STE 119, / 0^ 30 \, w.c. CO Pitt-Lewis embodyiuj Cases, an Barrister-; assisted b; the Law o UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES to Parts. lunty Courts, nal Forms, Table of estern Circuit, Esq., Four Inns of Court, or of "A Treatise on 1.) Price 21. 2s. cloth. 'including Proliibition ng Actions under the L in Replevin), and on Os. cloth. ;cial Statutes. Witli LAW LIBRARY ! was executed with has escaped its due ex completes a work ich is to be found in )ublication on behalf tion Agency. ns and IvCfrfstratiou. IE CARTER, of the V2,mo. ISSO. Price Part I. — Histon and Mand Bills of E; Appeals. Part II. — Practi Append ice " We hi more cons attention which, in our legal '. of County Rogers on Thirteenth With an A Inner Ten 11. 12a-. clou,. " Petition has been added setting forth the procedvire and the decisions on that subject, and the statutes passed since the last edition are explained down to the Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices .Act (\SSO)."— The Times, March L'Tth, 1S80. Addison on Wrongs and their Remedies. — Being a Treatise on the Law of Torts. Fifth Edition. Re-icritten. By L. W. CAVE, Esq., one of Her Majesty's Counsel. Royal 8t'o. 18/9. Price \l. 18s. cloth. " Cave's ' Addison on lorts ' will be recognized as an indispensable addition to every lawyer's librarj'."— Zf'i'.- Mar/azine. Browne's Treatise on the Principles and Practice of the Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes.— With the Statutss, Rules, Fees and Forms relating thereto. Fourth Edition. By GEORGE BROWNE, Esq., B.A., of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law, Recorder of Ludlow. Demy 8vo. 1880. Price 11. is. cloth. Archbold's Practice of the Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer Divisions of the High Court of Justice in Actions, &c., in which they have a Common Jurisdiction. Thirteenth Edition. By S. PRENTICE, Esq., Q.C. 2 vols., 8vo. 1879. Price SI. 3s. cloth. Chitty's Forms of Practical Proceedings in the Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer Divisions of the High Court of Justice. With Notes containing the Statutes, Rules, and Practice relating thereto. Eleve^xth Edition. By THOMAS WILLES CHITTY, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 1 vol., 8ro. 1879. Price II. 18s. cloth. Scott's Costs in the High Court of Justice and other CouTis.— Fourth Edition. By JOHN SCOTT, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, Reporter of the Common Pleas Division. Deihy Svo. 1880. (886 pp.). Price 11. Qs. cloth. " Mr. Scott's introductory notes are very useful, and the work is now a compendium on the law and iiractice regarding costs, as well as a book of precedents."— ia;/' Times. llbert's Supreme Court of Judicature (Ofificers) Act, 1879, with the Rules of the Supreme Court, December, 1879, and April, 1880. With Practical Notes. By COURTENAY P. ILBERT, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister- at-Law. Royal 12mo. 1880. Price 6s. cloth (or limp leather, 9s. M.). %* Large Paper >dition (for Marginal Notes). Royal 8vo. Price 8s. cloth (or limp leather, I2s.). (Formivy a Supplement to " Wilson's Judicature Acts.") *,* A Catalrqiie of Modern Law Works, Reports, 0. Prideaux's Precedents in Conveyancing; with Dissertations on its Law and Practice. Ninth Edition. By FREDERICK PRIDEAUX, late Professor of the Law of Real and Personal Property to the Inns of Court, and JOHN WHITCOMBE, EBqr8.,Barristers-at-Law. 2vols. RoyalSvo. 1879. Price':>l.lOs.chifh. " We have been always accustonied to view ' Pndeaux' as the most useful woik out on COnveyancingr." — Law Journal. Williams' Law of Executors and Administrators.— A Treatise on the Law of Executors and Administrators. Eight Edition. By WALTER VA.UGHAN WILLIAMS, and ROLAND VAUGHAN WILLIAMS, Esqra., Barristers at-Lavv. 2 vols. RoyalSvo. 1879. Price 31. 16s. cloth. " A treatise which occupies a unique position and which is recognised by the Bench and the professiun as having paramount authority in the domain of law with which it deals. " Lata Journal. Cavanagh's Law of Money Securities.