages. 
 linl)ility for. See Liability. 
 wilful, 15, 28, Gb, 84. 
 ciiminal liahility for, 279 seq. 
 in a fog. See Fog.
 
 INDEX. 561 
 
 Collision — continued. 
 
 application of foreign law to. See Foreign Law. 
 risk of, what is. See Risk of Collision. 
 incidental rights and liabilities arising out of, 279 seq. 
 salvage services after, or to prevent collision, 281. See 
 Salvage. 
 
 Command, 
 
 whether master or pilot has. See Compulsory Pilot. 
 
 whether tug or tow has. See Tug and Tow. 
 
 ship not under, lights and signals for, Art. 4. .344. 
 
 when a vessel is not under command, 345 seq. 
 
 whether duty to keep out of way of vessel not under 
 
 command, 346. 
 vessel dragging through mud is under command, 345. 
 divided command, danger of, 171, 174, 229. 
 
 Common Employment, 
 
 doctrine of, does not apply as between tug and tow, 195. 
 compulsory pilot is not fellow servant of crew, 99. 
 whether master fellow servant of crew, 99. 
 as between transports in Government service, 67. 
 
 Common Law, 
 
 early actions at, for collision, 2. 
 
 jurisdiction, collision at sea, 198 seq. 
 
 coUision abroad, 200, 203. 
 
 liability of shipowners by, 63 seq. See LiahiUty. 
 
 action at, after proceedings in Admiralty, 293, 295. 
 
 unlimited liability of shipowner at, 146. 
 
 shipowner not liable for fault of compulsory pilot, 214 seq. 
 
 Company, Limited Liability, 
 
 damage by ship of, in liquidation, 79. 
 
 " single -ship " company, damage by ship of, 165. 
 
 Compulsory Pilot, 
 
 meaning of "compulsory," 214, 215. 
 
 compulsion by foreign law, 215, 217. 
 
 is not owner's servant, 214. 
 
 in owner's constant employment, 219. 
 
 owners not liable for fault of, 214, 215. 
 
 quahfied pilot, who is, 225. 
 
 unqualified pilot employed where none qualified available, 
 
 225. 
 absence of qualified pilot must be proved, 226. 
 oversea pilotage licences, 258. 
 pilotage authority is not liable, 93, 215. 
 whether pilot of tow is " in charge of " the tug, 216. 
 effect of the statute, 216. 
 owner's exemption under 6 Geo. 4, c. 1 -J 5. .216. 
 
 under 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60. .216. 
 opinions as to justice, or otherwise, of exemption, 226. 
 
 M.
 
 562 INDEX. 
 
 Compulsory Pilot — continued. 
 
 ship exempt from arrest, for fault of, 217. 
 
 pilotage compulsory on foreign ships, 217. 
 
 abroad, pilotage compulsory, but pilot not in charge, 215, 
 217. 
 
 person " having the care of '' ship, whether pilot is, 219. 
 
 pilotage in the Suez Canal, and elsewhere abroad. 217, 
 241. 
 
 for vessels passing to and from Manchester Ship Canal, 221. 
 
 damage to proiiorty of Thames Conservancy, 218. 
 
 damage to pier, or harbour vrorks, 219. 
 
 owners liable for fault of Thames licensed waterman, 219. 
 
 ,, pilot on board, but whose duty as 
 
 pilot is at an end, 220. 
 
 where relation of master and servant has never arisen, 220. 
 
 ship " proceeding to sea " under the Liverpool Act, 221. 
 
 fault of compulsory pilot, division of loss, 86, 222. 
 
 ,, ,, contributory negli- 
 
 gence, 192, 222, 226, 227. 
 
 division of loss, 129, 222. 
 
 King's ships not subject to compulsory pilotage, 215. 
 
 owner liable for fault of master with pilotage certificate, 
 215. 
 
 pilotage certificate for masters and mates, 215, 246, 255, 
 258. 
 
 change of pilot, 221. 
 
 duty of master as to standing by, pilot in charge, 222. 
 
 owners liable for deficiency of ship or equipment, 228. 
 
 owner's exemption said to be an injustice, 226. 
 
 defence of compulsory pilotage, foreign ship, 206. 
 or where the collision is abroad, 204, 207. 
 
 pilotage compulsory beyond the three mile limit, 207. 
 
 ship under way in improper weather, whether pilot respon- 
 sible, 229, 231, 236. 
 
 qualified pilot superseding unqualified pilot, 226. 
 
 negligence of owners immaterial where pilot could, with 
 ordinary care, have avoided collision, 228. 
 
 contributory negligence of owner or crew, 223, 231. 
 
 divided command, danger of, 171, 174, 229. 
 
 duties of master and crew, 231. 
 
 duties of pilot, 229. 
 
 duty of pilot to insist on having charge, 235. 
 
 interference by master with pilot, 234, 235. 
 
 suggestion not interference, 236. 
 
 intoxication or incompetence of pilot, 234. 
 
 costs See Costs. 
 
 Court may call as witness, where neither side call him, 241. 
 
 pilot below at time of collision, 222, 232. 
 
 relative authority of master and pilot, in law, 229. 
 by the practice of seamen, 239. 
 
 proof of negligence on part of pilot, 222, 224. 
 
 proof of absence of negligence on part of crew, 224.
 
 INDEX, 
 
 563 
 
 CoMPtTLSORY Yi'LOT — confhutefl. 
 
 practice as to calling pilot to prove defence, 225, 290. 
 
 compulsory pilot in charge of tow. See Tug and Tow. 
 
 •where and for what ships it exists, 242 seq. 
 
 general Acts as to, 242. 
 
 general exemptions from, 242, 245. 
 
 pilotage compulsory for all passenger ships, at home, 
 
 243, 257. 
 local Acts, as to, 247 seq. 
 London Trinity House, 253. 
 
 Sweden and Norway, shijis from, to London, 2j56. 
 ships passing through pilotage district, 245. 257. 
 coasters, 244, 256, 257. 
 constant trader, 256, 257. 
 ship in her home port, 244, 245, 257. 
 L^ish traders, 244. 
 
 "trading to," 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 379.. 257. 
 ship calling for orders, 246. 
 
 policy of Acts as to compulsory pilotage, 226, 246. 
 Germany, law of, 241. 
 
 Consolidation of Actions, 97. 
 
 of action in personam with action in rem, 293. 
 
 by different plaintiffs against same defendant, 293. 
 
 conduct in cross-actions, 293. 
 
 Construction, 
 
 of Act limiting liability, 151. 
 of the regulations, 
 
 generally, 320, 333. 
 
 "underway," 333, 340. 
 
 "making way through the water," 346. 
 
 "not under command," Art. 4. .344, 405, 407. 
 
 " fishing with drift nets," Art. 9. .357. 
 
 " when engaged in trawling," Art. 9. .357. 
 
 " at anchor," Art. 11.. 362. 
 
 "aground," Art. 11. .301. 
 
 "proceeding," Art. 20. .404. 
 
 " course and speed," Art. 21 . .411. 
 
 "if nece?sary," Art. 23. .418. 
 
 " fairway or mid-channel," Art. 25. .364, 442. 
 
 "course?' Art. 28.. 468. 
 
 "insight," Art. 28.. 468. 
 
 " authorized or required," Art. 28. .469. 
 of Thames rvdes, decisions as to, 531 seq. 
 of Tees rules, decision as to, 528 seq. 
 
 OoNTRACT 
 
 limitation of liability in contract as well as in tort, 160. 
 of carriage. See Carrier. 
 
 Contractor. Independent, liability of ship for fault of, 81 seq. 
 
 oo2
 
 564 INDEX. 
 
 Contribution. See Average. 
 
 none amongst wrong-doers, 95, 132. 
 
 amongst part-owners, for damages for collision, 95. 
 
 Contributory Negligence, 
 
 common law rule as to, 16 seq. 
 
 of shipowner or crew, compulsory pilot, 223, 231. 
 
 of compulsory pilot, brings into operation rule as to division 
 
 of loss, 129, 222. 
 of compulsory pilot, whether owners affected by, 192, 222, 
 
 227. 
 
 Convenience no excuse for departure from regulations, 465. 
 
 Convoys, special rules as to lights for. Art. 13. .365. 
 
 Co-owners. See Part-owners ; Contribution. 
 
 Costs, 
 
 general rule, 305. 
 
 liability for, beyond amount of statutory liability, 163. 
 
 both ships in fault, 305. 
 
 both ships in fault, compulsory pilot, 305, 307. 
 
 no fault in either ship, inevitable accident, 306. 
 
 arrest of wrong ship, 306. 
 
 violence of crew, costs refused, 307. 
 
 cargo-owner claiming ship sued alone in fault, 307. 
 
 owner of tow suing third ship, 307. 
 
 collision with H.M. ship, 307. 
 
 defence of compulsory pilotage, 308. 
 
 diversity of practice, 308. 
 
 in Court of Appeal, 311. 
 
 of appeal, where judgment below is varied, 311. 312. 
 
 of appeal, where both ships in fault, 310, 311. 
 
 of action for amount below County Court limit, 312. 
 
 of action for limitation of lialilit}^ 309, 312. 
 
 of reference to registrar, 309, 310. 
 
 of counter-claim, where defence of compulsory pilotage, 308. 
 
 of appeal from the registrar, 310. 
 
 of excessive bail, 312. 
 
 appeal from County Court, 312. 
 
 of paying freight into Court, 313. 
 
 of sureties on bail bond, 313. 
 
 of retaining seamen witnesses, 313. 
 
 of defending salvage action arising out of the collision, 110. 
 
 security for costs, 73, 311. 
 
 attendance of country solicitor, 313. 
 
 shorthand notes, 313. 
 
 Counter-claim, 
 
 judgment for balance, both ships in fault, 127, 128, 139. 
 costs, rule as to, where there is, 305. 
 
 County, collision in, 76, 303.
 
 INDEX. 5H5 
 
 CoTOsTY Court, 
 
 cross actions, one in County Court, staj-, 295. 
 
 Admiralty jurisdiction of, 304. 
 
 costs of appeal from, 312. And see Costs. 
 
 CoiTRSE AND Speed. See Keep her Course and Speed. 
 
 Crew, 
 
 sufficiency of, 476. 
 
 Qxe prima facie shipowner's servants, 62, 64. 
 
 common employment, doctrine of, 99. 
 
 whether crew of tug are agents of owner of tow, 174. 
 
 whether master liable for torts of, 62. 
 
 action by, for clothes lost in coUision, 97. 
 
 duties of, when pilot on board, 231. 
 
 remedy of, where the other ship belongs to same owners, 
 
 95, 99. 
 costs of detaining, 110. 
 
 Criminal Liability, 
 
 for collision, 279, 280, 281. 
 
 infringement of regulations is misdemeanour, 280. 
 
 of master where pilot in charge, 280. 
 
 Crossing Ships, 
 
 what are, 329, 397, 400. 
 
 sailing ships crossing, Art. 17. .385. 
 
 steamships crossing. Art. 19. .400. 
 
 in a winding river, 401, 402, 443. 
 
 one may be an "overtaking " ship, 397. 
 
 rounding a buoy or headland, 403, 443. 
 
 where both about to pick up pilot, 403, 463. 
 
 crossing line of traffic, 495. 
 
 where one ship is leaving dock, 403. 
 
 crossing the bows of the other ship, Ai-t. 22. .418. 
 
 Custom, 
 
 conflicting with the Eegulations is bad, 331. 
 customary track in river, 446. 
 
 Damage Lien. See Lien, Damage ; Proceedings in rem. 
 
 Damage to Cargo. See Cargo ; Cargo Owner. 
 
 Damage, Wilful, 15, 28, 31, 65, 84, 211. 
 
 Damages, 
 
 generally, 100 seq. 
 
 wrong-doer liable for reasonable consequences of his ii..gh- 
 
 f)[enco, 100. , , , • i. i 
 
 no difference between comm<m law and Admiralty rulo.s us 
 
 to measure of, 101.
 
 566 INDEX. 
 
 Damages — continued. 
 
 costs of repairs, 101. 
 of dry-docking, 101. 
 
 though unpaid and plaintiff bankrupt, 101. 
 no deduction for new materials in place of old, 101. 
 loss after collision presumably caused by collision, 103. 
 diminished market value of ship sunk by collision, 110. 
 value of shijD, if lost, how estimated, 101, 102. 
 interest on, 102. 
 
 interest added to amount of statutory liability, 102, 163. 
 interest where loss of freight recovered, 102, 109. 
 interest on freight, 109. 
 
 Admiralty practice as to interest in common law and trans- 
 ferred actions, 103. 
 loss of expected salvage, 109. 
 cost of rescuing crew of wrong-doing ship, 110. 
 salvage expenses incurred by reason of collision, 105, 106, 110. 
 demurrage, 111. 
 
 loss of use of ship, no money loss, 111, 112. 
 loss of market, 114. 
 loss of charter-party, 112, 113. 
 loss of fishing voyage, 113. 
 loss of fishing gear, 113. 
 paid to third ship, 126. 
 average charges, 104, 113. 
 anchor sUpped to avoid colKsion, 27, 113, 477. 
 costs of defending salvage action caused by collision, 110. 
 cost of bail in salvage action, 110. 
 
 expense of compulsorily raising sunken ship, 107, 110. 
 expense of detaining crew, 110. 
 
 abandonment of injured ship after collision, 104 — 106. 
 where both ships in fault, 132. And see Division of Loss. 
 loss increased by negligence of plaintifE after collision, 106, 
 
 107. 
 raising ship sunk by collision, 107, 108. 
 not subject to claim for life salvage, 115. 
 beaching, after collision, 106, 107. 
 money paid to wreck-raising authority, 108. 
 plaintiff's negligence influences juries, amount of damages, 
 
 28. 
 contribution for, joint wrongdoers, 95, 132. 
 recoverable upon the contract of carriage. See Carrier. 
 recoverable, though paid by insurers, 115. 
 insurers may recover in name of sellers who have been paid, 
 
 97. 
 remoteness of , 14, 113. 
 
 loss increased by negligence after collision, 108. 
 consequential damages, 109. 
 machinery damaged, subsequent loss, 104. 
 loss of life, 114. 
 
 question of remoteness, for Court or registrar, 302. 
 in excess of res or bail, 296.
 
 INDEX. 567 
 
 Danger of Xavigatiox, whether danger of collision is, 49. 
 
 Dangerous in se, ship not, 36, 68. 
 
 Default, 
 
 of appearance, 81. 
 judgment, 304. 
 
 Demise of Ship, 
 
 liability for collision in case of, 66, 83 seq., 157. 
 what is charter by demise, 157. 
 
 Demurrage, 
 
 recoverable as damages, 111. 
 
 amount of, allowed, 111. 
 
 actual loss must be proved except in case of non-trading 
 
 bodies, 112. 
 recoverable by non-trading body, 111. 
 where two collisions make repairs necessary, 111. 
 
 Deodand, 71, 148. 
 
 Departure from the Regulations. See Infringement, dc. 
 
 language of Art. 27 compared with that of 57 & 58 Vict. 
 
 c. 60, s. 419. .450. 
 convenience no excuse for, 465. 
 burden of proof as to necessity, 413, 463. 
 disabled ship, 463. 
 
 trawler encumbered by trawl, 407, 463. 
 by ship required to keep her course, 413. 
 special circumstances rendering it necessary, 451, 462. 
 when justifiable, 425, 456. 
 
 regulations not to be applied so as to cause collision, 456. 
 dictated by one ship to the other by whistling or hailing, 
 
 5, 467. 
 where compliance is impossible, 461. 
 both ships must obey the regulations, 466. 
 ship not required to endanger herself, 462. 
 cases where departure not justified, 464. 
 where merchantman meets warships, 458. 
 whether departure from Art. 28 justified under Art. 27 . . 466. 
 
 Depositions of ofi&cers and crew, evidence, 289, 290. 
 
 Disabled Ship, 8, 12, 25, 463. 
 
 signals and lights for. Art. 4. .344. 
 by her own fault, 25. 
 
 Discontinuance, effect of, in limitation action, 301. 
 DisiKESs Signals, Art. 31 . .505.
 
 568 INDEX. 
 
 Division of Loss, The Bule as to, 
 generally, 117 seq. 
 
 Lord Stowell's dictum as to, 117, 143. 
 history of the rule in early codes, 118, 133 seq. 
 unequal division by some of the codes, 119, 135. 
 
 and in early English cases, 135. 
 by way of average contribution, 119, 120, 137. 
 peculiarity of English rule, 2. 
 
 its aj)plication to case of both ships in fault, 119, 120. 
 diflRculty of proof a reason for the rule, 119, 137 — 139. 
 its ]3rinciple, 119, 124. 
 policy of the rule, 120. 
 fanciful reasons for it, 120, 121. 
 its injustice in some eases, 121. 
 its history in English law, 119, 135. 
 its partial repeal for a period, 121. 
 formerly applied where neither ship in fault, 119, 135, 142. 
 
 and in case of inscrutable fault, 137, 139, 140. 
 whether these cases are still law, 145. 
 history of the rule since the Judicature Acts, 122 seq. 
 reasons for superseding the common law rule, 122. 
 whether negligence of both must be equal, 21 — 24. 
 its connection with common law rule of contributory neg- 
 ligence, 21 seq. 
 equal division the imiversal rule in England, 123. 
 applies to all collisions, and everywhere, 122. 
 applies to foreign ships, 122, 208. 
 whether lex loci or lex fori, 123. 
 its application where liability is limited, 127 seq. 
 where the fault is that of a compulsory pilot, 129, 222. 
 where collision is between ships of same owner, 130. 
 one ship not under way, 124. 
 
 collision caused by ship not herself in collision, 125, 192. 
 does not apply in action on contract of carriage, 130. 
 it gives and takes away a remedy, 130. 
 cargo owner recovers in tort half only of his loss, 115, 121, 
 
 131. 
 has been applied to claim of pilot in charge, 133. 
 applies where fault is presumed by law, 60, 132. 
 colhsion between tug or tow and third ship, 125, 185, 192. 
 
 or where the ships in collision are not themselves in 
 fault, 125. 
 between tug and tow, both in fault for damage to either, 
 
 185. And see Tug and Tow. 
 where the negligence is by persons on shore, 125. 
 one tug injuring another towing same ship, 194. 
 negligence of one ship causing the collision, negligence of 
 
 the other the loss, 124. 
 does not apply in case of joint wrongdoers, 132. 
 
 nor to claims imder Lord Campbell's Act, 132. 
 
 or where with ordinary care the collision might have 
 been avoided, 15 seq., 133.
 
 INDEX. 569 
 
 Division of Loss, The Eitle as to — continued. 
 American law, 131—133, 189, 193. 
 colonial law, 122. 
 
 Dock, 
 
 coming out of, collision with, ship, 403, 496. 
 
 collision in, 200. 
 
 refusing to move in, 491. 
 
 general rule for in-going vessel to give way, 497. 
 
 DOCKMASTER, 
 
 compulsorily in charge, 90. 
 
 liability of dock-owners for negligence of, 90 seq., 239. 
 
 Dock-owners, 
 
 liability of, for collision, 90 seq. 
 
 duty to remove wreck, 90. 
 
 duty of, to light and buoy sunken ship, 82, 88, 89. 
 
 special limitation of liability, 153. 
 
 Dockyard Ports, 
 
 special rules for, 503. 
 infringement of rules for, 55. 
 
 Dredging, 
 
 ship dredging with her anchor, lights of, 340, 491. 
 lights for oyster-dredgers, 355. 
 in fog, 384, 491. 
 
 Hghts for drifters. Art. 9. .353. 
 when " fishing with drift nets," 357 
 
 Dry-Dock, expense of, after collision, 101. 
 
 Duaib-Barge, 
 
 collision with, 10, 13. 
 under way in fog, 497. 
 
 Eddy Tide causing collision, 423, 492. 
 
 Electricity, regulations apply to ships propelled by machinery, 
 333. 
 
 Employment, Common. See Common Employment. 
 
 " End on, or nearly End on," 
 
 meaning of term, Art. 18. .395, 399. 
 duty of steamships meeting. Art. 18. .395. 
 each ship a little on starboard bow of the other, 399. 
 rule does not apply to ship rounding a point, 399. 
 ,, in the Thames, 400. 
 
 ,, ,, to sailing sliijw, 397.
 
 570 INDEX. 
 
 Equipment. See Ground Tackle ; Steering Gear ; Lights. 
 collision caused by deficient, owner liable, 24, 36. 
 reversing gear clamped, 25. 
 
 collision caused by, is by " improper navigation," 161. 
 compulsory pilotage no defence where collision caused by 
 
 deficient, 228, 232. 
 duty to provide mechanical fog-horn, 366, 370, 371. 
 
 Evidence. See Burden of Proof . 
 rules of, in Admiralty, 289. 
 official, ship's, and engineers' logs, 289. 
 in previous action, 290. 
 judgment in another action, 288. 
 foreign judgment, 213, 289. 
 
 result of inquiry under Merchant Shipping Acts, 289. 
 before other tribun<ils, 289. 
 protest, 289. 
 depositions, 289, 290. 
 coastguard and lighthouse logs, 290. 
 letter of master, 290. 
 statement by seamen and others, 290. 
 interrogatories, answers to, 291. 
 as to questions of seamanship, 292. 
 proof of the regulations, 291, 316. 
 fact of colhsion, whether evidence of negligence, 29. 
 of negligence, when compulsory pilot in charge, 222, 224. 
 as to what is Trinity outport pilotage district, 254. 
 as to calling compulsory pilot as witness, 225, 241, 291. 
 
 Fairway, 
 
 vessel brought up in, 31, 484. 
 meaning of term, 364, 442. 
 
 Fault, statutory presumption of. See Presumption of Fault. 
 
 Ferky Boat, 
 
 must not ply in dense fog, 384. 
 
 bringing up in the track of, 484. 
 
 American cases as to colHsions with, 384, 484. 
 
 Fishermen's Lights. See Fishing Boats ; Lights, Ships' . 
 
 Fishing Boats, 
 
 lights for, Art. 9 . . 353. 
 
 fog- signals for, 355. 
 
 trawler at work, 354—356, 407, 463. 
 
 drift-net fishermen, 353. 
 
 line fishermen, 354. 
 
 sailing ship to keep out of the way of. Art. 26. .450. 
 
 fishing grounds, care when passing through, 489.
 
 INDEX. 571 
 
 Flare, 
 
 to attract attention, Art. 12. .364. 
 
 for fishermen, 355, 358. 
 
 to be shown to overtaking ship, Art. 10. .358. 
 
 Fog, 
 
 what is, within the regulations, 370. 
 
 application of steering and sailing rules in, 372. 
 
 when duty to stop and reverse under Art. 23. .419. 
 
 speed in, Art. 16. .372. 
 
 ferry boats not to ply in dense fog, 384. 
 
 vessel under way unnecessarily in, 236, 377, 384. 
 
 transmission of sound in, 35. 
 
 duty and speed of sailing ship in, 381. 
 
 duty of steamship in, Art. 16. .372. 
 
 when position of other vessel is ascertained, 37« seq. 
 
 what is " navigating with caution," 380. 
 
 duty to stop, 378 — 380. 
 
 dredging with anchor, 384. 
 
 barge under way in, 497. 
 
 running to get out of fog, 377. 
 
 steamship lying dead in the water in, 383. 
 
 alteration of course in, 327, 380. 
 
 no inevitable accident, where speed excessive, 7, 8, 383. 
 
 ship's power of stopping is relevant in, 374. 
 
 Fog-signals, 
 
 Art. 15. .366. 
 
 for ship at anchor, 367. 
 
 for vessels fishing, 355. 
 
 for steamship under way, 367. 
 
 for sailing ship on port or starboard tack, 367. 
 
 with wind aft, 367. 
 steamship stopped, 367. 
 small craft, 367. 
 ship towing, 367. 
 ship in tow, 367. 
 to be sounded when in neighbourhood of fog-bank, 370. 
 
 snow squalls, 370. 
 transmission of sound in fog, 35. 
 mechanical fog-horn must be used, 366, 370. 
 breaking down of, 51, 451. 
 Thames rules as to, 538. 
 ship fast to wharf or shore, 369. 
 
 Foreign Judgment. See Judgment. 
 
 Foreign Law. See America ; France, 8fc. 
 when applicable, 198, 203. 
 in case of collision abroad, 203. 
 
 compulsory pilotage, liability of owners, 207, 217 seq. 
 local rules of navigation, 205, 501. 
 foreign judgment. See JmUjmcnl.
 
 572 INDEX. 
 
 Foreign Ships, 
 
 law applicable to, 198 seq. 
 
 foreign owners, their liability. See Liability ; Owners. 
 
 Admiralty jurisdiction in case of collision between, 199. 
 
 their right to sue in British Court, 199, 200. 
 
 arrest of, for injury to property of British subject, 201. 
 
 pilotage compulsory for foreign ships, 207, 217. 
 
 limitation of liability, 152, 154, 155. See Limitation of 
 
 Liability. 
 division of loss, rule applies to, 122, 208. 
 tonnage of, for calculating liability, 152 seq. 
 defence of compulsory pilotage available for, 204, 206. 
 criminal liability for reckless navigation of, 280. 
 appHcation of the regulations to, 320. 
 infringement of regulations by, 59, 205. 
 liable for not standing by, 59, 206. 
 have benefit of limitation of liability, 207. 
 British local rules of navigation bind, 205. 
 liability of, for negligence, 201, 203. 
 rule of the road for, 204. 
 
 statutory rules as to presumption of fault, 59, 205, 316. 
 ship of foreign sovereign, 209. See Sovereign., Foreign. 
 ships of war and public ships not liable to arrest, 209. 
 duty of, to assist other ship in collision, 205. 
 rule as to division of loss applies to, 122, 208. 
 Lord Campbell's Act, 210. 
 
 Foul Berth, 478, 481, 482. 
 
 France, Law of, 
 
 insurers' liability in case of collision, 272. 
 liability for negligence, 203. 
 compulsory pilotage, 218. 
 
 Free. See Running Free. 
 
 Freight, 
 
 damage lien attaches to, 75. 
 
 liability of cargo to arrest, for payment of, 75. 
 
 loss of, recoverable as damages, 102, 109. 
 
 Germany, Law of, non-liability for act of compulsory pilot, 241. 
 
 Getting under Way, 485. 
 
 Going about, 
 
 rule as to beating out tack, 416, 488. 
 
 sailing ship must not embarrass steamship by, 409. 
 
 care to be used before, 409, 486. 
 
 missing stays, 487. 
 
 duty to keep clear clear of ship in stays, 30, 486. 
 
 two ships on the same tack beating to windward, 438, 487. 
 
 ship in stays, 486, 488.
 
 INDEX. 573 
 
 GovERNiTEXT, SniP BELONGING TO. See Soverei(fu, Foreign. 
 liability in case of damage by, 94. 
 not subject to arvest, 94, 209. 
 foreign public ship, damage by, '209. 
 
 Ground Tackle, 
 
 insufficiency of, 9, 93, 481. 
 
 compulsory pilotage no defence in case of deficient, 228. 
 
 Hailing, from the other ship, departing from regulations, 5. 
 
 Harbour Authority, 
 
 liability for fault of harbour master, 90, 235, 239. 
 
 unlicensed pilot employed by, 215. 
 duty of, to remove wrecks, 88, 90. 
 
 and to light and buoy sunken ship, 82, 88. 
 
 are to see berth in proper condition, 90. 
 liability for collision, 90, 239. 
 action against, limit of time, 93, 295. 
 special limitation of liability, 153. 
 may recover demurrage though not working for gain. 111. 
 
 Helm, 
 
 verbal orders to, anomalous character of, 396. 
 
 orders by hand, variety of practice, 396. 
 
 pilot liable for orders to, 230. 
 
 owner liable, for carr^dng out pilot's orders to, 232, 233. 
 
 action of, with propeller reversing, 433, 434. 
 
 rule of port helm. See Port Flelm. 
 
 to be assisted by starting sheets and braces, 383, 471. 
 
 signals. Art. 28. .467. 
 
 lashed, 414. 
 
 HOLL.A.ND, Law of, limitation of liability introduced from, 148. 
 
 HovE-TO, Ship, 
 
 ship hove-to, must comply with steering rules, 390. 
 
 steamship hove-to, 404. 
 
 is luider way, within meaning of the regulations, 345. 
 
 whether she is not under command within Art. 4. .344, 390. 
 
 whether negligence to lie-to in track of ships, 39 1 . 
 
 duty to get way on, where risk of collision, 392, 413. 
 
 how to " keep her course," 413. 
 
 HuMBER, local rules of navigation for, 521. 
 
 Ice, 
 
 where vessel hindered by, inevitable accident, 1 1 . 
 
 Identification of Wronq-doixq Ship, 298.
 
 574 INDEX. 
 
 "Immediate Danger," departing from regulations to avoid, 
 Art. 27. .450. 
 
 " Improper Navigation," 
 
 meaning of the term in statute limiting liability, 161. 
 damage by ship being launched is, 162. 
 collision by defective steering gear is by, 162. 
 injury by tug to tow is by, 162. 
 
 In rem. See Proceedings in rem ; Lien, Damage ; Action. 
 
 Independent Contractor, 
 
 liability of ship for fault of, 89 seq. 
 
 liability for negligence of, not raising sunken ship, 89. 
 
 doctrine does not apply in action in rem, 82. 
 
 Inevitable Accident, 
 
 meaning of the expression, 6. 
 
 act of God, casus for tuitus, 6. 
 
 burden of proving, 7. 
 
 instances of, 8. 
 
 American eases as to, 11. 
 
 ship disabled or im.manageable, 8. 
 
 defence of, cannot be sustained where speed excessive, 383. 
 
 craft driving with the tide, 10, 13, 497. 
 
 fault of one ship causing collision between others, 8. 
 
 cable or moorings parting, 9. 
 
 jamming of cable, 9. 
 
 steering gear giving way through latent defect, 9, 31, 162. 
 
 not letting go anchor in time, 9, 10. 
 
 ship driving over sand, 10. 
 
 dense fog, 10. See Fog. 
 
 violent storm, 9. 
 
 ice, 11. 
 
 combination of circumstances, 10. 
 
 whether rule of division of loss applies to, 142, 145. 
 
 costs in case of. See Costs. 
 
 Infringement of the Eegulations. See Presumption of Fault. 
 history of law as to, 38 seq. 
 is a misdemeanor, 280. 
 presumption of fault arising from, 38 seq. 
 whether breach of Art. 27 is, 54, 458. 
 improper speed in thick weather. Art. 16. .372. 
 not using mechanical fog-horn, 370. 
 improper lights, 42, 51, 335 seq. 
 breaking down of fog-horn, 51. 
 
 failure to indicate movements by whistle signals, 43. 
 breach of Art. 28 is infringement even whei-e course not 
 
 required by rules, 469. 
 mouth, instead of mechanical, fog-horn, 44, 370. 
 improper screens, 45. 
 
 local rules, what rules are within the penalty, 55. 
 regulation infringed must be material to the case, 45.
 
 INDEX. 575 
 
 Infringement of the Regulations — continued. 
 what amounts to infringement, 46, 51. 
 reasonable compliance required, 51, 341. 
 there must be an opportunity of compliance, 46. 
 mere neghgence, bad seamanship, 54, 462, 471. 
 failure to stop and reverse, 46 seq. : and see Art. 23^ 
 whether there can be, where collision is inevitable. 52. 
 owners liable where ship deemed to be in fault, 60. 
 whether the sea regulations can be infringed in a river, 56. 
 infringement in the agony of collision, 3, 46 scq., 53. 
 in consequence of previous negligence, 53. 
 whether tug liable for infringement by tow, 54. 
 foreign ships within the penalty, 59, 205. 
 infringement must be pleaded, 287. 
 American law, 60, n. 
 
 Injury to Person, 
 
 detention of foreign ship for, 201. 
 liability for, 97. 
 
 Inscrutable Fault, 
 
 whether loss divided in case of, 2, 119, 138 seq. 
 
 Inspeciion, 
 
 power of Admiralty Division to order, 291. 
 exercised, refused, 292, 343. 
 
 Insurance, 
 
 collision with reference to, 271 seq. 
 where collision is without fault in either ship, 271. 
 by fault of the other ship, 271. 
 insured ship, 272. 
 both ships, 271. 
 demurrage expenses caused by collision, 272. 
 the running-down clause in a policy, 272. 
 insurance against negligence not illegal, 276. 
 
 nor against risks beyond statutory liabihty, 165. 
 loss after termination of voyage insured, 276. 
 damages paid by tow for damage by tug, insurers liable, 
 
 170. 
 cost of raising wreck, 273. 
 insurers of tow liable for damage by tug, 274. 
 damage by sunken ship, 274. 
 insurers subrogated to rights of assured. 276. 
 insurers may sue in name of sellers who have been paid, 97. 
 assured recovering damages is trustee for insurer, 2.7. 
 sufferer by collision may recover, notwithstanding compen- 
 sation received from insurer, 115, 27K. 
 insurer (cannot recover where assured could not, 27 S. 
 collision between two 8hii)8 of same owners, 278. 
 no average contribution for collisifm, 279. 
 division ol loss, 129. 
 insurers sue in name of assured, 98.
 
 576 INDEX. 
 
 Interest, 
 
 on damages added to amount of statutory liability, 102, 109, 
 
 163. And see Damages. 
 principles on which interest allowed, 102. 
 Admiralty practice as to, 103. 
 
 International Convention, draft convention, 548. 
 
 Interrogatories, 291. 
 
 Jamming of Cable, 9. 
 
 Jettison after colKsion, 105. 
 
 Joinder of co-defendants, 298. 
 
 Judgment, 
 
 not admissible as evidence, 213, 289. 
 
 whether it can be pleaded, 289. 
 
 foreign, whether enforceable in Admiralty, 211. 
 
 res judicata, plea of, 211, 289. 
 
 for balance, where both ships in fault, 128. 
 
 in perso7iani bar to action in rem, 213. 
 
 by default, ship not arrested, 304. 
 
 Judicature Act, rule of division of loss, 122. 
 
 Jurisdiction, 
 
 of common law Courts for collision on high seas, 200. 
 for collision in foreign country, 200, 201, 204. 
 where plaintiff and defendant are aliens, 199. 
 Admiralty. See Admiralty Jurisdiction. 
 criminal, for collision, 280. 
 collision with pier abroad, 201, 204. 
 
 Jury, 
 
 assessment of damages by. Lord Campbell's Act, 302. 
 full damages, not given by, where fault in plaintiff, 28. 
 narrow channel, whether question for, 445. 
 
 Keep her Course and Speed, 
 
 duty to act under Art. 21, note, 421. 
 
 such action must not be premature, 417. 
 
 duty of ship to, Art. 21 . .409. 
 
 meaning of expression, 388, 411. 
 
 ship rounding a point, 411. 
 
 duty of one of two crossing steamships to. Art. 19. .400. 
 
 duty where two ships are approaching pilot cutter, 411, 465. 
 
 duty of sailing ship to, approaching steamship, Art. 20. .404.
 
 INDEX. 577 
 
 Keep her CorRSE axd Speed — confhuied. 
 
 duty of overtaken sliip to, Art. '24. .437, 440. 
 ship by the wind may luff a little, 388, 414. 
 how ship hove-to is to, 413. 
 
 reefing, 392. 
 duty of vessel rounding- point. 411. 
 dutv of vessels in winding: rivers, 411. 
 duty of merchantman meeting warships, 458 seq. 
 
 Keep out of the Way, 
 
 how a ship is to. Art. 22. .418. 
 
 must not cross the other ship's bows, 387, 418. 
 
 presumption against ship whose duty is to, 34. 
 
 trawler with trawl down, 407, 408. 
 
 ship h'ing with engines stopped, 404. 
 
 duty of merchantman meeting warships, 458 seq. 
 
 duty of vessel not under command, 346. 
 
 King's Ship, 
 
 collision with, liability, 62, 63, 94, 458. 
 
 whether bound by regulations, 59 ; Art. 13. .366. 
 
 responsibility of captain, with pilot on board, 239. 
 
 ship chartered by government, 67. 
 
 statutory presumption of fault, whether it applies, 59. 
 
 not subject to compulsory pilotage, 215. 
 
 whether duty to keep out of way of, 458. 
 
 Landing Stage, collision with, 1, 77. 
 
 Launch, 
 
 special precautions at, 498 seq. 
 
 liability for damage by unregistered, 153, 158. 
 
 damage by, is " by improper navigation," 162. 
 
 rule as to division of loss applies in case of damage at, 125. 
 
 damage by, limitation of liability, 162. 
 
 Law. See Foreign Law ; Common Law ; Maritime Law ; 
 Atnerican Law. 
 
 Laying-to. See Hove-to. 
 
 Lex Fori, 
 
 rule as to application of, 199. 
 
 claimants against ship rank according to, 204. 
 
 compulsory pilotage, non-liability of owners, 204, 206, 215. 
 
 statutory rules as to presumption of fault are, 59, 200. 
 
 whether limitation of liability is, 207, 208. 
 
 whether rule as to division of loss is, 208. 
 
 Lex Loci, 
 
 rule as to application of, 198. 
 
 liability for negligence of agents, collision abroad, 202, 203. 
 
 whether limitation of liability is, 206, 207. 
 
 whether rule of division of loss is, 123, 208. 
 
 M. I" 1'
 
 578 INDEX. 
 
 Liability. See Harbour Authority ; Doch-owners. 
 none created by mere fact of collision, 1 . 
 of actual wrong-doer, 62, 67. 
 of master, 62. 
 
 when pilot on board, 214 sey., 231, 239. 
 of pilot, 62. And see Compulsory Pilot. 
 of shipowner for negligence of officers and crew, 63. 
 of salvor, 11, 12, 65, 195. 
 of charterer, 66, 69. 
 as between charterer and owner, 70, 
 of Trinity pilot, 164. 
 
 of owner where ship is demised, or under charter, 66 — 68. 
 of underwriters. See Insurance. 
 of owners of sunken ship, 87. 
 by civil law, 63. 
 
 damage to pier or harbour works, 68, 201. 
 of persons other than shipowner, 69. 
 
 of ship in Admiralty, as distinguished from owner, 70, 81. 
 American law on this point, 85. 
 
 of pilotage authority for pilot's negligence, 93, 215. 
 in case of damage by King's ship, 62, 63, 94. 
 by foreign public ship, 94. 
 
 of foreign ship for negligence of crew, 202, 203. 
 cargo-owner not liable, 75, 94. 
 for servants acting as volunteers, 64. 
 of part owners, 95. 
 joint wrong-doers, 95. 
 
 in case of collision by fault of a third ship, 27. 
 mere ownership creates none, 64. 
 collision between ships of same owner, 95, 99, 267. 
 as between co-owners, 95. 
 respective liabilities of tug and tow. See Tug and Tote. 
 
 of shipowner to charterer, collision by fault of crew, 270. 
 no average contribution for collision, 279, 283. 
 
 of owner for injury to pilot by fault of crew, 99. 
 
 of foreign sovereign, 209. 
 
 of freight, in action in rem, 75. 
 
 limitation of. See Limitation of Liability. 
 
 unlimited, cases of, 69, 157, 158, 163. 
 
 for loss of life or personal injury. See Loss of Life ; Injury 
 to Person. 
 
 of wrong-doer, though claimant insured, 115, 278. 
 
 for interest and costs beyond statutory amount, 163. 
 
 at common law for damage at sea, 200. 
 
 for collision abroad, 86, 200, 203. 
 
 where both ships in fault, 117 seq. See Division of Loss. 
 
 foreign law as to. See Foreign Laic. 
 
 where no fault in either ship. See Inevitable Accident. 
 
 of unregistered British ship. 158. 
 
 by the maritime law, 86, 202. 
 
 for wilful injury, 15, 28, 65, 84. 
 
 for negligence. See Negligence.
 
 INDEX. 579 
 
 Liability — continued. 
 
 of wrong-doer to indemnify employer, 69. 
 
 for fault of compulsory pilot. See Compulsory Pilot. 
 
 parting of moorings, 9, 93. 
 
 infringement of the regidations. See Presumption of Fault. 
 
 collision with lightship, 115, 164, 284. 
 
 for damage by a launch, 153, 158, 162. 
 
 by sunken ship, 87. 
 
 by ship abandoned, 87. 
 
 LiCEjrcE, Pilot's, masters' certificate, ships of same owners, 215. 
 
 Lien, Damage, 
 
 generally, 73 seq. 
 
 damage to pier or harbour works, 68, 76, 77, 78. 
 
 damage to or by a barge, 78. 
 
 collision in body of a county, 76. 
 
 where jurisdiction in Admiralty by statute, 76. 
 
 indelible character of, 74. 
 
 whether it attaches where no collision, 76. 
 
 none, for loss of life or personal injury, 1 14, 132, 210. 
 
 not founded on noxal action or deodand, 71. 
 
 none for damage by carrier to cargo, 76. 
 
 to what it attaches, 75. 
 
 cargo not subject to, 75, 271. 
 
 except to compel payment of freight, 75. 
 
 it attaches to freight, 75. 
 
 and to ship's tackle and equipment, 75. 
 liability of ship and owners, how far concurrent, 70 seq. 
 remains after death or bankruptcy of shipowner, 74, 79, 81. 
 not barred by Statute of Limitations, 74, 81. 
 priority of liens, 78. 
 
 takes precedence of liens arising from contract, 78. 
 postponed to subsequent salvage lien, 78. 
 where two or more actions for same collision, 78, 79. 
 where ship owned by company in liquidation, 74, 79. 
 discharge of, 79, 81. 
 assignment of, 80. 
 laches in enforcing, 74, 81. 
 American law as to, 85. 
 