— In Three Books. I. Personal Securities. II. Securities on Property. III. Miscellaneous. With an Appendix containing the Crossed Cheques Act, 1876, Locke King's Act and Amending Acts, the Bills of Sale Act, 1878, The Factors Acts, 1823 to 1877. By C. CAVANAGH, B.A., LL.B. (Loud.), of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law. Demy Svo. 1879. Price 11. Is. cloth. " V\'e know of no work which embraces so much that is of everj'-day imi^ortance, nor do we know of any author who shows more familiarity with his subject. . . It will prove a decided acquisition to the practitioner."— Zatc Ihmes. The Justices' Note Book.— By W. Knox Wigram, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, J. p. Middlesex. Royal 12mo. 1880. Price 10s. 6d. cloth. " We have nothing but praise for the book, which is a justices' royal road to knowledge, and ought to lead them to a more accurate acquaintance with then- duties than many of them have hitherto possessed."— So/iC)7or.s' Journal. " This is altogether a capital book. Mr. Wigram is a good lawyer and a good justices' lawyer." — Law Journal. " We can thoroughly recommend the volume to magistrates."— Xnic Times. ; r^. /-^ K r *,* All Standard Law Wwks are kept in Stock, in loio calf and other bindir/j A TREATISE ON THE LAW OF COLLISIONS AT SEA, CONTAINING EXTRACTS FROM THE MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS, THE INTER- NATIONAL REGULATIONS (of 18C3 and 1880) FOR PREVENTING COLLISIONS AT SEA, AND LOCAL RULES FOR THE SAME PURPOSE IN FORCE IN THE THAMES, THE MERSEY, AND ELSEWHERE. REGINALD g! (MA-ksDEN, ir^^-J'jz/. OF THE INNER TEMPLE, ESQ., BARRISTEK-AT-L/VW. ' Si navis tua in^oacta in meam scapliam damnum mild dederit qucesitum est qux actio mihi coiwpetcret." Dig. Ub. ix., tit. ii., fr. 29, § 2. LONDON : STEVENS AND SONS, 119, CHANCERY LANE, 1880. /no PKEEACE. Statistics issued by Lloyd's show that in the year 1878 there were in colhsion 1790 sailing-ships and 836 steam-ships. About 15 per cent, of the steam-ships and 3.6 per cent, of the sailing- ships of the world (estimated as numbering respectively 5462 and 49,524) suffered loss from this one cause. Some idea of the amount of that loss may be formed from the fact that in the Admiralty Division of the High Court of Justice in this country there were instituted in the year ending 31st October, 1878, actions in which sums amounting to £985,550 were claimed for damage by collision. In the same year occurred the collision between the Bywell Castle, and the Princess Alice in the River Thames, in which were lost upwards of 600 lives ; also that between the Grosser Kurfilrst and the Konig Wilhelm, off Folkestone, where 281 of the crew of the former ship perished. The importance of the subject treated of in the following pages is sufficiently shown by the above facts. To seamen having the charge of ships this treatise is offered in the hope that by setting forth the exact requirements of the law it may enable them to navigate in accordance with the laAv, and possibly avert collision. To others interested in shipping, a 2 IV PREFACE. and to the legal profession, is is oftered as containing a summary of the law and cases relating to collisions between ships. Its publication at the present moment is explained by the recent issue of new International Regulations for j^reventing collision at sea, which comes into force on the 1st of September next. I am indebted to my friend, jNIr. C. F. Jemmett, of Lincoln's Inn and the Inner Temple, for valuable suggestions and assist- ance in preparing the following sheets for the press. For eiTors of arrangement, commission and omission (for which I alone am responsible) I ask the indulgence of the reader. 5, New Square, Lincoln's Inn, March, 1880, TABLE OF CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. PAGE General Rules ...... . 1 CHAPTER II. Damageh . . ....... 55 CHAPTER III. Tua AND Tow 78 CHAPTER IV. Foreign Ships — Foreign Law ..... 