 Life, Loss oe. See Loss of Life. 
 
 Life Salvage, damages not subject to claim for, 115. 
 
 Lightship, 
 
 penalty for injuring, 115, 164, 284. 
 
 limitation of liability in case of collision with, 164. 
 
 riding by, 486. 
 
 Lights, Ships', 
 
 range of, 334, 343. 
 rules concerning, 334 seq. 
 powers to enforce, 338. 
 
 pp2
 
 580 INDEX. 
 
 Lights, Ships' — continued. 
 
 must be obeyed with reasonable strictness, 51, 341, 842. 
 
 ■whether obligation to carry, by the maritime law, 334, 362. 
 
 clear night no excuse for absence of, 337. 
 
 other than regulation lights not allowed, 335, 336. 
 
 except in exceptional cases, 336. 
 
 fisherman's flare, 355, 358. 
 
 sunken ships, duty to light, 335. 
 
 if lost, must be replaced, 335. 
 
 lost in previous collision, 25, 336. 
 
 must be carried in positions required by law, 336, 341. 
 
 ship with improper lights may be stopped. 338. 
 
 taken down to be trimmed, no excuse, 336. 
 
 riding lights, Art. 11. .361. 
 
 side lights, Art. 2, Art. 5. .339, 348. 
 
 carried in the rigging, 52. 
 
 mast-head light for steamships, 338. 
 
 wrong or misleading lights, 48, 336. 
 
 spare lights, 336. 
 
 ship ashore, duty to light, 82, 88, 335. 
 
 obscuration of lights, 336, 342, 363, 383. 
 
 screening, 339, 342. 
 
 infringement of regulations as to, 42 seq., 51, 54, 341. 
 
 must be carried from sunset to sunrise, 334, 337. 
 
 punishment for not carrying, 338. 
 
 special lights required by local rules, 337. 
 
 shipowner responsible for proper lights being carried, 338. 
 
 for steamships under way, Art. 2. .338. 
 
 range lights for, 338. 
 ship dredging stern foremost, 340. 
 Board of Trade instructions as to, 341. 
 screens, infringement of regulations as to, 341, 342. 
 inspection of, hy Court, 343. 
 for ships under convoj^. Art. 13. .365. 
 for ships not under command. Art. 4. .344. 
 for ship at anchor, Art. 11 . .361. 
 for sailing ships, 348. 
 for sailing ship hove-to, 348. 
 for men-of-war. Art. 13. .365. 
 for telegraph ships, 317, 344. 
 for steamships towing. Art. 3. .343. 
 for sailing ship towing, 344. 
 for any ship in tow. Art. 5. .348. 
 for steamship under sail. Art. 14. .366. 
 for ship ashore. Art. 11 . .361. 
 for overtaken ship, Art. 10. .358. 
 for dredgers in the Clyde, Thames, 520, 538. 
 for sailing ships, Art. 6. .348. 
 for fishing boats. Art. 9. .353 seq. 
 riding to nets, 355. 
 line fishermen, 354. 
 for trawlers, 354 seq.
 
 INDEX. 581 
 
 Lights, Ships* — contintied. 
 
 trawler with gear fast, 355. 
 
 flare or detonating signal, Art. 12. .364. 
 
 fishermen may use flare, 355, 358. 
 
 for pilot boats, Art. 8 . . 350. 
 
 ship driving fi-om her anchors, 347. 
 
 for boats and small craft, Art. 6. .348 ; Art. 9. .353. 
 
 when they cannot be carried for bad weather, 348. 
 
 ship moored to buoy or wharf, 363. 
 
 stern light for overtaken ship, Art. 10. .358. 
 
 how to be carried, 359. 
 
 sometimes indicate direction of ship's head, but not her 
 
 course over the ground, 398. 
 burden of proof as to, 30, 37. 
 local rules as to. See Humber. Mersey, Thames, ^-c. Rules, 
 
 in Appendix. 
 
 Limitation of Liability, 
 
 none by maritime or by Eoman law, 146, 147. 
 depends upon statute, 149. 
 based on j^rotection, 150. 
 
 liability on master's contracts, foreign law, 148. 
 analogy of noxal action, 148. 
 deodand, 71, 148. 
 connection between limitation of liability and division of 
 
 loss, 148. 
 connected with liability of ship to arrest, 149. 
 history in English law, 149. 
 
 the existing law, 57 & 58 7ict. c. 60, s. 503. .152, 153. 
 what owners are entitled to, 157, 158, 163. 
 charterers by demise may limit, 157. 
 justice of the Acts questioned, 151._ 
 applies to all ships, and in all waters, 155. 
 excluded by contract, 156. 
 assessment of damages before limitation action not binding, 
 
 166. 
 foreign ships' tonnage, how calculated, 153, 154. 
 deduction of crew spaces, 152, 156, 157. 
 double bottom, 154. 
 
 steamships' tonnage, how calculated, 152. See Tonnaye. 
 register not conclusive as to tonnage, 156. 
 tug and tow, measure of liability, 126, 160, 195. See Ttiy 
 
 and Tow. 
 successive actions by cargo-owners and shipowners, 301. 
 unregistered British ships not entitled to, 158. 
 except as provided by statute, 153, 157. 
 ship, foreign at date of collision, purchased by liritish 
 
 subject, 159. 
 what ships entitled to, 158. 
 
 limit of liability whore more than one collision, 160. 
 without actual fault or privity, moaning of, 157, 162. 
 co-owners, one in fault, 158.
 
 582 INDEX. 
 
 Limitation of Liability — continued. 
 
 owners not discharged by sinking of ship, 161. 
 
 Lord Campbell's Act, damages recoverable under, 161. 
 
 loss of life, amount recoverable, 152, 161. 
 
 improper navigation, meaning of term, 161 seq. 
 
 injury to tow by tug, 162, 179, 194. 
 
 injury by a launch, 159, 162. 
 
 shipowner liable for interest in addition to, 163. 
 
 shipowner liable for costs in addition, 163. 
 
 wrong- doer not purged by payment of statutorj^ liability, 
 
 163. 
 applies to injury to craft, persons, or goods afloat, 163. 
 passengers' luggage, 164. 
 limitation of liability for damage to property and rights 
 
 ashore, 153. 
 special limitation of liability of dock, &c. authorities, 153. 
 railway company carrying in ship of other owners, 164. 
 liability of owner navigating own ship is unlimited, 158, 164. 
 
 Trinity House pilot, 165. 
 
 actual wrong-doer unlimited, 157. 
 
 single ship company, 165. 
 liability for damage to lightship, 164. 
 as against Crown, 164, 166. 
 does not affect liability of cargo to arrest, 164. 
 combined with rule as to division of loss, 128, 165. 
 insurance against risks beyond, 165. 
 its policy discussed, 151. 
 
 owners entitled to, in contract as well as tort, 160. 
 whether lex fori, 207, 208. 
 foreign ships under old law, 207. 
 priorities of claimants, 165. 
 some claims settled or paid, 166. 
 proof by Crown, 166. 
 
 holder of bottomry bond on freight, 166. 
 
 Limitation of Liability, Action fob, 299. 
 
 may be claimed by defence or counterclaim, 299. 
 
 costs of limitation action, 300. 
 
 evidence by affidavit, 300. 
 
 whether liability must be admitted, 300. 
 
 cargo owner, issue whether one or both ships in fault, 300. 
 
 transfer of action after judgment limiting liability, 300. 
 
 proof against fund in Court, estoj^pel, 301. 
 
 payment out of Court, unappropriated balance, 300. 
 
 Limitation, Statutes of, do not bar damage lien, 74. 
 
 Lis alibi pendens, 211. 
 
 Liverpool, 
 
 compulsory pilotage, 221, 252. 
 local rules for Mersey river, 524. 
 
 sea channels, 524.
 
 INDEX. 583 
 
 Local Etjles of Navigation, 
 power to make, 504. 
 saving clause as to. Art. 30. .501. 
 ignorance of, no excuse, 502. 
 
 where inconsistent with the sea regulations, 318, 503. 
 foreign ships bound by, 205. 
 in foreign waters, 205. 
 
 applicable in conjunction with sea regulations, 55, 318, 504. 
 in dockyard ports, 503. 
 
 customary track in winding rivers, 446. And see Jiiver. 
 practice inconsistent with the sea regulations not good, 331. 
 effect of, upon question of negligence, 501, 502. 
 the penalty, infringement of, whether witliin, 55. 
 for American inland waters, 318. 
 the Clvde, 519. 
 the Humber, 521. 
 Manchester ship canal, 523. 
 
 Mersey river and sea channels, 524. 
 
 Tees, 528. 
 
 Suez Canal, 528. 
 
 Thames, 531. 
 
 Tyne, 544. 
 
 Log, 
 
 ship's log evidence against, but not for, the ship, 289. 
 
 though the mate dies after collision, 289. 
 official log, 289. 
 coastguard, lighthouse, and lightship, 290. 
 
 London Trinity House, 
 
 compulsory pilotage, 245, 253 seq. 
 
 pilotage districts of, 254. 
 
 outport districts, 254. 
 
 evidence as to what is an outport district of, 255. 
 
 exempt ships, 255. 
 
 oversea licences, 258. 
 
 pilotage certificates, masters and mates, 246, 255, 257. 
 
 Look-out, 
 
 duty as to, generally, 471. 
 
 astern, 360, 473. 
 
 not to be employed on other duty, 472. 
 
 glasses, 474. 
 
 station for, 472, 475. 
 
 absence of, not causing collision, 476. 
 
 anchor watch, 472. 
 
 craft moored to shore, 474. 
 
 what is sufficient, 472. 
 
 American cases as to, 474. 
 
 duty of tug and tow to keep, 187, 190, 473. 
 
 when pilot on board, 231, 234. 
 
 ship moored to shore, 474. 
 
 LoED Campbell's Act. See CainjybelCa Act, Lord.
 
 584 INDEX. 
 
 Loss, UivisiON OF. See Division of Loss. 
 
 Loss OF Life. See CamphelV s Act, Lord. 
 limit of liability in case of, 152, 161. 
 criminal liability for, 279. 
 
 priorities of life claimants, limited liability, 165. 
 damages for, 114. 
 
 Luffing, 388, 390. 
 
 Lying-to. See Hove-to. 
 
 Mail Ships, 
 
 speed of, 377. 
 
 arrest of, Mail Ships Act, 210. 
 
 Man-of-War. See King^s Ship. 
 
 Manchester Ship Canal, 
 local rules, 523. 
 
 pilotage compulsory while waiting for tide to get into, 221. 
 
 and for vessels passing to and from 
 entrance to, 221. 
 collision regulations do not apply in, 316. 
 bye-laws not confirmed, 523. 
 
 Maritime Law, 
 
 existence of, questioned, 146. 
 
 division of loss, whether a rule of, 117 seq. 
 
 no limitation of liability by, 146. 
 
 overtaking sliip to keep out of the way, 437. 
 
 the regulations for preventing collisions are part of, 321. 
 
 as to ships' lights, 334, 362. 
 
 liability for negligence by, 86, 202. 
 
 liability of shipowner, 202. 
 
 division of loss. See Division of Loss. 
 
 Maritime Lien, See Lien, Damage. 
 
 Master, 
 
 duties of, when pilot in charge, 231. 
 
 relative authorities of master and pilot, in law, 229, 239. 
 
 liability for acts of crew, 62. 
 
 for acts of pilot, 239. 
 
 as carrier, 270. 
 formerly sued, with the ship, 63, n. 
 
 for neglecting to carry lights, 338. 
 whether fellow servant of crew, 99. 
 duty of, with regard to cargo injured by collision, 106. 
 
 as to standing by to assist, after colhsion, 57. 
 co-owner, limitation of liabihty, 158. 
 having pilotage certificate, owner's liability, 215, 246. 
 pilotage certificates granted to British and foreign, 246, 258.
 
 INDEX. 585 
 
 Measure of Damages. See Damages. 
 
 Meeting Steamships, 
 
 rule for, Art. 18. .395. 
 
 distinguished from "crossing" and "overtaking" ships, 397. 
 " end on, or nearly end on," meaning of the term, 395, 399. 
 in a winding river, what are, 400, 445. 
 
 Mersey, 
 
 pilotage in, 221, 252. 
 
 local rules for the river and approaches, 524. 
 launch in, special precautions for, 498. 
 effect of infringement of local rules, 55. 
 
 Mid-channel, meaning of the term in Art. 25. .442. 
 
 Misdemeanor. See Criminal LiabiJity. 
 endangering life or ship, 280. 
 infringing the regulations, 280. 
 not standing by to assist, 58. 
 neglect to carry lights, 338. 
 navigating on wrong side, 441. 
 injuring lightship, 284. 
 
 Misleading, 
 
 by hailing or whistling, 5 n., 467. 
 by improper lights, 5, 43, 48, 51, 336. 
 
 as between tug, tow, and third ship, 54. 
 
 Moorings, 
 
 parting of, 9, 25, 93. 
 
 insufficiency of, in dock, penalty for, 481. 
 ship at, to carry riding light, 361, 363. 
 making fast to other craft, 483, 486. 
 when required, 480. 
 
 Mud, 
 
 vessel dragging through mud is under command, 345. 
 whether vessel reversing propeller to clear mud must 
 whistle, 469. 
 
 Narrow Channel, 
 
 meaning of expression, 441. 
 
 starboard side rule, Art. 25. .440. 
 
 under former Acts, 440. 
 
 what is the " fairway," 442. 
 
 whether for judge or jury to say, 445. 
 
 navigation of a winding river, 326, 4-15, 446, 49(1. 
 
 consequence of infringement of starboard side rulo in, 111 
 
 passing a ship ahead in, 11, 440, 495. 
 
 application of crossing rule in, 443, 444. 
 
 turning to windward in, 438, 488.
 
 586 INDEX. 
 
 Narrow Channel — continued. 
 speed in, 498. 
 raising swell in, 498. 
 duty of vessel entering, 443, 444. 
 system of buoyage in, 449. 
 
 "Navigation, Improper." See Improper Navigation. 
 
 Navigation, Rules of. See Regulations ; Local Rules. 
 
 Navy, 
 
 collision with King's ship, liability, 62, 63, 94. And see 
 
 King^s Ship. 
 position and authority of pilot in, 239. 
 . ships of, whether bound by the regulations, 59, 366. 
 
 Negligence, 
 
 generally, 1 seq. 
 defined, 2 seq. 
 
 may consist of breach of regulation or of good seaman- 
 ship, 3. 
 is the same at law and in Admiralty, 15. 
 a wrong step taken in the agony of collision is not, 3. 
 careless management of thing likely to do damage, 36, 68. 
 causing collision, 12. 
 collateral, not causing the loss, 20, 24. 
 defective equipment, 24, 36, 162, 228. 
 causing the loss but not the collision, 13. 
 causa proxima non remota spectatur, 14. 
 in one ship does not excuse the other, 5, 466. 
 causing a collision which makes a second inevitable, 25. 
 of one ship causing a collision between others, 25 — 27. 
 after collision, 101, 104. 
 non-compliance with the regulations is, 5, 321. 
 
 or with local rules of navigation, 501. 
 presumed by law. See Presumption of Fault ; Infringement 
 
 of Regulations ; Standing By. 
 stress of weather, excuse of, 492. 
 unnecessary alteration in the course, 28. 
 proof of negligence, 29 seq. 
 
 burden of proof, 29. 
 
 on part of compulsory pilot, 222, 224. 
 
 failure to hear fog- signal, 35. 
 
 what i% prima facie proof of, 29. 
 
 whether plaintiff must prove absence of contributory, 
 31. 
 at a launch, 3, 162, 498. 
 in a salvor, 11, 12, 65. 
 in a tug, 12. See Tug atid Tow. 
 whether negligence to heave-to in track of ships, 391. 
 contributory negligence, 16 seq. 
 
 whether negligence of compulsory pilot is, so as to afi'ect the 
 owners, 191, 192, 222, 226.
 
 INDEX. 587 
 
 Negligence — contimied. 
 
 where pilot's negligence aft'ects the ship, 'lA, 'Jlili, 226. 
 where with ordinary tare the collision might have been 
 
 avoided, notwithstanding negligence in the other ship, 
 
 18 seq. 
 negligent act causing loss by reason of act of third party, 
 
 15. 
 cases of equal negligence in both ships, 22. 
 collateral negligence intiuences juries, 28. 
 wilful injury, 28, 65, 111. 
 legal consequences of, by maritime law. 202. 
 consequences of, not got rid of by payment of amount of 
 
 statutory liability, 163. 
 rule as to division of loss does not affect question what is 
 
 negligence, 17 seq., 133. 
 insurance against, not illegal, 275. 
 as to sunken ships, 87 seq. 
 
 Netherlands, Law of. See Holland. 
 
 NoxAL Action, analogy between, and law as to damage lieu and 
 limitation of liability, 71, 1 18. 
 
 Nuisance, 
 
 ship brought up in fairway, 31, 477. 
 
 ship sunk in fairway, duty to buoy and light, 88. 
 
 OusE, River (Humber), rules, 514. 
 
 OVERTA.KEN ShIP, 
 
 what is, 360, 400, 435. 
 
 duty of, to show light astern. Art. 10. .358. 
 
 duty of. to keep her course, Art. 21 . .409. 
 
 "crossing" ship may be, 401. 
 
 is not " approaching " the other within Art. 23. .431. 
 
 Overtaking Ship, 
 
 duty of, to keep out of the way. Art. 24. .435. 
 
 is a rule of maritime law, 436. 
 
 may be a "crossing" ship, 401. 
 
 what is an, 401, 435. 
 
 sailing ship overtaking steamship or sailing si up, 435, 437. 
 
 must be going faster tlian sliip ahead, 437. 
 
 cases illustrating Art. 24 . .438. 
 
 passing another in a narrow channel, 438. 
 
 ships plying to windward in company, 438, l.J'J. 
 
 Owner of Cargo. See Caryo Owner ; Carrier.
 
 588 INDEX. 
 
 Owners of Ship, 
 
 liability of. See Liability. 
 
 at coDiinon law, 63. 
 
 by maritime law, 86, 202. 
 
 by Roman law, 62, n. 
 of abandoned ship, their liability for damage by, 87. 
 whether liable for wilful and criminal acts of crew, 28, 65. 
 not liable for negligence of compulsory pilot, 214, 215. And 
 
 see Comjmlsori/ Pilot. 
 how affected by fault of compulsory pilot, 24, 222, 226. 
 not liable qua owners, 64. 
 prima facie liable as employers of crew, 64. 
 liable for acts of crew within scope of their employment, 64. 
 resident abroad, liability of, 201. 
 of foreign ship. See Foreign Ship. 
 service of writ on foreign, 285. 
 foreign. See Foreign Laiv ; Foreign Ship. 
 foreign liable for infringement of the regulations, 59, 205. 
 foreign, defence of compulsory pilotage, 204, 206. 
 foreign, whether liable for not standing by, 205. 
 unregistered, liability of, 64, 153, 158. 
 unregistered, recovery by, 97. 
 liable for negligence of Thames waterman, 219. 
 when liable for negligence of pilot. See Compulsory Pilot. 
 indirectly liable in Admiralty when not at law, 81 seq. 
 not discharged from liability by loss of their ship, 94. 
 part owners. See Part Owners. 
 suing in successive actions, 97. 
 limited liability of. See Limitation of Liability. 
 " actual fault or privity of," meaning of term, 157. 
 wrong-doing master a part owner, 158. 
 pro hdc vice owners, liability of, 83 seq. 
 collision between ships of same owner, 95, 267. 
 
 Oyster Bed, damage to, 77, 304. 
 
 Part Owners, 
 
 successive actions by, 97. 
 contribution between, for damages, 95. 
 several liability of, 95. _ . vt 
 
 wrong-doing master part owner, limitation of liability, 158. 
 surety for damages, recovery by, against co-owner, 95, n. 
 damage to cargo, action for. See Cargo : Cargo Owner. 
 survival of action in case of death of part owner, 98. 
 collision between ships owned in part by same persons, 95, 
 267. 
 
 Parting of Cable or Moorings, 9, 25, 33, 93. 
 
 Partners, 
 
 liability of, for collision, 69. 
 
 is unlimited, where not shipowners, 69.
 
 INDEX. 589 
 
 Party, Third, procedure, 197, 297. 
 
 Penalties, 
 
 infringement of the regulations, 39 seq., 56. 
 for not standing by after collision, 56 seq. 
 injury to lightship or buoy, 115, 284, 4«6. 
 cancellation of certificate, 281. 
 neglecting to carry lights, 338. 
 improper moorings in dock, 482. 
 for not taking pilot, 247. 
 
 Perils of the Sea, collisions within exception of, 26C), 269. 
 
 Person in Charge, 
 
 who is, within rule as to standing by, when pilot on board, 
 
 57. 
 is in owner's employment, prima facie, 64. 
 
 Person Liable. See Liability ; Owners ; CompuJsori/ Pilot ; 
 Wrongdoer. 
 
 Personam, Action in. See Action. 
 
 Personification of Ship, the wrong-doing ship, 2, 70 seq. 
 
 Persons entitled to Recover, 97 seq. 
 bailees of injured ship, 97. 
 
 under Lord Campbell's Act, 97. See CamphelVs Act. 
 persons or owners of cargo on board wrong-doing ship, 97, 
 
 98. 
 persons injured, 97. 
 
 common employment, doctrine of, 96, 99. 
 compulsory pilot not fellow servant of crew, 99. 
 unregistered owners of injured ship, 97. 
 indorsee of bill of lading, 97. 
 insurers, 98. 
 
 Pier, 
 
 damage to, 68, 76, 78. 
 
 damage to, by compulsory pilot, owners not liable, 219. 
 
 damage to pier abroad, 201, 204. 
 
 liability in case of damage to, 68. 
 
 maritime lien for damage to, 68. 
 
 insurance, collision clause, 272. 
 
 Pilot. See Compulsory Pilot. 
 
 authority and duties of, in law, 229. 
 
 whether law and practice agree as to liis .luthority, 2.i9. 
 
 duty to take full cliarge, 235. 
 
 could not be sued in Admiralty, 295. 
 
 liability of Trinity, is limited, 161. 
 
 is owner's servant, when not compulsory, 214.
 
 590 INDEX. 
 
 Pilot — continued. 
 
 injury to pilot, common employment, 99. 
 common law, actions against, 62. 
 master's licence, ships of same owners, 215. 
 formerly employed by the merchant, 214. 
 called as witness, 241. 
 
 Pilot Boat, 
 
 collision with, 352. 
 
 signals for, 338. 
 
 lights of, Art. 8 . . 350. 
 
 steam, 351. 
 
 unlicensed pilot, 352. 
 
 " engaged on her station," lights, 352. 
 
 answering flare of, 353. 
 
 competing pilot boats, collision, 352 
 
 duties of vessels inter se making for, 403, 411, 465. 
 
 Pilotage Acts and Authorities, list of, 247 seg. 
 
 Pilotage Authority not liable for pilot's negligence, 93, 215. 
 
 Pilotage Certificate, 
 
 pilotage not compulsory for ship whose master has, 215, 246. 
 granted to masters and mates of British and foreign ships, 
 246, 255, 258. 
 
 Plaintiffs, who may be. See Persons entitled to Recover. 
 
 Pleadings, 287. x\nd see Practice. 
 
 Port Helm, 
 
 applicable only to steamships meeting end on, Art. 18. .395. 
 
 both ships must port, 396, 466. 
 
 old rule as, 396, 405. 
 
 effect of port helm with propeller reversing, 433, 434. 
 
 rule of, does not apply to sailing ship meeting steamship, 405. 
 
 Port Tack, duty of ship on, Art. 17, .385. 
 
 Practice of Seamen, 
 
 inconsistent with the regulations is illegal, 331. 
 as to navigation of winding rivers, 326, 446, 490. 
 in collision actions. See Practice : Collision Actions. 
 
 Practice : Collision Actions, 
 
 service of writ out of jurisdiction, 285. 
 
 on clerk, 285. 
 address of writ, 285. 
 by whom writ to be served, 285. 
 owners resident abroad, 285. 
 plaintiffs suing as " owners," 286. 
 preliminary act, 286. 
 in what actions necessary, 286. 
 proof must be secundum allegata, 287.
 
 INDEX. 591 
 
 Practice : Collision Actions — continued. 
 
 pleading, infringement of regulations, 287. 
 
 ,, contributory negligence, 288. 
 
 ,, compulsory pilotage, 288. 
 
 ,, judgment at law, 288. 
 
 ,, defence, 288. 
 evidence. See Evidence. 
 who to begin in collision action, 291. 
 inspection, order as to, 291. 
 assessors, their function, 292. 
 difference of opinion between them, 141, 292. 
 seamanship, evidence of experts, 292. 
 default of appearance, judgment, 304. 
 plaintiff, unsuccessful at law, cannot sue in Admiralty, 293. 
 
 nor at law and in Admiralty at same time, 293. 
 consoKdation of actions. See Consolidaiion. 
 plaintiff lying by to await result of previous action, 294. 
 cross-actions, stay of proceedings where one ship only 
 
 arrested, 295. 
 cross-actions, one in County Court, 295. 
 separate actions for injury to jiropert}' and person, 295. 
 action against pilot, 295. 
 
 against Dublin Steam Packet Co., notice, 296. 
 action at law, supplemented by proceedings in rem, 296. 
 
 and vice versa, 296. 
 re-arrest of ship for costs, 297. 
 loss of Kfe, no action m rem, 114, 210, 297. 
 action in rem against public authority, 295. 
 tliird party procedure, 197, 297. 
 arrest of wrong ship, 298. 
 
 limitation of liability action for. See Limitation of Liabiliti/. 
 successive actions by shipowner and cargo owner, stay, 301. 
 damages assessed by registrar and merchants, 302. 
 remoteness of damage, whether for registrar or Court, 302. 
 Lord Campbell's Act ; assessment of damages b}' jury, 302. 
 harbour authorit}', action against, limit of time, 93. 
 transfer of action. King's Bench and Admiralty Divisions, 
 
 300. 
 surety in Admiralty bond, recovery against co-owner, 302. 
 liability of master in bond to stop arrest, 302. 
 Admiralty jurisdiction of High Court, 290, 303. 
 of County Courts, 303, 304. 
 damages in excess of res or bail, 80, 296. 
 of Board of Trade as to supplying copies of depositions, 
 290. 
 
 Precautions, 
 
 when passing over fishing grounds, 489. 
 
 saving clause as to ordinary or special. Art. 29. .470 sp<j. 
 
 ship navigating in unusual manner, 489. 
 
 and by ship of i>eculiar construction, 496. 
 in fog. See Foy.
 
 592 INDEX. 
 
 Presumption of Fault. See Burden of Proof. 
 statutory rules as to, in case of — 
 
 infringement of the Eegulations, 39 seq. See Infringe- 
 ment of the Regulations. 
 not standing by to assist after collision, 56 seq. See 
 Standing by. 
 history of legislation as to, 39. 
 object of statutory rule, 41. 
 deficiency of lights, 42 seq., 51. 
 steering rules, 45, 52, 385 seq. 
 shipowner liable where fault presumed, 60, 132. 
 division of loss where fault is compulsory pilot's, 129. 
 whether tug affected by fault of tow, and vice versa, 54. 
 infringement of local rules, 55. 
 
 applies where regulations infringed elsewhere than at sea, 
 
 56, 317. 
 in case of foreign ships, 59, 316. 
 rules as to, are lex fori, 59, 206. 
 
 no application to King's ships, 59, 458. 
 against ship required to keep out of the way, 34. 
 
 Priority, 
 
 of liens, 78. 
 
 limitation of liabihty, life claims, 165. 
 
 Privity of Master or Owner, 
 
 no limitation of liability in case of, 157, 162. 
 right of co-owners to limitation of liability, 158. 
 
 Proceedings in Eem. See Lie^i, Damages. 
 generally, 70 seq. 
 
 involve arrest of ship unless bail given, 73. 
 ship may be liable in, where owner is not, 81 seq. 
 supplemented by common law action, and vice versa, 296. 
 damage to cargo by carrier, 76, 271. 
 do not always give rise to maritime lien, 76. 
 against barge, 78. 
 against public authorities, 295. 
 where no collision, but damage, 76, 
 for loss of life or personal injury, do not lie, 114, 132. 
 against ship of foreign sovereign, 209. 
 against tug, negligent towage, 197. 
 
 Prohibition, collision, 199. 
 
 Proof. See Evidence ; Burden of Proof. 
 of negligence, 29 seq. 
 where defendant admits fault, 29. 
 
 as to fault, when compulsory pilot in charge, 222, 224. 
 of regulations, 316. 
 
 Propeller, 
 
 effect of on ship, when reversing, 433, 434. 
 moving, in dock, 491.
 
 INDEX. 593 
 
 Protest, evidence against, but not for, the sliip, liS'J. 
 
 PiTBLTc Authorities, 
 
 actions in rem need not be brought within six mouths, 295. 
 aJiter in personam^ 93. 
 
 Eacixg, 23, 439. 
 
 Eaft, 
 
 collision with, 36, 491. 
 
 unwieldy raft, damage by, 36, 183. 
 
 Eailway Company, liability of, when carrying hy sea, 161, -JTO. 
 
 Eecover, Persons extitled to. See Persons entilhd to Rvcnrer. 
 
 Eeefixg, whilst risk of collision, 392. 
 
 Eeference to Eegistrah, 
 
 costs of, do not follow result of action, 310. 
 as to conseCj[uential damages, 302. 
 exorbitant claim, 310. 
 
 Eefusal to Move, 
 in dock, 491. 
 at a launch, 498. 
 
 Eegistrar. See Reference to Registrar. 
 
 Eegulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 
 
 scope of authority to make regulations conferred by statute, 
 
 31 G seq. 
 whether ultra vires in respect of inland waters, 317. 
 in respect of whistle signals, 318. 
 of 1897, set out, 507. 
 
 regulations of 1880, and of 1884, wliere set out, 332. 
 hibtory of legislation as to, 314. 
 early history of the port- tack rule, 314. 
 how proved, 291, 316. 
 regulations for purposes other tlian prevention of collision, 
 
 validity, 318. 
 departure sanctioned by Art. 27 and by statute, 450. 
 whether Art. 27 refers only to " Steering and Sailing Eules," 
 
 451. 
 to minimise effect of, as well as to prevent collision, 430. 
 in what waters they apply, 317, 332, 503. 
 their application in waters where local rules arc in foi'ce, 
 
 Art. 30. .55, 5(J, 318, 501. 
 in winding rivers. See Rivers. 
 to what ships they apply, .'119. 
 traders and yachts, ;il!). 
 heavy ships and small craft, 319. 
 
 M. u g
 
 594 INDEX. 
 
 Eegulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea — continued. 
 
 to sliips propelled by machinery, 333. 
 
 King's ships and foreign ships of war, whether bound by, 
 59, Art. 13. .365. 
 
 whether they apply to merchantmen meeting warships, 
 458. 
 
 penalty for disobeying. See Presumption of Fault ; Infringe- 
 ment ; Penalties. 
 
 their international character, 319. 
 
 uniform construction by all nations desirable, 319. 
 
 safety attained by uniform observance, 453. 
 
 apply, primarily, to ships on fixed courses, 322. 
 
 rules as to construction of, 320, 332, 451. See Construction, 
 
 apply until the ships are clear, 331. 
 
 they furnish the test of negligence, 321. 
 
 departure from allowed only in case of necessity, 450. 
 
 convenience no excuse for departing from, 465. 
 
 local usage, not to be neglected, 322. 
 
 not to be applied so as to cause collision, 455. 
 
 they apply where there is risk of collision, 323. 
 
 and {semhle) where probable risk of collision, 323. 
 
 indications of risk, 324. 
 
 uncertainty as to risk, 327, 328. 
 
 whether the.y apply where collision is inevitable, 326, 426. 
 
 what constitutes risk of collision, 324. 
 
 alteration of course for safety where there is no risk, 327. 
 
 alteration of course causing risk, 327. 
 
 alteration of course in foe:, 327. 
 
 " meeting " ship cannot become "crossing " ship, 329. 
 
 apply until risk determined, 331. 
 
 close shaving, 324, 330, 479, 485. 
 
 must be promptly obeyed, 330. 
 
 both ships must obey them, 322. 
 
 ships to be supplied with lights, horn, &c., 331. 
 
 practice inconsistent with regulations is bad, 331. 
 
 to sliips of what nations they apply, 315, 332. 
 
 decisions on earlier regulations are binding, 332. 
 
 steam vessel, wliat vessel is, 333. 
 
 " under way," meaning of the term. See U^uhr Wai/. 
 
 rules concerning ships' lights. See Liyhts, S/i>ps\ 
 
 steering and sailing rules, 385 seq. 
 
 for sailing ships, Art. 17. .385. 
 
 for steamships meeting, Art. 18. .395. 
 
 for steamships crossing. Art. 19. .400. 
 
 for sailing ship and steamship, Art. 20. .404. 
 
 the right of way, burden of proof, 34, 168. 
 
 ship dead in the water, 397. 
 
 ship hove-to must comply with steering and sailing rules, 
 390, 413. 
 
 ordinary precautions to be observed, Art. 29. .470 seq. 
 
 small ships not required to keep clear of large, 319. 
 
 local rules of navigation. See Local Rules.
 
 INDEX. 595 
 
 Eemotexess of Damaoe, 14, 100, 113. 
 
 Eemoval of Wueck. duty of harbour authority as to, 88, DO. 
 
 RErAIRS, 
 
 cost of, allowed as daniag^es, 101. 
 
 demurrage where repairs rendered necessary hy two 
 
 collisions. 111. 
 possessory lien for, whether damage lien ranlcs before, 78. 
 duty to repair injured ship after collision, 101, IOC. 107. 
 
 Ees. See Proceedings in rem ; Lien. 
 
 Ees Judicata, 211. 
 
 Eespondeat SrPERIOU, 
 
 doctrine of, is hx loci, 204. 
 
 does not apply in case of compulsory pilotage, 214 setj. 
 or to superior officer in Eoyal Navy, 94. 
 
 Restitutio ix integrum, meaning of plirase, 100. 
 
 Reversed Propeller, action of, on ship's liead, 433, 434. 
 
 Riding Light, Art. 11 . .361 seq. See Liyhts, Ships'. 
 for fishing boats, Art. 9 . . 353 seq. 
 small craft, Art. 7 . .349. 
 
 Risk of Collision, 
 
 what constitutes, 324 seq., 400. 
 indications of, 324. 
 uncertainty of facts causing risk, 327. 
 instances of, 328. 
 
 whether regulations apply Avhere there is jirobability of 
 risk, 323, 416. 
 or after risk is determined, 422. 
 altering course so as to cause, 327, 439. 
 altering course where there is no, for greater safety, 328. 
 
 RiVEH, 
 
 whether the regulations apply in, 318. 
 
 customary track of ships in, 445. 
 
 navigation of winding, 320, 411, 445, 482. 
 
 starbnard-side rule in, Art. 25. .4-10, 443, 445. 
 
 American rivers, rules of navigation 'u\, \ 15, 448, ■J82. 
 
 application of crossing rule in, 402 siq. 
 
 duty to ease before rounding a point, 4 13, 4 17. 
 
 Roman L vw, 
 
 liability for collision, 63. 
 no limitation, 1 17. 
 
 ROUNDING-TO, 403, 472. 
 
 U. W ''I
 
 596 INDEX. 
 
 < 
 
 Rule of the Road. See Regulations for Preventing Collisions ; 
 Local Rules ; Foreign Lino ; Foreign Ships. 
 
 EuNNiNG-DOWN Clause, in policy of insurance, 272. 
 
 "RuNNiNG-mEE," meaning of the term, Art. 17. .386. 
 
 Sailing Vessel, 
 what is, 333. 
 
 duty of, approaching steamship, Art. 20. .404, 409, 417. 
 crossing, Art. 17. See Crossing Ships. 
 running free. Art. 17. .385. 
 close-hauled, Art. 17.. 38,5, 390. 
 
 approaching another on opposite tack. Art. 17. .385. 
 to go at moderate speed in fog, &c.. Art. 16. .381. 
 overtaking another steam, or sailing ship, Art. 24. .435. 
 sound signals for, in fog, &c., Art. 15. .366. 
 no " end on " rule for, 397. 
 hove-to. See Hove- to, Ship. 
 
 to keep out of the way of fishermen. Art. 26. .450. 
 duty approaching steam trawler, 408, 409. 
 
 Salvage, 
 
 collision with salvor, 281. 
 
 loss of expected salvage, damages, 109. 
 
 expenses, damages, 105, 106, 110. 
 
 after collision, 281. 
 
 towing ships clear of each other, 281, 282. 
 
 damages, not subject to claim for life salvage, 115. 
 
 service, whether within scope of master's employment, 65, 
 
 195. 
 action, whether costs of, recoverable as damages, 110. 
 duty to stand by does not affect right to, 58. 
 not recoverable by wrong-doer in collision, 281. 
 
 Salvor, 
 
 collision with, 11, 12, 65, 195, 281. 
 collision caused by fault of, 65, 195. 
 
 Scope of Employment, 
 
 employer liable for acts of servant within, 64. 
 whether salvage service is within, of master, 65. 
 
 Screens, 
 
 regulation as to. Art. 2 . . 338. 
 shortness, or absence, of, 44, 341. 
 
 Seamanship, 
 
 assessors in Admiralty advise as to matters of, 292. 
 rules of to be observed, 373 seq. ; Art. 29. .470 seq. 
 saving clause in regulations as to, Art. 29. .470.
 
 INDEX. 597 
 
 Sekvant, 
 
 doctrine of common employment prevents recovery uy, JO, 
 
 99. 
 whether master is fellow servant of crew, 99. 
 compulsory pilot is not servant of sliipowner, 99. 
 pilot isi, unless compulsory, 214. 
 licensed Thames waterman is, 219. 
 
 Sheering, when at anchor, 363, 473. 
 
 Stttp 
 
 what is a " ship " within 17 & 18 Yict. c. 104. .304. 
 
 25 & 26 Met. c. 63, 8. 419.. 59. 
 
 the regulations, 319. 
 liability of, by maritime law, 86. 
 liability of. in Admiralty proceedings in rem, 70 si'(j. 
 not liable for fault of compulsory pilot, 215. 
 liable where owners are not, 69, 81.^ 
 personification of, in Admiralty, 2, 70. 
 affected by fault of those on board, 81 .w/. 
 limitation of liability for damage to, 163. 
 chartered, liability for damage by, 66, 68, 82. 
 liability of, in rem, for not standing by, 60. 
 not dangerous, in se, 36, 68. 
 disabled, collision with, 8, 11, 463. 
 disabled by own fault, 26. 
 of unusual and dangerous construction. 496. 
 sunken ship, damage by, 87 seq. See Smden ^h,p. 
 lying dead in the water, 397. 
 
 launch. See Launch. a . i 9 1 . 
 
 not under command, lights a.nd signals tor, Art. 4 . .34 I. 
 foreign ship. See Forei<in Ship. 
 
 telegraph snips, lights and signals for, 316, 344. 
 
 hove-to. See Hove- to, Ship. 
 
 barge, damage by or to. See l>arc/e. 
 
 ferry boat. See Ferry lloat. 
 
 of foreign sovereign, daniage by, 209. 
 
 mail ships, speed of, 377. 
 
 King's ship, damage bv, 62, 63, 94, 458. 
 
 King's ships, wl.ether bound by the regulations, 366. 
 
 in service of the Government, damage by, 67, 94. 
 
 hove-to, must comply with steering rules. See Ilove-io, 
 
 Ship. 
 crossing ships. See Crossing Shi/js. 
 meeting sliips. See Mrrfin;/ Strmnships. 
 overtaking and overtaken ship. See (hertahny Shp ; Orn- 
 
 takcn Ship. 
 close-hauled. See Close-hnnled. 
 
 abandonment of, after collision, by her own -rew, K*-.. 
 "improp*Ji- navigation " (»f, meaning of, 161. 
 small craft not reciuired to keep out of the way ..t large, 
 
 319, 492.
 
 598 INDEX, 
 
 Ship — continued. 
 
 on'ners, their liability. See Owners of Ship ; Liahilitij. 
 
 ship's lights. See Lights, Ships'. 
 
 liability for damag-e by or to. See LiabiUly. 
 
 rule of the road for. See Regulations. 
 
 speed of. See Speed. 
 
 steamship. See Steamship. 
 
 towing or in tow. See Tug and Tow. 
 
 on port tack. See Fort Tack. 
 
 Shipowner. See Owners of Ship. 
 
 Shortening Sail, 
 
 when entering harbour, 480. 
 
 in a fog, speed of sailing shi^i, 381. 
 
 Shorthand Notes, costs, 313. 
 
 Side Lights. See Lights, Ships'. 
 
 Signals, 
 
 sound signals in fog. Art. 1.5. .366. Sec Fog Signals. 
 
 whistling to indicate alteration uf course, x\rt. 28. .467. 
 
 distress. Art. 31..oU5. 
 
 private lights, 337. 
 
 for pilot, 338. 
 
 pilot boats' Hare, Art. 8. .350. 
 
 for ship not under command, Art. 4 . .344. 
 
 for telegraph ships. Art. 4. .344 (/, 316. 
 
 for ship in tow, Art. 15. .367. 
 
 for ships towing. Art. 15. .367. 
 
 for vessels fishing by day, 556. 
 