88 CHAPTER V. Compulsory Pilotage 101 CHAPTER VI. The Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea . 133 APPENDIX 241 ADDENDA. Page 26, note (o) ; see the judgment of the Court of Appeal deh'vered by Brett, L.J., in The Parlement Beige (Court of Appeal, February 27, 1880 ; Times, Febr-aary 28, 1880). „ 29, note (e) ; see the observations of Brett, L.J., on The Bold Buccleugh in The Parlement Beige, ubi sxipra. „ 31, The nature of proceedings in rem was fully considered in Tlie Parlement Beige, vM supra. „ 33, note (b) ; opposed to the view that the "wrongdoing" ship is liable in Admiralty without regard to her ownership is the judg- ment of the Court of Appeal in The Parlement Beige, ubi supra. " The liability to compensate must be fixed not merely on the property but on the owner through the property," per Brett, L..T., ibid. In the same case, it was held that the shipowner is, in fact, impleaded in an Admiralty action in rem, and that the proceed- ings are not merely against the ship. „ 64, note (i/) ; Lohre v. Aitchison is reported on appeal, 4 App. Cas. 755. „ 71, note (^3) ; see The Consett, 28 W. R 307 ; on app. 42 L. T.,N. S., as to the costs of cargo owners before the registrar and merchants. „ 93, The decision of Sir R. Phillimore that Tlie Parlement Beige was liable to arrest, was reversed by the Court of Appeal upon the folloi\dng grounds : — (1) That 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 shijj owned and used by a State or Sovereign for public purposes is exempt from arrest, whether process in rem is considered as a proceeding against the ship or against the shipowner ; (4) Tliat in an action in rem the shipowner is indirectly impleaded. The question whether the ship was exempt from arrest by virtue of the con- vention mentioned in the text (p. 93) was not considered ; The Parlement Beige, ubi supra. „ 1 58, 253, 259. It is intended by Order in Council to postpone the coming into operation of Article 10 of the Regulations of 1880 as to fishing boats' lights imtil the 1st of September, 1881. „ 271—279. By an Order in Council, dated the 18th of March, 1880, the bye-laws for the River Thames printed in the Appendix, pp. 271 — 274 (except No. 15, p. 271), have been rejjealed. By the same Order the rules and bye-laws printed in italics (pp. 274 — 279), and headed as " Proposed " rules, have been enacted in their place. The Schedule to the Order in Council contains an additional bye-law. No. 30, imposing a penalty of £5 for infringe- ment of the bye-laws. The new bye-laws come into force on the 1st of June, 1880. TABLE OF CASES. PAGE " A. R. Wetmore," The, and the The " Epsilon," 5 Bened. 147 87 " Abraham," The, 2 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 34 ; 28 L. T., N. S. 775 10 "Action," The, 1 Sp. E. & A. 176 9 "Active," The, 5 L. T., N. S. 773 72 "Ada," The, and The "Sappho," 27 L. T., N. S. 718 } 1 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 475 ; on app. 28 L. T., N. S. 825 ; 2 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 4 212 Addison v. Overend, 6 T. R. 766 48 "Admiral Boxer," The, Swab. Ad. 193 114 "Adriatic," The, 3 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 16 ; 33 L. T., N. S. 102 14, 155 African Steam Ship Co. v. Swantzy, 2 K. & J. 660 ) 25 L. J. Ch. 870 | 27 L. T. 248; 4 W. R. 210 74 "Agra," The, and The "Elizabeth Jenkins," L. R. 1 P. C. 501 ( 36 L. J. Ad. 16; 16 L. T., N. S. 755; 16 W. R. 735 71, 199, 200, 212, 213 " Agricola," The, 2 W. Rob. 10 Ill, 126, 129 " Aimo," The, and The " Amelia," 2 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 96 ; 29 L. T., N. S. 118 ; 21 W. R. 707 23, 169, 172, 200 Aitchison v. Lohre. See Lohre v. Aitchison. "Alabama," The, and The "Gamecock, 2 Otto, 695 39, 66, 86 "Albert Edward," The, 44 L. J. Ad. 49 ; 24 W. R. 179 10, 36 Aldrich v. Simmons, 1 Stark. 