 Slacken Speed, 
 
 duty of steamship to. Art. 23. .418. 
 
 whether duty to, concurrent with duty to alter course, 422. 
 
 breach of Art. 23 is breach of Art. 16. .419. 
 
 Slipping, to avoid collision, 27, 485. 
 
 Small Craft, not required to keep out of the way of large, 500. 
 
 Smelling the Ground, 492. 
 
 Smoke, obscuration of lights by, 383. 
 
 Snow Squalls, necessity to sound when in the neighbourhood 
 of, 370. 
 
 Sound, 
 
 transmission of, in fog, 35, n. 
 
 signals for thick weather. See Fog Signals. 
 
 signals to mdicate alteration of course, Art. 28. .467.
 
 INDEX. 599 
 
 SOVEREIGX, 
 
 ship of foreign, not liable to arrest, 209. 
 must give bail to answer couutercbiini, '210. 
 submitting to jurisdiction of British Court, 210. 
 
 Spain, Law of, liability for negligence, 204. 
 
 Sl'ECIAL ClllCUMSTAXCES, 
 
 rendering departure from regulations necessary, Art. 
 
 27.. 377, 450. 
 crossing a fleet of warships, 458 seq. 
 
 Speed, 
 
 duty of steamship to slacken or stop. Art. 23. . IIH. 
 
 moderate speed required in thick weather. Art. 16. .372. 
 
 what is moderate speed, 374. 
 
 of sailing ship in thick weather, 373, 381. 
 
 through the water, not over the ground, 498, 529. 
 
 carrying on, to get out of fog, 377. 
 
 sinking or damaging craft by swell raised by excessive, 27, 
 
 498. 
 of mail ships, 377. 
 
 tide immaterial where both ships under way, 375. 
 instances of improper, 376, 377, 381. 
 of steamship approaching other craft, 432. 
 whether steamship in fog may lie dead in the water, 383. 
 alteration of, is infringement of Art. 21 . .410. 
 excuse that engines will not turn over, 377. 
 ship's power of stopping is relevant in considering, 374. 
 in Tees, 529. 
 
 Clyde, 519, 520. 
 
 Humbor, 522. 
 
 Suez Canal, 528. 
 
 Tyne, 546. 
 
 Squall, damage by tug not anchoring in, 184. 
 
 Standing by, 
 
 statutory rule as to, 56 seq. 
 
 does not affect riglit to salvage, 58. 
 
 applies to collision with a lishing-boat, 59. 
 
 foreign ships bound by, 59, 205. 
 
 what is " reasonable cause " for not, 58. 
 
 (jn whom the duty is cast, 57, 222. 
 
 where compulsory pilot in charge, 57. 
 
 duty to look out for distress signals, 58. 
 
 what is " proof to the contrary," 57. 
 
 rule as to presumption of fault is lex fori, 59. 
 
 whether rule applies to King's .ships, 59. 
 
 duty of tug to, after casting off, 189.
 
 600 INDEX. 
 
 Starboard-side Rule, 
 Article 25. .440. 
 iiuder former Acts, 440. 
 applies to steamships only, 440. 
 conspquences of being on wrong side, 441. 
 "whether it overrides the steering rules, 443. 
 whether it applies where local rules in force, 444. 
 in force under certain local Acts, 441. 
 decisions as to rule of the road on land, 445. 
 application in winding river, 447 seq. 
 
 Starboard Tack, duty of ship on, Art. 17. .385. 
 
 Statutes, 
 
 13 Ric. II., cc. 3, 5 (and Admiralty Court Acts) 199, 303. 
 
 7 Geo. II., c. 15 149. 
 
 26 Geo. III., c. 86 150. 
 
 53 Geo. III., c. 159 150, 158, 299. 
 
 6 Geo. IV., c. 78 337. 
 
 6 Geo. IV., c. 125 177, 215, 244, 245. 
 
 6 & 7 Will. IV., c. 100 (local) 296. 
 
 3 & 4 Vict. c. 65 76, 303. 
 
 6 & 7 Vict. c. 79 356. 
 
 9 & 10 Vict. c. 93 114. 
 
 9 & 10 Vict. c. 100 314. 
 
 10 & 11 Vict. c. 27 (Harbour?, Docks, and Piers Clauses 
 
 Act) 68, 78, 91, 163, 219, 481, 503. 
 
 14 & 15 Vict. c. 79 39, 41, 315, 339, 440. 
 
 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, ss. 20—29 156. 
 
 s. 296 324. 
 
 s. 297 304, 440. 
 
 s. 298 39, 45, 121, 206. 
 
 8. 353 (and pilotage). . . .214 seq. 
 
 s. 388 225. 
 
 s. 458 304. 
 
 s. 504 151. 
 
 s. 514 299. 
 
 20 & 21 Vict. c. 147, Local (Thames Conservancy) 218. 
 
 24 Vict. c. 10 76, 295, 299, 303, 343. 
 
 24 & 25 Vict. c. 97 280. 
 
 25 & 26 Vict. c. O;^ 40, 59, 151, 206, 222, 281, 315, 356. 
 
 27 & 28 Vict. c. 95 114. 
 
 28 & 29 Vict. c. 125 (Dockyard Ports) 55, 503. 
 
 30 & 31 Vict. c. 124 156, 157. 
 
 31 & 32 Vict. c. 45. ., .356. 
 
 31 & 32 Vict. c. 71 312. 
 
 31 & 32 Vict. c. 78 307. 
 
 34 & 35 Vict. c. 78 164, 308. 
 
 34 & 35 Vict. c. 110 156. 
 
 36 & 37 Vict. 0. 66 (Judicature Act) 122, 133, 208, 267, 
 
 292. 
 36 & 37 Vict. c. 85 41, 44, 337, 427.
 
 INDEX. 601 
 
 Statutes — continued. 
 
 37 & 38 Yict. c. 52 (Mersey Sea Channels) ... .4 1. 
 
 38 Yicfc. 0. 15 356. 
 
 38 & 39 Yict. c. 90 99. 
 
 39 Si, 40 Yict. c. 36 (Customs Clauses Consoli.Ution^ 246. 
 
 40 & 41 Yict. c. 16 (NYrecks Kemoval) 91, 163.' 
 
 40 & 41 Yict. c. 42 356. 
 
 41 & 42 Yict. c. 73 207. 
 
 43 Yict. c. 29 (Canada) 318, 491. 
 
 43 & 44 Yict. c. 42 99. 
 
 44 & 45 Yict. c. 219, Local (Solent Navigation) . . . .55. 
 
 46 & 47 Yict. 0. 22 (Sea Fisheries) 338. 356, 480. 
 
 48 & 49 Yict. c. 49 (Submarine Telegraphs) 310. 
 
 52 & 53 Yict. c. 43 (Tonnage) 154, 157. 
 
 54 & 55 Yict. c. 31 (Mail Ships) 210. 
 
 57 & 58 Yict. c. 60, ss. 77—91 154. 
 
 s. 220.. 
 
 . .280. 
 
 s. 418. . 
 
 . .316, 319. 
 
 s. 419.. 
 
 . .39 seq., 56, 280,316, 373, 441, 
 
 458. 
 
 
 s. 421.. 
 
 . .55. 
 
 s. 422 . . 
 
 . .56. 
 
 s. 424. . 
 
 . .319. 
 
 s. 469. . 
 
 . .281. 
 
 s. 503.. 
 
 . .152. 
 
 s. 504. . 
 
 . .299. 
 
 s. 572. . 
 
 . .246. 
 
 s. 578. . 
 
 . .246. 
 
 s. 599. . 
 
 ..246. 
 
 s. 603. . 
 
 ..215. 
 
 s. 604 . . 
 
 . .256. 
 
 s. 605 . . 
 
 . .245. 
 
 s. 607. . 
 
 . .2S0. 
 
 8. 633.. 
 
 ..216. 
 
 s. 688. . 
 
 . .201. 
 
 21 (MorsG}' 
 
 Chauuels Act, 1897) 55. 
 
 61 256. 
 
 
 60 & 61 Yict. c 
 
 60 & 61 Yict. 
 
 61 & 62 Yict. c. 14 153, 159. 
 
 63 & 64 Yict. c. 32 90, 153. 
 
 6 Edw. YII. c. 48, 88. 54. 55 154. 
 
 s. 68. . . .153. 
 
 s. 71 ... . 157. 
 Local Navigation Acts, 519 seq. 
 Local Pilotage Acts, 24 7 seq. 
 
 Stay of Pkoceedings, 
 
 cross actions, one sliip only under arrest, 291. 
 successive actions, cargo owner and ship owner, 301 
 
 Stays, Ix. See fjoiruj ahoiil. 
 
 duty to keep ch-ar of .sliip, 30, 486. 
 whether ship must liold herself in stays, 489. 
 missing, 487.
 
 602 INDEX. 
 
 Steam Vessel, 
 
 uieaninc^ of the term in the regulations, 333. 
 
 -tug is, 334. 
 
 ship propelled by machinery, 333. 
 
 meeting end on, Art. 18. .395. See i\Ifetin)j Steamships. 
 
 to keep out of the way of sailing ship, Art. 20. .404. 
 
 in narrow channel, starboard side. Art. 25. .440. 
 
 to slacken or stop, if necessary. Art. 23. .418. 
 
 lights of. See Lights, Ships\ 
 
 tug is, and must keep out of the way, 167, 405. 
 
 fog signals for, Art. 15. .366. 
 
 speed in fog. Art. 16. .372. 
 
 lying dead in the water, duty of, 333, 340, 404. 
 
 Steering and Sailing Rules, Arts. 17 — 26. .385 seq. 
 whether Art. 27 applies only to, 451, 467. 
 
 Steering Gear, failing to act, 9, 162. 
 
 Stern Light, 
 
 Article 10. .358. 
 
 to be shown, though no risk, 359. 
 when to be shown, and how long, 359. 
 whether pilot boat may exhibit, 361. 
 
 Stopping and Reversing, 
 rule as to. Art. 23. .418. 
 "if necessary," meaning of, 419. 
 in what waters it applies, 421. 
 
 nor infringed until opportunity of obeying it, 430. 
 analogous rule for sailing ships, 381, 431. 
 effect of, on ship's head, 433, 434. 
 not always prudent course, 432. 
 in order to hear more clearly, 378. 
 application of Art. 23 in fog, 419. 
 object of rule is to minimise effect of, as well as to prevent 
 
 collision, 318, 430. 
 burden of proof, upon steamship failing to, 431. 
 when other ship's course cannot be made out, 419, 430. 
 rule applied to tug, 167. 
 overtaken ship not bound to, 431. 
 the case of The Khedive, 4 6, 424. 
 
 Stowing Anchors and Spars, 496. 
 
 Suction, effect of, 493. 
 
 Suez Canal, 
 
 authority of pilot iu, 217, 241. 
 
 pilotage not compulsory, so as to exempt owners, 218. 
 
 local rules of navigation for, 228. 
 
 Sufeerer by Collision. See Perso7ts e?ititled to Recover.
 
 IXPKX. HU3 
 
 StiNKEN Ship, 
 
 damage by, 87 seq. 
 
 damage to, 90. 
 
 whether duty to raise, as against wrong- doer, 107. 
 
 money paid to wreck raising authority, damages, lOS, 103. 
 
 wrong-doer not discharged by sinking of his ship, 04. 
 
 duty to light and buoy, 82, 88. 
 
 cost of raising. 163, 283. 
 
 negligence of independent contractor in not lighting, 89. 
 
 Surety, recovery by, against part owner, 95. 
 
 Swell, sinking and damaging craft by raising, 27, 498. 
 
 Tack. See Port Tack; Slarboard Tad: ; Bculimj out Tack. 
 
 Tackl?-, Gkound. See Gruund Tackle. 
 
 Tees, 
 
 local rules of navigation fur, o28. 
 pilotage in, 261. 
 
 TELtGRAPn Cable, damage to, 78, 202. 
 
 Telkgkai'h Ships, 
 
 lights and signals for, Art. 4. .310, 344. 
 Submarine Telegraph Act, 1885. .316. 
 
 Thames, 
 
 local rules of navigation for, 531. 
 
 rules under AVatermen's Act, 544. 
 
 damage to property of Thames Conservancy by compulsory 
 
 pilot, 218. 
 speed in, 539, 542. 
 waterman, is owner's servant, 219. 
 
 Thick Weather. See Fog. 
 
 Third Party Procedure, 197, 297. 
 
 Third Ship, 
 
 liability of, for collision between two others, 20. 
 recovery by, collision caused by fault of two others, 27. 
 where collision caused by fault of tug or tow. See Tmj and 
 Tow. 
 
 Tide, 
 
 customary track in rivers, with reference to, 44(), 190. 
 
 eddy tide causing collision, 423, 492. 
 
 immaterial, as regards speed, wliere botli under way, 375. 
 speed, tlirougli the water or over tlie ground, 19H, 529. 
 duty for vessel i)roceoding against tide to eabo rounding 
 point, 443, 440.
 
 604 INDEX. 
 
 Tonnage, 
 
 meaning of word, 154. 
 
 of foreign ships, for estimating liability, 153 seq. 
 
 of steamshipS; engine-room not deducted, 152. 
 
 crew spaces, when deducted, 152, 156. 
 
 navigation spaces, when deducted, 152, 156. 
 
 double bottom, 154. 
 
 of tug under 15 tons burden, 157. 
 
 of foreign ships, how proved, 155. 
 
 Tow. See Tuy and Tow. 
 
 Towage Contkact. See Tug and Tow. 
 its terms and performance, 187 — 191. 
 broken by negligence causing damage to tow, 187. 
 mutual rights of tug and tow under, 188. 
 special, 194. 
 
 Track of Ships, crossing it, 495. 
 
 Transfer of Action, 300. 
 
 Transport, damage by, to another of the fleet, 67. 
 
 Trawler, 
 
 defined, 354. 
 
 when " engaged in trawling," 357. 
 
 signal by day when trawling, 356. 
 
 fog signals, 355. 
 
 lights of, Art. 9. .354, 357. 
 
 with gear fast, signal, 355. 
 
 duty of steam trawler to keep out of the wa}^ 407, 409, 463. 
 
 is not " proceeding " while hauling trawl, 404. 
 
 whether sailing trawler within Art. 17. .392, 408. 
 
 trawler with trawl down, keep out of the way, 407, 408. 
 
 Trent, local rules. See Humber. 
 
 Trinity House, London, pilotage, 215, 253 seq. 
 
 Tug and Tow, 
 
 tug and tow for some purposps deemed to be one ship, 167. 
 as regards compliance with the regulations, 167, 405, 406. 
 sailing ship in fault for not keeping out of the way of, 168. 
 measure of liability, limitation, 126, 160, 183. 
 stop and reverse rule, applied to, 167. 
 " tug is servant of the tow," meaning of the phrase, 170. 
 danger of double command, 171, 174, 229. 
 doctrine of common employment as between, 195. 
 command, where two or more ships in tow, 196. 
 liability of tow for damage by tug, 170. 
 where the command is with the tug, 173, 196. 
 compulsory pilot in charge of tow, 177, 188, 227. 
 compulsory pilotage no defence where tug deficient, 228. 
 tug cjmpulsorily employed, 178.
 
 IXDKX. 605 
 
 Tug and Tow — continued. 
 
 whether tug- liable for fauh of pilot. 172, 177, 192, 227. 
 
 rebpunsibiliiy for employiuout of tug, ISO. 
 
 duty to employ, when driving, 11, 180, 481. 
 
 liability of tow-owners for damag-e by tow, 174. 
 
 liabilit}' of tug-owners for damage by tow, 174. 
 
 whether tug liable for negligence of tow, and vice versa, 54, 
 
 172. 
 whether crew of tug are tow-owners' agents, 174. 
 improper number of ships in tow, 195. 
 collision between two ships in tow, 196. 
 
 tug and third ship by fault of tug, 172. 
 tug and tow, 179, 188. 
 division of loss, collision between tow and third ship, 179, 
 
 185, 192. 
 all three in fault, 179. 
 
 recovery by tow of damages paid to third ship, 192. 
 damages paid by tow for damage by tug, insurers liable, 
 
 170. 
 recovery by tug against tow, 194. 
 limitation of liability, 126, 195. 
 
 injury to tow by tug, " improper navigation," 161, 195. 
 joint and several liability of, 179. 
 American cases as to liabilitv of tug and tow, 180 seq., 189, 
 
 196. 
 tug making fast, without knowledge of tow, 183. 
 damage by tow getting adrift, 183. 
 unwieldy tow, 167, 182, 183. 
 tows sagging to leeward, 183. 
 tug disobeying pilot of tow, 184. 
 parting of tow rope, 14, 184, 189. 
 tug casting off tow hne, 185, 189, 193. 
 damage by tug not anchoring in heavy squall, 184. 
 heavy ship being moved by tugs, 185, 186. 
 pilot in charge, 184, 186. 
 tug controlled by helm of tow, 186. 
 damage by tow's fender, 186, 
 tow with sail set, damage by, 186, 189. 
 steamship in tow putting engines astern, damage by, 186. 
 damage by tow, after being cast off, 27, 189, 193. 
 tug towing her ship ashore, 189. 
 careless towing, 189. 
 casting off, duty to stand by after, 190. 
 unseawortiiy ship in tow, 1!)(). 
 
 negligent collision with tug, l)reach of towage contract, 283. 
 damage to third ship by tow line, 191. 
 lights for steamship towing. Art. 3. .313. 
 
 sailing ship towing, 344. 
 tug waiting to assist tow when injured, remuneration, 188. 
 tug, tow, and third ship, third party priKC(lur(>, 197. 
 tow lashed alongside, 171. 
 liability iii rem, 170, 17i).
 
 606 INDEX. 
 
 Tug and Tow — cnntimiecl. 
 
 tug- salvor, 184, 188, 195. 
 
 two tugs in charge of one tow, 180, 185, 194. 
 
 negligent towage, Admiralty jurisdiction, 197. 
 
 the towage contract, its terms and performance, 187, 191. 
 
 contract may indemnify tug-owner for negligence, 179. 
 
 duties of tug, 188. 
 
 in crowded waters, 187. 
 
 must he sufficient for her work, 188, 
 
 sufficiency of tow line, 188. 
 
 must keep vigilant look-out, 189, 473, 478. 
 
 slip, when necessary, 182, 191. 
 
 must warn tow of danger, 188. 
 
 if obliged to east off tow must pick her up again, 189. 
 
 must obey orders of tow, 187. 
 
 must keep clear of craft without orders from tow, 187. 
 duties of tow, 190. 
 
 must follow in tug's wake, 190. 
 
 warn tug of danger, 176, 190. 
 
 be ready to cast off when necessary, 190. 
 
 have proper lights exhibited, 190.' 
 
 give order to slip when necessary, 190. 
 
 special towage contract, 194. 
 
 as to putting tow line on board tug, 191. 
 tugs racing for a job, 23. 
 tug working at ship ashore, duty to keep out of the way, 
 
 492. 
 rules as to towage in the Tyne, 545. 
 
 Tees, 528. 
 Thames, 537. 
 
 Turkey, ships of, do not use bell, 367. 
 
 Tyne, 
 
 special rules of navigation for, 545. 
 pilotage in, 258. 
 collision in, 489, 501. 
 
 Uncertainty, as to tlie other ship's course, 327, 389, 430. 
 
 Under Steam, meaning, 333. 
 
 Under Way, 
 
 meaning of the term, 334, 340, 348, 362, 368. 
 
 in improper weather, 562. And see Foe/. 
 
 whether fault of master or pilot to be so under way, 229 
 
 231, 236. 
 getting under way, precautions before, 485. 
 steamship lying dead, 333, 340, 401. 
 
 Underwriters. See Insurance,
 
 "W.vTiPiNG, specifil precautions required whilst, 491. 
 
 "Warships, crossiug a fleet of, 4o8 Aey. 
 
 Watermax, 
 
 owner liable for negligence of Thames licensed, 219. 
 negligence of watermen engaged by pilot, -JJt). 
 rules as to Thames, 544. 
 
 Wearing, 
 
 instead of tacking, 487. 
 
 ship ahead when wearing is not being overtaken, 439. 
 
 Wharf, 
 
 collision with ship at, 33. 
 collision with, 77, n. 
 
 Wharfixger, 
 
 liability of, for damage to ship grmindmg, '••l. 
 duty to keep berth in proper condition, 90. 
 
 steamship to sound, in thick weather, Art. lo. .3fiG. 
 signals by, indicating alteration of cour.se, Art. '.'S. .4G<. 
 departure from regulations dictated by, 4<;7. 
 whether duty to sound can be excused under Art. 2i . . IGO. 
 
 Wilful Damage, by master, owner not liable for, 15, 28, G5, 84. 
 
 WixDiXG EivER, navigation of. See Narrow Channel; Rivers. 
 
 AVreck, 
 
 damage by sunken, 87 seq., 273. 
 
 duty of harbour authority to remove, 90. 
 
 duty to light and buoy, 82, 88. 
 
 abandonment of, 82, 88. 
 
 cost of raising, insurance, 273. 
 
 Writ. See Practice. 
 
 Wrong-doer, , n ^^ ^^ r-y 
 
 actual wrong-doer primarily liable,J)_. 
 no limitation of his liability, (')3, 157. 
 sliipowner's remoily over against, G7. 
 fihiiwwner prima /(trie employer of, 64. 
 liability of joint wrong-doers, 95. 
 („ntributi<ni between eo-owuer.s, 95, 132. 
 
 liability in case of damage by King s ship, Gi, bJ. .M. 
 not purged by payment of statut.ny luibility, \^y^. 
 liable notwithstanding insurance, 1 lo. 
 
 Wrong-doixg Siiir, , ^,, . ... .... _ 
 
 personification of ship, 2, 70 .svy. bee i>/i>p ; Liubdily. 
 
 id.-ntification of, 298, 300.
 
 LONDON : 
 FEINTED BY C. T. EOAVOETH, 88, FETTER LiNK, E.C.
 
 ' ' i , _^ 
 
 THE 
 
 MARITIME CONVENTIONS ACT, 
 
 1911 
 
 [1 & 2 Geo. 5, c. 67]. 
 
 BY 
 
 E. S. ROSCOE, 
 
 BAEEISTEK-AT-LAW, 
 ADMIEALTY EEGISTEAE OF THE HIGH COUET, 
 
 AND 
 
 HELENUS M. ROBERTSON, 
 
 OF THE NOETHEEN CIRCUIT, BAEEISTEE-AT-LAW, 
 EDITORS OF "MARSDEN'S COLLISIONS AT SEA" (6M Edit.). 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 STEVENS AND SONS, LIMITED, 
 
 119 & 120, CHANCERY LANE, 
 
 Sato gubli.sljcri 
 
 1912.
 
 NOTE. 
 
 All references to Maksden in this work are to 
 ^^ Marsden^s Collisions at iS'm" (^th Edit.).
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 INTRODUCTORY NOTE. 
 
 Arraxgement of Sections. 
 Provisions as to Collisions, dc. 
 
 SECTION PAOK 
 
 1 . Rule as to division of loss tj, 1 '-J 
 
 2. Damages for personal injuries 10, lo 
 
 3. Right of contribution 9.16 
 
 4. Abolition of statutory presumptions of fault 10, 17 
 
 5. Jurisdiction in cases of loss of life or personal injury .. 18 
 
 Provisions as to Salvage. 
 
 6. General duty to render assistance to persons in danger 
 
 at sea ' ^ 
 
 7. Apportionment of salvage amongst owners, &c. of 
 
 foreign ship -0 
 
 General Provisions. 
 
 8. Limitation of actions 10, 20 
 
 9. Application of Act ^'^ 
 
 10. Short title and construction 23 
 
 A 2
 
 INTRODUCTORY NOTE. 
 
 The Maritime Conventions Act, 1911, is designed (a) to give Oritrin of 
 effect to two Conventions approved and signed at Brussels ^'""'■'■""^'<'"'*- 
 on September 23rd, 1910, by the representatives of tlie prin- 
 cipal maritime nations of the world. The Conventions an' 
 themselves the outcome of a desire, repeatedly expressed at 
 successive conferences of the International Maritime Com- 
 mittee, that questions arising in connection with salvage and 
 collisions at sea (&) should be decided in accordance with 
 the provisions of one universal and international code of law. 
 
 The contracting States (c) were Germany, Argentine Re- Coutractinjr 
 public, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Cuba, ^^^'-'^■ 
 Denmark, Spain, United States of America, France, Great 
 Britain (d), Greece, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Nicaragua, 
 Norway, Holland, Portugal, Roumauia, Russia, Sweden, and 
 Uruguay. Provisions are contained in the Conventions with 
 regard to the relationship of contracting and non-contracting 
 Suites, to the powers of contracting States to summon a fresh 
 conference, to the conditions under which non-contracting 
 States may contract in the future, and to the ratification 
 and denunciation of the Conventions by the contracting 
 States. The principal matters dealt with and changes made 
 in the existing lav\ may be briefly summarised as follows, 
 subsidiary points being dealt with in notes attached to the 
 various sections of the Act. 
 
 (a) See preamble, post, p. 12. sitrnofl in tho Fronfli laiijrunjrc mil}', 
 
 (A) The Conventions in fact deal Engli.sh tran.slatioiis thcrcnf uiul ti 
 
 with damage arising otherwise than report in French jiresontod U> the 
 
 by collision. See observations post. Diplomatic Conference, I'.UO. The 
 
 at p. 11. countries are cniinicratcd in tho 
 
 (c) The texts of tho Conventions aljjhatx'iicHl (irdcr wliich they occupy 
 
 were published in a Parliamentary in the Fron<:h languayo. 
 
 Paper (Miscellaneous, No. 5 (li'll), [rij The appliciitimi of the Ail to 
 
 Cd. 5o5H), which contains, in addition tho colonioa is dealt with under 
 
 to the original texts, which were sect. 9. See post, p. 22.
 
 INTRODUCTORY NOTE. 
 
 Rule of Division of Loss. 
 
 Proportional 
 division of 
 loss. 
 
 House of 
 Lords debate. 
 
 Tho most iiniDortant change made by the Act is the substi- 
 tution for the English rule of equal division of loss in cases 
 where two ships are found in fault (e), of a rule which has 
 been in force in various European countries (/), whereby the 
 loss is apportioned in accordance with the degree of fault 
 attributed to each vessel by the Court . This change is effected 
 by the provisions of sect. 1 of the Act, and by the repeal 
 of sub-sect. 9 of sect. 25 of the Judicature Act, 1873, upon 
 which the English rule has since the date of that Act 
 rested . 
 
 Whether the change brought about in this respect by the 
 Act will be as great in substance as it is in form, is open 
 to doubt. In the first place, the Act itself provides 
 (sect. 1 (1) (a)) that, "if, having regard to all the circum- 
 stances of the case, it is not possible to establish different 
 degrees of fault, the liability shall be apportioned 
 equally" {g). In the second place, the attitude of distin- 
 guished lawyers, in the illuminating debate upon the sub- 
 ject in the House of Lords (Ji), throws some light upon what 
 is likely to be the attitude of English Courts in dealing 
 with the provisions of the Act. In view of the observa- 
 tions {i) made on that occasion, it seems probable that 
 English Courts will, where two ships have been found in 
 fault, usually divide the damages equally. In following 
 this course they would apparently be following the prac- 
 tice of Courts in the countries where the new rule is already 
 in operation (fc). 
 
 (e) For a statement and history 
 of the English ride, see Marsden's 
 Collisions at Sea, 6th ed. p. 117 srq. 
 
 (./) Tlie couulries in which this 
 rule has prevailed are Belgium, 
 France, Greece, Portugal, Germany, 
 the Scandinavian States and Rou- 
 mania. See speech of Lord Gorell 
 in the House of Lords debate, 
 Hansard's House of Lords Debates, 
 vol. 10, col. 20. 
 
 (.<?) ^ee post, p. 13. 
 
 (A) The debate took place on the 
 3l8t October, 1911, and is reported 
 in Hansard, Vol. 10, House of Lords 
 Debates, cols. 16 to 38. 
 
 (i) Lord Gorell spoke in oppo- 
 sition to the proposed change. Lord 
 Loreburn, L. C, said: "My con- 
 solation is this. I believe that in 
 accoi'dance with the power reserved 
 in this Bill, in nine cases out of ten, 
 perhaps in nineteen cases out of 
 twenty, the old rule will be ob- 
 served and the loss divided, on the 
 ground that the judge will say he 
 really cannot be sure which of the 
 two is the more to blame." See also 
 observations by Lord HaJsbury. 
 
 {k) It was stated by Lord Gorell 
 in the debate in the House of Lords 
 (see col. 21) that a note had been cir-
 
 OW^IUTS. 
 
 s 
 
 IXTRODTTCTORV NOTF.. 
 
 By sect. 1 of the Act the innocent owner of cargo and Carjro 
 of other property ladeu on boai'd one of two delinquent vosselr 
 is only entitled to recover such an amount of his loss as is 
 proportionate to the degree of fault which attaches to the 
 vessel on which his goods were laden. In this resjiect the 
 Act in limiting the right of the cargo-owner "to recover 
 full damages is in accordance with the rule of English 
 law, first clearly laid down by Dr. Lusiiing-ton in a now 
 famous case (l), and recently aHirmed in the House of 
 Lords (m). But the new rule goes further, and in theory 
 identifies the innocent cargo-owner with the shipowner, 
 whose servants have been negligent, and in this respect is 
 contrary to judicial opinion (w). It is open to doubt 
 whether it is equitablj', even in theory, an advance on the 
 old rule. 
 
 Scope oi-^ New Rule. 
 While the Act would appear clearly to lay dow^n the rights Innocent 
 
 ,,.,.,.. .. , , „ ,,. third partit's. 
 
 and liabilities existing between the owners oi two tlclin- 
 quent ships and their cargoes laden therein, it does not seem 
 perfectly clear whether by the terms of the Act the innocent 
 owner of a third ship, or cargo therein, or of property on 
 land, damaged by the joint negligence of the two first-men- 
 tioned ships, has or has not lost liis rights of recovery in 
 full (o) from the owners of either delinquent vessel. Taking 
 the words of the Act, the rule laid down in sect. 1 only 
 applies, " Where, by the fault of two or more vessels, damage 
 is caused to one or more of tJiose vessels . . . ." If those 
 words be interpreted strictly it would seem that the rule 
 would not be applicable in the case of damage susttiined 
 by innocent third parties, and that these persons have left 
 to them all the remedies which they have hitherto enjoyed. 
 
 culatcfl ou the Continent to the effect (/) 77;^ Milan (1861), Lush. 3S8. 
 
 that in countrieH where the propor- (w) The Jhiimlanrii/, [1911] A. C. 
 
 tioual rule is in force the Iohh has IG. 
 
 been apportif)ned equally in ninety («) The Milnu, supra. 
 
 per ncTit. of the oases of " both to (o) See Marsden, p. 132; The 
 
 blame." See further as to the work- FrankhnuK [I'MX] V . IGl; The S>a- 
 
 ing of this rule in theno oouufricH, romr. Ship. Gaz Dor. 13th, 1011 ; 
 
 The Law Quarterly Keview, vol. xii. Thv fJaoiig/iiro, ihui. 
 
 p. 200.
 
 INTRODUCTORY NOTE. 
 
 Meaniug of 
 damage or 
 loss. 
 
 Looking at the question from a somewhat broader point 
 of view, there would seem to be no doubt that it was the 
 intention of the contracting States, as manifested in Art. 4 
 of the Collision Convention, that innocent third parties 
 should only recover from each delinquent party in propor- 
 tion to the degree of fault attaching to the latter (p) . 
 
 It would seem that the personification of the vessels in 
 sect. 1, a popular and quite inaccurate form of phraseology, 
 may lead to confusion in determining what is " damage 
 or loss" within the meaning of the section. Taken alone 
 the words " damage or loss .... to one or more of those 
 vessels, to their cargoes or freight, or to any property on 
 board ' seem to refer to the actual damage or loss caused to 
 the objects named as distinguished from the owners of those 
 objects. That, however, consequential damages, at least of 
 some kinds, are included in the scope of the section is made 
 clear by the extended meaning given to the expression 
 "damage or loss" by sect. 1, sub-sect. (2). By that sub- 
 section " references to damage or loss caused by the fault 
 of a vessel shall be construed as including references to any 
 salvage or other expenses, consequent upon that fault, re- 
 coverable at law by way of damages." But even with these 
 extensions it may be doubted if the section, construed 
 literally, covers every kind of loss or damage hitherto re- 
 coverable in damage actions, e.g., damages for loss of the 
 use of a ship (q), or loss of bounties in the case of a foreign 
 ship. Possibly, by a benevolent construction, such losses 
 might be held to be covered by the words "loss .... to 
 one or more of those vessels" or " freight." This was pro- 
 bably the intention of those who passed the Act, though the 
 Convention is itself obscure as to the damages, with which 
 it professes to deal (r) . A still greater difficulty is apparent 
 in the case of such a head of damages as was discussed in 
 the case of the Mediami (s) . Thus, where a public non- 
 
 (p) According to the English 
 translation of this article, "even to 
 third parties a vessel is not liable for 
 more than such proportion of such 
 damages." The preamble (see infra, 
 p. 12) states that the object of the 
 Act is to give effect to the Conven- 
 tions, and it might therefore be that 
 the Court would, in case of doubt, 
 pay regard to the texts of the Con- 
 
 ventions. 
 
 (q) See Roscoe on Damages in 
 ColUsion Actions, pp. 73, 74. 
 
 (r) Art. 4 of the Collision Con- 
 vention refers to "damages caused 
 either to the vessels or their cargoes, 
 or to the effects or other property of 
 the crews, passengers, or other per- 
 sons on board . . ." 
 
 (s) [1900] A. C. 113. See also
 
 INTRODUCTORY NOTE. 
 
 trading authority has kept a staud-by ship, and this is used 
 in place of one damaged by collision, such authority has 
 obtained as damages a sum to represent the use of the sub- 
 stituted ship . It may be that in order to bring this head of 
 damages within sect. 1 of the Act, it will be necessary to 
 interpret '' damage or loss .... to one or more of those 
 vessels" as meaning 'damage or loss . . . . tx) the oirmrf! 
 of one or more of those vessels." This interpretation would 
 probabh- solve all the difficulties referred to above. 
 
 Contribution. 
 
 A right of demanding contribution appears to exist under Contriimtion 
 the Act in respect of all damage coming within the terms au'damuire^ 
 of the Act. Thus presumably one of two delinquent witliin the 
 shipowners will be able in the future, as in the past, to 
 reeover from the other the balance, if any, due to him after 
 taking into account all items on each side, regard being had 
 to the proportion of fault attributable to either ship. 
 
 What will be the position of damage {t) not within the Damaiure uot 
 Act is not clear. On the one hand, in so far as any right 
 of demanding contribution hitherto recognised has not been 
 abolished by the express terms of the Act, such right might 
 be deemed to continue to exist. On the other hand, such right 
 might be considered to have been removed by the Act on 
 the principle of inclusio uniiis exchisio alterius. Probably 
 the former view would succeed. 
 
 The right given in respect of loss of life and personal Life and 
 injury claims is probably, so far as the first-mentioned claims "/^JJ^-^, 
 are concerned, new (z<). It may be observed that special 
 rights are given by sect. 3 (2) of the Act for those staking 
 contribution in respect of these claims !':rV 
 
 The Greta Holme, [1897] A. C. 59G ; shipowners might be rosrardod an 
 
 ?%<? 3/r/>/Bmrt, [1907] A.C. 241 ; The "'expen.sea . . . recoverablo ut hiw 
 
 Astrnlh(in,l\^\()']V.ll2\ Marsden, by way of damagei* " under niib- 
 
 pp 111,112; Roscoe on Damages in sect. (2) of sect. 1, and therefore 
 
 Collision Actions, pp. 84—87. within the A<'t. 
 
 (t) As possibly in the case of \u) See The _ Bernim (1888), 13 
 
 claims by innocent third parties, sec Ajjp. Cas. 1 ; The I'rnt Cn4z {\HHi), 
 
 ante, p. 7. It may be, however, 10 App. Cas. •',<.)■. Tho firce, [19061 
 
 that payments to inaocent third P. 1. 
 
 parties by one of two delinquent (i) Hee post, p. 16.
 
 10 
 
 INTRODUCTORY NOTE. 
 
 Loss OF Life and Personal Injuries. 
 
 Loss of life. 
 
 Personal 
 injuries. 
 
 Claimants under Lord Campbell's Act {y) would appear 
 to enjoy an improved position under the Act, as for the 
 first time they are given a general power of enforcing their 
 claims in rem{z). It would seem, further, that the limit 
 of time within which an action must be brought has been 
 extended from one year under Lord Campbell's Act to two 
 years or more (a) . 
 
 On the other hand, claimants in respect of personal injury 
 would appear, in having tlieir period of limitation reduced 
 to two or more years (6). to be in a worse position than 
 formerly. 
 
 Statutory Presumption of Fault. 
 
 The Act repeals the law, hitherto in force, that a ship in 
 the navigation of which one of the Collision Regulations 
 has been infringed, shall be deemed to be in fault for a 
 collision, " unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court 
 that the circumstances of the case made departure from the 
 regulation necessary" (c). The effect of the removal of this 
 provision will be that a ship will only be held to be in fault 
 for a breach of the Collision Regulations if, in the opinion 
 of the Court, such breach did in fact contribute to the col- 
 lision, even although the circumstances did not make depar- 
 ture from the regulation in question necessary. It follows 
 that any inquiry as to whether a breach of a regulation 
 might possilly have contributed to a collision will be hence- 
 forth irrelevant (d), and the law will now be unquestionably 
 clearer. 
 
 (y) 9 & 10 Vict. c. 93. See sect, o, 
 post, p. 18. 
 
 {z) The Vera Cruz (1884), 10 App. 
 Gas. 59. By the Shipowners' Negli- 
 gence Remedies Act, 1905 (5 Edw. 7, 
 c. 10), loss of life and personal in- 
 jury claimants were given a right to 
 get a ship arrested where the acci- 
 dent had been caused by the ship, or 
 had been sustained on, in, or about 
 the bhip, in consequence of the negli- 
 
 gence of the owners or their servant, 
 or of the defective equipment of the 
 shijj, provided the accident hap- 
 pened in a port or harbour of the 
 United Kingdom. 
 
 {a) See post, p. 20. 
 
 [b] Ibid. 
 
 \v) Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 
 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 60), s. 419 (4). 
 See Marsden, p. 39. 
 
 [d] See Marsden, p. 42.
 
 INTRODUCTORY NOTE. 11 
 
 Compulsory Pilotage. 
 
 By Alt. o of the CoUisiou Couveution, the defenoe of com- 
 pulsory pilotage was abolished. An article was, however. 
 added before the Convention was signed. U) the effect that 
 it should not be obligatory to give effect to Art. 5 until the 
 contracting States had arrived at an agreement on the subject 
 of the limitation of liability of shipowners. The defence 
 accordingly remains good under the Act. It seems prob- 
 able, however, that the defence will be abolished by legis- 
 lation at an early date. A provision to this effect was con- 
 tained in sect. 44 of the Pilotage Bill, which was introdua^d 
 into Parliament in the session of 1911, but the Bill was not 
 proceeded with. 
 
 Salvage. 
 
 The Salvage Convention is so far in accord with previously 
 existing English law that it has only been found necessary 
 to insert two sections (e) in the Act dealing with this sub- 
 ject. The contents of these are commented upon in the 
 notes attaehed to the sections (/) . 
 
 Scope of Conventions. 
 
 It may be observed that the Conventions (g) do in fact Daumgo 
 deal with subjects other than collisions between vessels collision, 
 and salvage. The expression "collision" is only employed 
 in the preamble of the Act and in the references to the 
 Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, contained in sect. 4 (h), and 
 it would seem clear that cases where damage has arisen other- 
 wise than by actual contact, are within the terms of the 
 Act. The Collision Convention by its terms (0 extends 
 to making good damage caused " either by the execution or 
 non-execution of a manoeuvre, or by the non-observance 
 of the regulations, even if no collision had actually taken 
 place." 
 
 (e) SectH. 6, 7. p. 5. 
 
 (f) J'ost, pp. 12 --^S. (A) See/yoW, p. 17. 
 iff) Sec Prelimijiary NoU-, mite, (i) Art. 13. 
 
 B 2
 
 12 MARITIME CONVENTIONS ACT, 1911. 
 
 An Act to amend the Law relatiny to Merchant Shipping 
 with a view to enabling certain Conventions to he 
 carried into e feet. [16th December, 1911.] 
 
 Whereas at the Conference held at Brussels in the 
 year nineteen hundred and ten two conventions, 
 dealing respectively with collisions between vessels 
 and with salvage, were signed on behalf of His 
 Majesty, and it is desirable that such amendments 
 should be made in the law relating to merchant 
 shipping as will enable effect to be given to the 
 conventions : 
 
 Be it therefore enacted, &c. 
 
 King's ships. It may be noted that the amendments to the existing la^ 
 are stated to be " in the law relating to merchant shipping." 
 It would appear, therefore, that this Act does not apj)ly to 
 His Majesty's ships. This is borne out by the fact that, 
 by sect. 10 of the Act(/c), "This Act . . . shall be con- 
 strued as one with the Merchajit Shipping Acts, 1894 to 
 1907." Sect. 741 of the Act of 1894 provides that that 
 Act shall not apply to His Majesty's ships, except where 
 specially provided {I). 
 
 Provisions as to Collisions^ ^c. 
 Rule as to \^ — (1) Where, by the fault of two or more 
 
 division of ^ ■' "^ ^ 
 
 loss. • vessels, damage or loss is caused to one or more 
 
 of those vessels, to their cargoes or freight, or to 
 any property on board, the liability to make good 
 
 {k) See pout, p. 23. 
 
 (l) As to possible result of this, see note to sect. 1, pogt, p. 14.
 
 MAKITIME CONVENTIONS ACT, 1911. ^^ 
 
 the damage or loss shall be in proportion to the 
 degree in which each vessel was in fault : 
 Provided that — 
 
 (a) if, having regard to all the circumstances 
 
 of the case, it is not possible to establish 
 different degrees of fault, the liabiHty 
 shall be apportioned equally : and 
 
 (b) nothing in this section shall operate so as 
 
 to render any vessel liable for any loss 
 or damage to whicli lier fault has not 
 contributed ; and 
 
 (c) nothing in this section shall affect the 
 
 liability of any person under a contract 
 
 of carriage or any contract, or shall be 
 
 construed as imposing any liability upon 
 
 anv person from which he is exempted 
 
 by any contract or by any provision of 
 
 law, or as affecting the right of any 
 
 person to limit his liability in the 
 
 manner provided by law. 
 
 (2) For the purposes of this Act, the expression 
 
 "freight'' includes passage money and hire, and 
 
 references to daniag(^ or loss caused by the fault of 
 
 a vessel shall be construed as including references 
 
 to any salvage or other expenses, consequent upon 
 
 that fault, recoverable at law by way of damages. 
 
 The Act applies to all waters, and its application is not A't ;.prli.H 
 confined, as is that of the Collision Regulations, to waters ,„„| „i, 
 navigable by sea-going vessels (mj. Similarly, the Act vo««o1h. 
 applies to all vessels. A vessel is defined by s<xt. 742 ol' 
 the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (with which this Act is 
 to be construed as one (w)), a.s including " any ship ur boat, 
 
 (,«) Marsden, pp. 310, .m. {«) See HCK,t. U), post, p. 2:1.
 
 14 
 
 MARITIME CONVENTIONS ACT, 1911. 
 
 Fault. 
 
 King's ships 
 
 Workmen's 
 
 compensation 
 
 claims. 
 
 Compulsory 
 pilotage. 
 
 or any other description of vessel used in navigation" (o). 
 It would seem, therefore, that, for the provisions of the Act 
 to apply, both vessels at fault must be within this defini- 
 tion (p). 
 
 The Act contains no definition of fault, but it would seem 
 that this term would, having regard to the general intention 
 of the Act, only refer to some negligent act in the naviga- 
 tion or management of the vessels (q). Contact between the 
 vessels at fault would seem unnecessary (r) . 
 
 Probably the provisions of this section would be treated 
 by the Court as part of the lex fori, so that, although the Act 
 does not apply to His Majesty's ships (s), and although sub- 
 sect. (9) of sect. 25 of the Judicature Act, which applied to 
 all cases of collision between ships, is repealed, the rule of 
 division of loss established by this section w^ould be applied 
 in the case of a collision between a warship and a mer- 
 chantman . 
 
 It may be doubted whether claims made under the Work- 
 men's Compensation Act, 1906 (t), are within the terms of 
 this section. Although "an expense recoverable at law by 
 way of damages," so far as the claim of an innocent ship- 
 owner, who has been forced to pay compensation, against 
 a delinquent shipowner is concerned (u), a payment under 
 this Act is not recovered as " damages " but as " compensa- 
 tion." It may also be doubted whether, inasmuch as com- 
 pensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act is re- 
 coverable, irrespective of fault on the part of the employer, 
 the payment of such compensation could be brought within 
 the words contained in sub -sect. (2) of this section, " damage 
 or loss caused by the fault of a vessel." 
 
 As the defence of compulsory pilotage is not abolished, 
 presumably a successful defence on this ground by ono of 
 two vessels, both of which are at fault, would result, if the 
 previously existing practice be followed, in the vessel under 
 pilotage getting only such proportion of her damages as the 
 degree of fault in the other vessel renders her owners liable 
 
 (o) As to effect of this on County 
 Court jurisdiction, see post, under 
 sect. 5, at p. 18. 
 
 (p) For case of a vessel held not to 
 be used in navigation, see The Mayor 
 of Southport V. Morris, [1893] 1 Q.B. 
 359. 
 
 [q) See introductory note, ante, 
 p. 11. 
 
 [r] Ibid, 
 
 (*■) See note to Preamble, ante, 
 p. 12. 
 
 [t) 6 Edw. 7, c. 58. 
 
 [h) The Annie, [1909] P. 176.
 
 MARITIME CONVENTIONS ACT. 1911. 1'^' 
 
 to pay, while the vessel not under pilotage would recover 
 nothing (x) . 
 
 It would seem j)robable that some modiheation may have Cost's, 
 to be made in the practice hitherto followed, whereby tJie 
 owners of each of two ships at fault ai'e required by tJie 
 Court to bear their own costs (//). If a vessel is, for instiinco, 
 entitled to the larger proportion of damages, the costs of 
 the action should logically be recovered in the same ratio. 
 
 2. Where loss of life or personal injuries are DamaKt^s for 
 
 persoiml 
 
 suffered by any person on board a vessel owing to iiij'Tios. 
 the fault of that vessel and of any other vessel or 
 vessels, the liability of the owners of the vessels 
 shall be joint and several : 
 
 Provided that nothing in this section shall be 
 construed as depriving any person of any right of 
 defence on which, independently of this section, he 
 might have relied in an action brought against him 
 by the person injured, or any person or persons 
 entitled to sue in respect of such loss of life, or shall 
 affect the right of any person to limit his liability in 
 cases to which this section relates in tlie manner 
 provided by law. 
 
 This section seems to alHrm the previously existing law, 
 at least so far as relates to claims by or in respect of passen- 
 gers or members of the crew, other than those by whose 
 personal default the collision was in part caused {z). What 
 effect the section would have in the case of a claim Umuo^ 
 made against the owners of the other ship b^-, or in ri\si)(N't 
 of, a pilot or member of the crew, by whose negligence the 
 collision was in part caused, does not seem clear. It would 
 seem, however, that the second paragraph of the st'ctiou has 
 preserved to the persons sued the right to si't up the defonot* 
 of contributory ncglicence in such a case. 
 
 [x) Marrtdeu, p. -'-I'L (.'/) Miii-Hd.-ii. p. 306. 
 
 (z) MarBtlcii, p. 132.
 
 16 
 
 "Owners." 
 
 Riglit of 
 oonb-ibution. 
 
 Right of 
 contribution. 
 
 Meaning of 
 proviso. 
 
 MARITIME CONVENTIONS ACT, 1911. 
 
 The expression " owners,'" which is used in this section 
 for the first time, is defined in sect. 9 (4) of the Act (a). 
 
 3. — (1) Where loss of life or personal injuries are 
 suffered by any person on board a vessel owing to 
 the fault of that vessel and any other vessel or 
 vessels, and a proportion of the damages is recovered 
 against the owners of one of the vessels which 
 exceeds the proj^ortion in which she was in fault, 
 they may recover by way of contribution the 
 amount of the excess from the owners of the other 
 vessel or vessels to the extent to which those vessels 
 were respectively in fault : 
 
 Provided that no amount shall be so recovered 
 which could not, by reason of any statutory or con- 
 tractual limitation of, or exemption from, liability, 
 01- which could not for any other reason have been 
 recovered in the first instance as damages by the 
 persons entitled to sue therefor. 
 
 (2) In addition to an}^ other remedy provided by 
 law, the persons entitled to any such contribution as 
 aforesaid shall, for the purpose of recovering the 
 same, have, subject to the provisions of this Act, the 
 same rights and powers as the persons entitled to 
 sue for damages in the first instance. 
 
 The right of contribution in respect of loss of hfe claims 
 is probably new. See ante, p. 9. 
 
 The proviso contained in the second paragraph of sub- 
 sect. (1) appears to contemplate such a ca.se as that of a 
 seaman recovering against the owners of the ship on which 
 he is not serving. In this case those owners would not be 
 able to recover a contribution from the owners of the other 
 vessel if the latter, had the seaman proceeded against them 
 
 (a) See po.sf, p. 22.
 
 MARITIME CONVENTIONS ACT, 1911. 17 
 
 in the first instance, would have had a good defence on the 
 ground of common employment (?>\ 
 
 It would seem that the wording of the section would jjermit Tl.ird puny 
 a party entitled to contribution from another party to bring l"""^'*^'"'''- 
 in such other party as a third partv under R. S. C. 
 Ord. XVI. rr. 48— 65(c). 
 
 The same ditiicuUies seem lo stand in the wav of iueludiiiir Workmeirs 
 Avorkmen's compensation claims under this section as in tlu' ''•^'"P'^"-""""- 
 case of sect. I {d). 
 
 4. — (1) Subsection (4) of section four hundred Abolition <>f 
 
 1 • f 1 Ml ri • • statutory 
 
 and nineteen ot the Merchant 8hii)ping Act, 1894 prcsun.pti..n« 
 (which provides that a ship shall he deemed in fault 57 Tss vi.t. 
 in a case of collision where any of the collision ''^ ^'^^" 
 regulations have been infringed bv that ship), is 
 hereby repealed. 
 
 (2) The failure of the master or person in charge 
 of a vessel to comply with the provisions of section 
 four hundred and twenty-two of the Merchant 
 Shipping Act, 1894 (which imposes a duty upon 
 masters and persons in charge of vessels after a 
 collision to stand by and assist the other v(\ssel), 
 shall not raise any presumption of law that the 
 collision was caused by his wrongful act, neglect, 
 or default, and accordingly subsection (2) of that 
 section shall be repealed. 
 
 As to the effect of the repeal of scr-t. 419, sub-sect. (4), 
 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, see ante, p. 10. The 
 contents of neither of the sections in the Merchant Shipping 
 Act, 1894, referred to are quite accuratel}' set out in fhis 
 section. 
 
 {b) Marwdcn, p. 90. in such a i iiho. Soi- Iloiim.' <if Lordn 
 
 (c) It waH contemplated in debate DobatcH, vol. 10, col. 33. 
 
 in the House of Lords that third (rf) Hro ntitf, ]>. 14. 
 
 party procedure would be applicable
 
 18 
 
 MARITIME CONVENTIONS ACT, 1911 
 
 Duty to stand 
 by remains. 
 
 It mav be observed that all that is repealed of sect. 422 
 is sub-sect. (2), and that consequently the duties of rendering 
 assistance, standing by, and giving names still remain, 
 although no presumption of fault arises in consequence of 
 a breach of such duties. 
 
 Jurisdiction 
 in cases of 
 loss of life 
 or personal 
 injury. 
 
 6. Any enactment which confers on any Court 
 Admiralty jurisdiction in respect of damage shall 
 have effect as though references to such damage 
 included references to damages for loss of life or 
 personal injury, and accordingly proceedings in 
 respect of such damages may be brought in rem 
 or in personam. 
 
 New right 
 
 ill rem. 
 
 County 
 Courts. 
 
 This section is one of considerable importance, as by it 
 claimants under Lord Campbell's Act for the first time 
 become entitled to enforce their claims in rem{e). This 
 right, by sect. 3, sub-sect. (2), also extends to shipowners 
 seeking contributions in respect of such claims. 
 
 Although the wording of this section is not very apt for 
 the purpose, inasmuch as County Courts only possess a 
 limited Admiralty jurisdiction (/) in regard to damage, it 
 is probably intended to include County Courts within tlie 
 scope of its provisions. If this be so, tlien the question 
 arises whether the claimant under Lord Campbell's Act will 
 be able to bring his action in rem in the County Court in cir- 
 cumstances in which a claimant in respect of damage to 
 ship or cargo could not. Thus it has been held that a County 
 Court has no Admiralty jurisdiction in regard to damage 
 claims in the case of a collision in the body of a county 
 between two dumb barges, on the ground that neither of 
 these vessels were ships {g) . The provisions of this Act, 
 however, apply not onl}^ to "ships," but to vessels (i^), and 
 it might be argued that a right in rem had been given to 
 claimants under Lord Campbell's Act by this section, even 
 
 {e) The Vera Cruz (1884), 10 App. 
 Cas. 59, is therefore no longer law. 
 
 (/) See the Cr)unty Courts Ad- 
 miralty Jurisdiction Acts, 1868, 1869 
 (31 & 32 Viet. c. 71, and 32 & 33 
 Vict. c. 61), and Williams & Bruce' s 
 
 Adniii'alty Practice, 3rd ed., pp. 240 
 —248. 
 
 iff) Everard v. Kendall (1870), 
 L. R. 5 C. P. 428. 
 
 [h) See ante, p. 13.
 
 MARITIME COXVENTIONS ACT, 1911. 19 
 
 where such claimant had sustained his injury as a result of 
 a collision between two dumb barges or otherwise in circum- 
 stances in which the County Court has not, so far as damage 
 is concerned, Admiralty jurisdiction. It may, however, be 
 suggested that the contrar}' view is the more likely to prevail, 
 as from the reference to "damage" in the section it would 
 appear that the Legislature only intends to give jurisdiction 
 in rem in respect of life claims in circumstances in whitli 
 the County Court already has jurisdiction in respect of 
 damage . 
 
 Provisions as to ISalvage. 
 
 6. — (1) The master or person in charijfe of a General duty 
 vessel shall, so far as he can do so without serious assistmico to 
 clanger to his own vessel, her crew and pa8scn<j:ers dauji^Ht 
 (if any), render assistance to every person, even if 
 such person be a subject of a foreign State at war 
 with His Majesty, who is found at sea in dang-or ol' 
 being lost, and, if ho fails to do so, he shall be 
 guilty of a misdemeanour. 
 
 (2) Compliance b}^ the master or person in charge 
 of a vessel with the provisions of this section shall 
 not affect his right or tlie right of any other person 
 to salvage. 
 
 sea. 
 
 The provisions of this section are quite new. The neces- 
 sity to render assistance only arises in the case of a " person " 
 in danger, and not of a vessel or her cargo, and only where 
 such person " is found at sea in danger of being lost." Pre- 
 sumably, the danger must be imminent. 
 
 The position of the master of a ship who linds himself I'ositiDn <.t 
 so placed as to be able to perform life-salvago is now , in 
 certain circumstances, somewhat peculiar. If ho does render 
 services, he may be entitled to a statutory reward by 
 sect. 544 (3) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1804, and, if \w 
 does not, he may bo liable to punishment under this section.
 
 20 
 
 MARITIME CONVENTIONS ACT, 1911. 
 
 Salvage of 
 an enemy. 
 
 Misde- 
 meanour. 
 
 As the Act does not refer to His Majesty's ships (i), the 
 penalty attaching to failure to render assistance could not 
 be exacted from the commander of one of His Majesty's 
 ships. 
 
 By the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, s. 680 (1), a mis- 
 demeanour under that Act is punishable by a fine or im- 
 prisonment for not exceeding two years, with or without hard 
 labour, or, if the offence is prosecuted summarily, by a fine 
 not exceeding £100, or imprisonment not exceeding six 
 months, with or without hard labour. 
 
 Apportion- 
 ment of 
 salvage 
 amongst 
 owners, &c. 
 of foreign 
 .ship. 
 
 7. Where any dispute arises as to the apportion- 
 ment of any amount of salvage among the owners, 
 master, pilot, crew, and other persons in the service 
 of any foreign vessel, the amount shall be appor- 
 tioned, by the Court or person making the appor- 
 tionment in accordance with the law of the country 
 to which the vessel belongs. 
 
 This may prove a somewhat inconvenient enactment, as 
 it Avould seem to necessitate, in any case where the section 
 applies, proof by evidence of the " law of the country to 
 which the vessel belongs " (/c) . It may be that the wide 
 discretion hitherto enjoyed by the Court in the matter of 
 apportionment (?) will, where the section applies, be cur- 
 tailed, as the Court must apparently apportion in accord- 
 ance with a law which may give it no discretion at all. 
 
 Limitation iif 
 actions. 
 
 General Provisions. 
 
 8. No action shall be maintainable to enforce 
 any claim or lien against a vessel or her owners in 
 respect of any damage or loss to another vessel, her 
 cargo or freight, or any property on board her, or 
 damages for loss of life or personal injuries suffered 
 
 (t) See note to preamble, nnte, edit., pars. 1423 — 142-5. 
 p. 12. (1) See Kennedy on Civil Salvage, 
 
 {k) See Taylor on Evidence, 10th 2nd edit. p. 169.
 
 MARITIME CONVENTIONS ACT, 1911. 21 
 
 by any person on hoard her, caused hy tlie fault of 
 the former vessel, whether such vessel be wholly or 
 partly in fault, or in respect of any salvage services, 
 unless proceedings therein are commenced within 
 two years from the date when the damage or loss or 
 injury was caused or the salvage services were 
 rendered, and an action shall not be maintainable 
 under this Act to enforce any contribution in 
 respect of an overpaid proportion of any damages 
 for loss of life or personal injuries unless proceed- 
 ings therein are commenced within one year from 
 the date of payment : 
 
 Provided that any Court having jurisdiction to 
 deal with an action to which this section relates 
 may, in accordance with the Rules of Court, extend 
 any such period, to such extent and on such con- 
 ditions as it thinks fit, and shall, if satisfied that 
 there has not during such period been any reason- 
 able opportunity of arresting the defendant vessel 
 within the jurisdiction of the Court, or within 
 the territorial waters of the country to which the 
 plaintiff's ship belongs or in which the plaintiff 
 resides or has his principal place of business, 
 extend any such period to an extent sufficient to 
 give such reasonable opportunity. 
 
 This section establishes an entirely new limitation of I ho Nowlimi- 
 actions with which it deals (m) . 
 
 Apart from the loss of life and personal injury tlaims, Nuturo of 
 the claims contemplated by this section are tho sauu' lus those ^orual." 
 contemplated by sect. 1 of the Act(/0. Presumably any 
 claims recoverable at law, which are not covered by tho f(M-ins 
 
 (»n) For previouHly existing liiw an r<-KfH'l« 'liimiigu lifii. ««• MiirHiifii, 
 p. 74. 
 
 (n) Ante, p. 8.
 
 '^■^ MARITIME CONVENTIONS ACT, 1911. 
 
 of sects. 1 and 8, would not be barred in accordance with the 
 provisions of this Act (o) . It will be easy in practice to 
 prevent the period of limitation from running, for it will 
 be competent for a party to take out a writ in rem, and 
 hold it in readiness (p), whenever the vessel on which it is 
 to be served comes within the jurisdiction. 
 
 Application 9. — (1) Tliis Act sliall Gxteiid. throughout His 
 
 of Act. ... . . 
 
 Majesty's dominions and to any territories under 
 his protection, and to Cyprus: 
 
 Provided that it shall not extend to the Dominion 
 of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the 
 Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South 
 Africa, and. Newfoundland. 
 
 (2) This Act shall not apply in any case in which 
 proceedings have been taken before the passing 
 thereof, and all such cases shall be determined as 
 though this Act had not been passed. 
 
 (3) The provisions of this Act shall be applied 
 in all cases heard and determined in any Court 
 having jurisdiction to deal with the case and in 
 whatever waters the damage or loss in question was 
 caused or the salvage services in question were 
 rendered, and subsection (9) of section twenty-five 
 
 36 & 37 Vict, of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1873, shall 
 cease to have effect. 
 
 (4) This Act shall apply to any persons other 
 than the owners responsible for the fault of the 
 vessel as though the expression '' owners " included 
 such persons, and in any case where, by virtue of any 
 charter or demise, or for any other reason, the 
 owners are not responsible for the navigation and 
 
 [o] See ante, p. 7. under R. S. C. Ord. VIII. r. 1, for 
 
 Ip) This would be subject to tbe the renewal of the writ, 
 leave of the Court being- obtained
 
 MARITIME CONVENTIONS ACT, 1911. 23 
 
 management of the vessel, this Act shall he read as 
 though for references to the owners there were sul)- 
 stituted references to the charterers or other persons 
 for the time heing so responsihle. 
 
 As no date is given for the coming into operation of the Sui,.m«, t. 2 . 
 Act, its provisions presumably apply to all proceedings taken 
 after December 16th, U)ll, on which day the Act received 
 the Royal Assent. 
 
 The Act applies to waters to which the Regulations for Sub-sect. (3). 
 Preventing Collisions at Sea do not {qj. 
 
 This sub-section appears consistent with the principles of Sub(.e<-t. (4). 
 English laM- with regard to liability hitherto recognized (r). 
 
 10. This Act may be cited as the Maritime Con- sh..rt title 
 ventions Act, 1911, and shall be construed as one Htmction. 
 with the Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894 to 1007. 
 
 iq) See Marsden, pp. 316, 333. (r) See Marsden, pp. 62 seq.
 
 TAjr». H.C
 
 JUNE, 1917. 
 
 A 
 
 SELECTION 
 
 oy 
 
 RECENT LAW WORKS 
 
 PITBLTSHED BY 
 
 STEVENS & SONS, Limited, 
 
 119 & 120, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C.2. 
 
 V A Discount of 20 per cent, off all new Books 
 (except where marked net) for Cash with Order. 
 (Carriage or Postage extra.) 
 
 Complete Catalogue of New and Secondhand Law Works post free. 
 
 ABC GUIDE TO THE PRACTICE OF THE SUPREME 
 COURT, 1916. Net, Ss. 
 
 " Of great service to the profession." — Solicitors' Journal. 
 
 ACCOUNTS.— Hodsoirs Practical Accounts for Execu- 
 tors and Trustees. 1914. Net, 10s. Gd. 
 
 " Invaluable to law and accountancy students, solicitors and 
 others." — Lau> Times. 
 
 ADVOCACY.— Harris' Hints on Advocacy.— Fourteenth 
 Edition. 1911. 7*. Qd. 
 
 " Deserves to be carefully read by the younfj barrister whow 
 career is yet before him." — Law Magazine. 
 
 AGRICULTURAL LAW.— Spencer's Agricultural Hold- 
 ing Acts. Fifth Edition. With Notes. 1911 to 1915. 8s. 
 
 " A thoroughly practical and useful treatise." — Saturdaff 
 Review. 
 
 Spencer's Small Holdings Acts.— With Notes. 1909 to 
 1910. 7«. 6d. 
 
 ANNUAL COUNTY COURTS PRACTICE, 1917. 
 
 Net, U. 5s. 
 
 " It admirably fulfils the e*»ential requisitefl of a practice 
 book." — Law Times. 
 
 ANNUAL DIGEST, 1916. 15« 
 
 ANNUAL STATUTES, 1916. 15s
 
 BANKING.— Hart's Law of Banking.— Third Edition. 
 1914. li. 124. 
 
 " The best all-round work on banking law which is in exist- 
 ence." — Financial 'News. 
 
 BANKRUPTCY.— Aggs' Handbook on Bankruptcy. 1915. 
 
 Lawrance's Deeds of Arrangement, with Precedents. 
 
 Eighth Edition. By Sydney E. Williams. 1914. 
 
 7*. 6rf. 
 
 "Concise, practical, and reliable." — Law Times. 
 
 Williams' Law and Practice in Bankruptcy.— 
 
 Eleventh Edition. By E. W. Hansell and M. E. 
 Hansell. 1915. \l. 10a. 
 
 " The leading text-book on bankruptcy." — Law Journal. 
 
 CARRIERS.— Disney's Law of Carriage by Railway.— 
 
 Fourth Edition. 1915. 7s. 6i. 
 
 " Can be cordially recommended to the lawyer." — Law Timet. 
 
 CHANCERY.— Daniell's Chancery Practice.— Eighth Edi- 
 tion. By Sydney E. Williams and F. Guthrie-Smith. 
 2 vols. 1914. 51. 5s. 
 
 Daniell's Chancery Forms and Precedents. — Sixth 
 
 Edition. By R. White, F. E. W. Nichols and H. G. 
 
 Garrett. 1914. 21. 10s. 
 
 "The two volumes on Practice and the one volume of Forms 
 constitute together a most valuable work on the praotioe of the 
 Chancery Division." — Law Quarterly RevieitD. 
 
 COMPANY LAW.— Palmer's Company Law. A Practical 
 
 Handbook for Lawyers and Business Men. Tenth Edi- 
 tion. By Alfred F. Topham. 1916. 15«. 
 
 " Palmer's ' Company Law ' is one of the most useful and 
 convenient text-books on the practitioner's bookshelf." — Law 
 Times. 
 
 Palmer's Company Precedents.— Eleventh Edition. 
 Part L General Forms. 1912. 21. 
 
 Part IL Winding-up Forms and Practice. 1912. 
 
 11. Us. 
 
 Part III. Debentures and Debenture Stock. 1912. 
 
 11. 6s. 
 
 " Palmer's works on Company Law are all beyond criticiami;" 
 — Fyaw Maaaziite.
 
 COMPANY L\\^ continued. 
 
 Palmer's Private Companies.— Thii-tieth Ediriou 1917. 
 
 Set. 1». 
 
 Palmer's Shareholders', Directors', and Voluntary 
 Liquidators' Legal Companion.— Twenty-ninth Edi- 
 tion. 1915. ■ ^et, 28. 6d. 
 
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. Ridges' Constitutional Law 
 
 of England.— Second Edition. 1915. I5t. 
 
 " It enables tho student to obtain a completer view of the whoU 
 
 tield than is obtainable from any other book with which we mn 
 
 acquainted." — Law Notes. 
 
 CONTRACTS. -Addison's Law of Contracts. Kleventh 
 
 Edition. By W. E. Gordon and J. Ritchie. 1911. 
 
 21. 2a. 
 
 "Among- all the works on Contracts, there Ls none more uaeful 
 to the practitioner than Addison." — Law Timps. 
 
 Leake's Principles of the Law of Contracts.— Sixth 
 
 Edition. By A. E. Eandall. 1911. \l.\2s. 
 
 U I 
 
 'A full and reliable guide to the principles of the English r,aw 
 of Contract." — Law Jourttal. 
 
 Pollock's Principles of Contract. -Eighth Edition. 
 1911. U. 8«. 
 
 " There is no book on the English Law of Contraet which deal« 
 so lucidly and yet so comprehen.sively a« thia." — Law Journul . 
 
 CONVEYANCING.— Prideaux's Forms and Precedents 
 
 in Conveyancing.— Twenty-first Edition. By B. L. 
 Cherry and R. Beddington. 2 vols. 1913. 4Z. is. 
 
 " ' Prideaux " is the beet work on Conveyimeinjf." — Low 
 Journal. 
 
 Wolstenholme's Conveyancing and Settled Land 
 
 Acts.— Tenth Edition. By B. L. Cherry. A. E. Rcs- 
 
 SELL and C. V. RAWLE>fCE. 1913. 1/. 5.« 
 
 " The work is valuable not only as an aecurate statement of Hia 
 present law. but aa the mont reliable ^ido on matters of detiiil 
 intended to be covered by the new leg-isLition."--^"' .louma!. 
 
 COPYHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT. Lloyd's Practice 
 
 in Enfranchisements under the Copyhold Act, 1894. 
 
 1913. 5«. 
 
 "The book is well arranged and well written, und the aubjai't 
 is so clearly dealt with a« to be eiwilr understood. *'—/>»/» Not.mt
 
 CRIMINAL LA W. - Archbold on Indictments. — With 
 
 Forma. By H. D. Roomb. 1916. 10s. 6d. 
 
 Russell's Treatise on Crimes and Misdemeanors. — 
 
 Seventh Edition. By W. F. Craies and L. W. Ker- 
 shaw. 3 vols. 1909. 4Z. 10«. 
 %* May be had in 2 vols, bound in buckram, price 
 41. Us. Gd. 
 
 " Indispensable in every Court of criminal justice here and in 
 our colonies." — The Times. 
 
 DEATH DUTIES.— Webster-Brown's Finance Acts.— 
 
 Third Edition. 1915. 12s. Gi. 
 
 " Contains much practical advice which will be of substantial 
 assistance to practitioners." — The Times. 
 
 DICTIONARY.— Wharton's Law Lexicon.— Twelfth Edi- 
 tion. By E. A. Wurtzburg. 1916. 21. 2s. 
 
 " The most useful of legal works." — Law Journal. 
 
 The Pocket Law Lexicon. — Fourth Edition. 1905. 
 
 6s. Gd. 
 
 " A wonderful little leg^al Dictionary." — Law Students' Journal. 
 
 DIGEST.— Mews' Quinquennial Digest, 1911-1915. By 
 
 John Mews. 1916. 21. 10s. 
 
 DIVORCE.— Browne and Watts' Law and Practice in 
 Divorce and Matrimonial Causes. — Eighth Edition. 
 By J. H. Watts. 1913. li. 8s. 
 
 " The practitioner's standard work on divorce practice." — Law 
 Quarterly Review. 
 
 EASEMENTS.— Goddard's Treatise on the Law of Ease- 
 
 ments.r— Seventh Edition. 1910. \l. 5s. 
 
 " Nowhere has the subject been treated so exhaustively." — Law 
 Times. 
 
 Innes* Digest of the Law of Easements. — Eighth Edi- 
 tion. 1911. 7s. 6i. 
 
 " The student will find in it everything that he wants, while the 
 practitioner will be glad to have so safe and comprehensive a 
 guide." — Law Journal. 
 
 EQUITY.— Seton's Forms of Judgments and Orders. 
 
 With Practical Notes. Seventh Edition. By A. R. 
 Ingpen, K.C, F. T. Bloxam and H. G. Garrett. 
 3 vols. 1912. Gl. 
 
 "A most valuable and indispensable work." — Law Journal. 
 
 Smith's Practical Exposition of the Principles of 
 
 Equity.— Fifth Edition. 1914. 21s. 
 
 " Useful to both practitioner and student alike." — Law Stu- 
 dents' Journal.
 
 EVIDENCE.-Holt's Outline of the Rules of Evidence.- 
 
 1917. \-et. 1$. 
 
 Tregarthen's Law of Hearsay Evidence. -1915. 
 
 Met, js 
 " An elaborate and detailed account of a rery iinporf»rtlT 
 understood topic." — Law Qitarterly lin-irw. 
 
 EXECUTORS.— Ingpen's Treatise on the Law relating 
 to Executors and Administrators.— Second Edition 
 1914. Met, U. 5s 
 
 "The book may be refommendcd, with conHdence, an accurate, 
 practical, and learned." — Lfjw Quarterly Review. 
 
 FORMS.— Bowstead's Collection of Forms and Prece- 
 dents other than Conveyancing, Company, liOcal Govern- 
 ment and Practice Forms. — 2 vols. 1914. Kct, 21. IQs. 
 " An indispens able adjunct to every practLanfr lawyer'* 
 library." — LauTjournal. 
 
 Chitty's Forms of Civil Proceedings in the King's 
 Bench Division.— Fourteenth Edition. Hy T. W 
 CiiiTTY, E. H. Chapman and P. Clark. 1912. 2/. 2*. 
 " An indispensable adjunct to every workinj? lawyer's library." 
 — Law Journal. 
 
 Daniell's Chancery Forms and Precedents.— Si.\th 
 
 Edition. By R. White. F. E. \V. Nichols and H. G. 
 
 Garrett. 1914. 21. lOa. 
 
 " The standard work on Chancery Procedare." — r^u> Quarterly 
 
 Review. 
 
 HIRE-PURCHASE SYSTEM.-Russell's Practical Manual 
 of Hire-Trade Law.— Fifth Edition. 1914. 7s. Gi. 
 
 "The book is full of practical su^jgestions." — Snlieilori' 
 Journal. 
 
 INSURANCE.- Arnould on the Law of Marine Insurance 
 and Average. — Ninth Edition. By E. L. de Hart 
 and R. I. Slmey. 2 vols. 1914. 3Z. lOj. 
 
 "Arnould's ' Marino Insurance ' is recognised throughout th» 
 British Empire and the United States as a standard work of 
 almost judicial authority." — Law Journal. 
 
 Stone's Insurance and Workmen's Compensation 
 
 Cases.— 2 vols. 1914. Net, 21. 2s. 
 
 "A very valuable compendium of the case law of insurance." — 
 
 Solicitors' Journal. 
 
 INTERNATIONAL LAW.— Anthonis' Sanctions of Inter- 
 national Law. 1917. Met, Is. 
 Cheng's Rules of Private International Law Deter- 
 mining Capacity to Contract.— ion; 7s. Gd. 
 
 Wheaton's Elements of International Law. Fifth 
 
 English Edition. By Colemav Phillii'sov, LL.l). 
 
 With an Introduction by the Rifjht Hon. Sir Frkdkimck 
 
 Pollock. Bart., D.C.L., LL.D. 191G. ll. I3a. 
 
 " Wbeaton atanda too high for criLicLon." — La*p Timm
 
 LAND VALUES.^Napier's New Land Taxes and their 
 Practical Application. — Second Edition. 1912. 18s. 
 
 "Napier's explanatory siunmary of the new taxation and hia 
 notes on the sections are admirable." — Law Quarterly Revimo. 
 
 LANDLORD AND TENANT.— Woodfall's Law of Land- 
 lord and Tenant. — Nineteenth Edition. By W. Han- 
 bury Aggs. 1912. II. 18j?. 
 
 " Woodfall is really indispensable to the practising lawyer, 
 of whatever degree he may be." — Law Journal. 
 
 LAW LIST, 1917. Net,lQs.Qd. 
 
 LEADING CASES.— Caporn's Selected Cases on the Law 
 
 of Contracts.— Second Edition. 1914. 15*. 
 
 Petrides' Student's Cases, illustrative of all branches 
 of the Law. 1910. 10s. 6i. 
 
 "The cases appear to be well chosen and correctly stated." — 
 Solicitors' Journal. 
 
 Randall's Selection of Leading Cases in Equity. — 
 
 1912. 9«. 
 
 " One of the foremost, if not the best, of Equity case books." — 
 Lau- Students' Journal. 
 
 Shirley's Selection of Leading Cases in the Common 
 
 Law. — Ninth Edition. By E. Watson. 1913. 16s. 
 
 " The selection is very larg-e, though all are distinctly * Leadings 
 Cases,' and the notes are by no means the least meritorioua part 
 of the work." — Law Journal. 
 
 LEGAL HISTORY.— Deans' Student's Legal History.— 
 
 Third Edition. 1913. 7s. Qd. 
 
 "There is no better short introduction to the study of the law." 
 — Law Notes. 
 
 LIBEL AND SLANDER.— Ball's Law of Libel as affecting 
 Newspapers and Journalists. — 1912. 6s. 
 
 "A well-arranged and well-executed work." — Law Journal. 
 
 Odgers' Digest of the Law of Libel and Slander.— 
 
 Fifth Edition. 1911. IZ. 15s. 
 
 "Should be found on the shelves of every practitioner." — Law 
 Students' Journal. 
 
 LUNACY. — Heywood and Massey's Lunacy Practice.- 
 
 Fourth Edition. 1911. IZ. 10s. 
 
 "A complete treatise on lunacy practice." — Solicitors' JourncH. 
 
 MAGISTRATES' PRACTICE, 1916.— By G. M. Atkinson, 
 Stipendiary Magistrate for Leeds. 20s. 
 
 MENTAL DEFICIENCY.— Davey's Law relating to the 
 Mentally Defective.— Second Edition. 1914. 10s. 
 
 "This admirably arranged and handy book." — Law Journal.
 
 MORTGAGE.— Coote's Treatise on the Law of Mort- 
 gages.— Eighth Edition. Rv Sydney E. Williams. 
 2 vols. 1912. 3/. St. 
 
 "It is essentially a prartitiiiUfr's book, and we pronoanoo it 
 'one of the best.' — Law yoU». 
 
 NATIONAL INSURANCE. Watts on National Insur- 
 ance. — 1913. I2s. ed. 
 
 " Mr. Watts has studied tJiis oomplirated .\ct with K''«<^t ca--". 
 and produced a very elaborate and (vimplote edition." — /^.iw 
 Maffazine. 
 
 NIGERIA.— Titles to Land in Nigeria.— 191(; .\f't, 30.«. 
 
 NOTARY.— Brooke on the Office and Practice of a 
 
 Notary.— Seventh Edition. By J. Cranstoun. 1913. 
 
 11. 5s. 
 
 "The book is an eminently practical one, and contains a rery 
 complete collection of notarial precedents." — Latr Journal. 
 
 PARTNERSHIP.- Pollock's Digest of the Law of 
 
 Partnership.— Tenth Edition. 1915 lOr 
 
 PLEADING.— Bullen and Leake's Precedents of Plead- 
 ings. — Seventh Edition. By W. Blake Odgers, K.C, 
 and Walter Blake Odoers. 1915. 21. 2». 
 
 "The standard work on modern pleading." — Law Journal. 
 
 Eustace's Practical Hints on Pleading.— 1907. 5». 
 
 " Especially useful to young solicitors and students of l>oth 
 branches of tne legal profession." — Law Times. 
 
 Odgers' Principles of Pleading and Practice.— Seventh 
 Edition. 1912. 125. 6<i. 
 
 "The safest possible guide in all matters affecting pleading 
 and practice." — Law Journal. 
 
 POOR LAW SETTLEMENT. -Davey's Poor Law Settle- 
 ment and Removal.— Second Edition. 1913. 15». 
 
 " The law of the subject is most industriously and lucidly net 
 out." — The Spectator. 
 
 POWERS.— Farwell's Concise Treatise on Powers.-- 
 
 Third Edition. By C. J. W. Farwell and F. K. 
 Archer. 1916. 1/. 15«. 
 
 PRIZE CASES.— Cases Decided in the Prize Court and 
 on Appeal to the Privy Council. 
 
 Each Part Net. 7s. 6d. 
 
 RATES AND RATING.— Davey's Law of Rating.-1913. 
 
 U. 10«. 
 
 " A oomplete and oxhaustivo treatise on the subject, beyond 
 doubt the most comprehensive which hn-; v«l iip))^^.^"*!." — Lot9 
 Journal. 
 
 RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS. Riviere's Law relating 
 to Receivers and Managers.— r.d 2. 9#. 
 
 "A reliable guide to an intri(«te subject, and •bonld Im« of (rr"*A 
 Mfvioe to practitionera." — Law Journal.
 
 8 
 
 TORTS— Addison's Law of Torts.— Eighth Edition. By 
 W. E. Gordon and W. H. Griffith. 1906. li. 18.5. 
 " Essentially the practitioner's text-book." — Law Journal. 
 
 Pollock's Law of Torts.— Tenth Edition. 1916. 26». 
 
 " Concise, logically arranged, and accurate." — Law Times. 
 %* An Analysis of the above for Students. — Second 
 Edition. By J. K. Mannooch. 1916. 5s. 
 
 TRADE UNIONS. Greenwood's Law relating to Trade 
 Unions.— 1911. 10*. 
 
 " An admirably clear exposition of the law." — Law Quarterly 
 Review. 
 A Supplement to above, including the Trade Union Act, 
 1913. 1913. ]^et,Zs.&d. 
 
 The two works together, net, 10s. 
 
 TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES.— Godefroi on the Law of 
 
 Trusts and Trustees.— Fourth Edition. By Sydney 
 E. Williams. 1915. 1^ 10s. 
 
 "An eminently practical and useful work." — Law Times. 
 
 WARw— Chartres' Munitions of War Acts.— An Analysis, 
 
 with Notes. 1916. Net, 5s. 
 
 Chartres' Judicial Interpretations of the Munitions 
 
 of War Acts.— 1917. Net, 4s. 
 
 Higgins' Defensively Armed Merchant Ships.— 1917. 
 
 Net, Is. 
 
 Page's War and Alien Enemies. — The Law affecting 
 their Personal and Trading Rights; and herein of Con- 
 traband of War and the Capture of Prizes at Sea. 
 Second Edition. 1915. Net, 6s. Gd. 
 
 Stringer's Practice of the High Court under the Courts 
 (Emergency Powers) Act, 1914, &c. 1915. Net,8s. Gd. 
 
 WILLS.— Theobald's Concise Treatise on the Law of 
 
 Wills.— Seventh Edition. 1908. lM5s. 
 
 " Indispensable to the conveyancing practitioner." — Law Times. 
 
 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION. — Costs under the 
 
 Workmen's Compensation Act. —With Precedents. 
 
 1915. 5s. 
 
 Knowles' Law relating to Compensation for Injuries 
 
 to Workmen.— Third Edition. 1912. 15s. 
 
 " Its merits entitle it to rank with the best of the treatises on 
 the subject." — Law Quarterly Review. 
 
 Workmen's Compensation Reports.— A complete Series 
 of Reports of Cases on the subject of Workmen's Com- 
 pensation. With Annotated Index. 
 
 Subscription for 1917, 15s. net (postage Is. extra). 
 
 STEVENS & SONS, Ltd.. 119 dt 120, Chancery Lane, London,
 
 ..*v > 
 
 .-J*^^ 
 
 U^
 
 / 
 
 / 
 
 / 
 
 r
 
 i 
 
 m