214 42 " Aleppo," The, 14 L. T., N. S. 228; 35 L. J. Ad. 9 11 " Alexandria," The, L. R. 3 A. & E. 574 ; 41 L. J. Ad. 94 ; 27 L. T., N. S. 565 41, 72 "Aline," The, 1 W. Rob. Ill 30, 31, 74 " Aliwal," The, 1 Sp. E. & A. 96 17 " Allan," The, and The "Flora," 2 Mar. Law Cas., 0. S. 386 ; 14 L. T., N. S. 860 206,226 " Amalia," The, Cail v. Papayanni, Br. & Lush. 151 ; 1 Moo. P. C. C, N. S. 471 ; 32 L. J. Ad. 191 ; 12 W. R. 24 ; 8 L. T., N. S. 805 32, 67, 71, 90, 92 34 L.J. Ad. 21 71 and The " Catherine Maria," Holt, 87 168 " Ambassador," The, 2 P. D. 37, note 23 " America," The, 3 Bened. 424 ; 10 Blatchf. 155 ; 2 Otto, 432 3, 8, 142, 176, 213, 218 TABLE OF CASES. PAGE •' American," The, and The " Syria," Union Steamship Co. v. Owners of The " Aracan," L. E. 4 A. & E. 226 ; 43 L. J. Ad. 24 ; 31 L. T., N. S. 42 ; 22 W. E. 845 ; on app. L. R. 6 P. C. 127 ; 43 L. J. Ad. 30 : 22 W. E. 927; 31 L. T., N. S. 42 69, 78, 79, 80, 145, 149, 153, 181, 212 " Andalusian," The, 2 P. D. 231 ; 46 L. J. Ad. 77 235 "Andalusian," The, 3 P. D. 182 j 47 L. J. Ad. 65 ; 39 L. T., N. S. 204; 27 W. E. 172 67, 70 " Anglo Indian," The, 3 Asp. Mar. L. C. 1 ; 33 L. T., N. S. 233 ; 23 W. E. 882 145, 160 " Aim and Mary," The, 2 W. Eob. 189 168 "Anne Caroline," The, 2 Mar. Law Cas., O. S. 208 j 2 Wall. 538. ..173, 210 " Annapolis," The, and The " Golden Light," Lush. 355 ; 1 Mar. Law Cas., O. S. 183 5 5 L. T., N. S. 692 83, 113 and The " Johanna Stoll," Lush. 295 } 30 L. J. Ad. 201 ; 4 L. T., N. S. 417 88, 92, 102, 126 "Annie Lindsay," The, 6 Bened. 290 168 "Araxes," The, and The "Black Prince," General Iron Screw Co. v. Moss, 15 Moo. P.C. C. 122; 5 L. T., N. S. 39 142,176, 212 " Arbutus," The, 2 Mar. Law Cas., O. S. 136 ; 11 L. T., N. S. 208... 102, 123 " Argo," The, Swalj. Ad. 462 110, 114, 115 "Ariadne," The, 2 Bened. 472; 13 Wall. 475 19,218 " Arthur Gordon," The, and The " Independence," Maddox v. Fisher, Lush. 270 ; 14 Moo. P. C. C. 103 ; 4 L. T., N. S. 563 ; 9 W. E. 582 3, 8, 79, 179, 213, 218, 228, 233, 236 " Athol," The, 1 W. Eob. 374 45 "Atlas," The, 2 W. Eob. 502 112, 114 2 Mar. Law Cas., O. S. Dig. 1480 223 10 Blatchf. 459 ; 3 Otto, 302 18, 39, 66, 86, 217 Attlee T. The Packet Co., 21 Wall. 389 36 Attorney General «. Case, 3 Price, 302 119, 126 "Aurora," The, and The "Eobert Ingram," Lush. 327 146 Australian Direct Steam Navigation Co., In re The, L. E. 20 Eq. 325 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 676 31 B. "Baltic," The, 2 Bened. 452 10 Barken'. Highley, 11 W. E. 968 39 "Batavier," The, 2 W. Eob. 407 11, 104, 219 1 Sp. E. & A. 378 ; on app. nom. Netherlands Steam- boat Co. i;. Styles, 9 Moo. P.C. C. 286; 28 L. T. 429 4, 56, 111, 112, 185, 216, 233, 234 "Bay State," The, Blatchf. 48 193 "Beaver," The, 2 Bened. 118 10 Beilby V. Paper, 3 B. & Ad. 284 125 V. Scott, 7 M. & VV. 93 107, 119 " Belgic," The, 2 P. D. 57 (note; ; 46 L. J, Ad. 58 (note) ; 35 L. T., N S 929 109 « Beilerophon," H. M. S., 3 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 58 ; 44 L. J. Ad. 7 ; SSL. T., N. S. 412 231, 233 " Benares," The, 7 Not. of Cas. 50, Suppl 30 TABLE OF OASES. PAOE " Benefactor," The, 14 Blatchf. 254 6, 142, 231 "Bengal," The, Swab. Ad. 468 36 " Bemnore, ' The, L. R. 4 A. & E. 132 ; 43 L. J. Ad. 5 ; 22 W. R. 190 10 Benuetr. Moita, 7 Taunt. 258 107 Bentley v. Coyne, 4 Wall. 509 208 " Berkshire,' The. See The " Scotia." "Beta," The, L. R. 2 P. C. 447 ; 34 L. J. Ad. 76 ; 20 L. T., N. S. 988 : 17 W. R. 933 64 2 Mar. Law Cas., O. S. 165 ; 12 L. T., N. S. 1 102, 122 " Betsy," The, cited in The " Panther, 1 Sp. E. & A. 31, 34, note 168 " Betsey Caines," The, 2 Hag. Ad. 28 61 " Bilboa," The, Lush. 149; 3 L. T., N. S. 338 31, 98 "Birkenhead," The, 3 W. Rob. 75 45, 183 "Black Prince," The, Lush. 568 62 Bland v. Ross. See The " Julia." Blanchard v. New Jersey Steamboat Co., 59 New York Rep. 292 19 "Blenheim," The, 1 Sp. E. & A. 285 58, 171, 285 2 VV. Rob. 421 J 4 Not. of Cas. 393 235 "Blossom," The, Abbot Ad. 188 218 " Boanerges," The, and The " Anglo Indian," 2 Mar. Law Cas., 0. S. 2.39 206 " Bold Buccieu>;h," The, Harmer v. Bell, 7 Moo. P. C. C. 267 29, 31, 36, 37, 74 1 Pritch. Ad. Dig, 144 216 "Bolderaa," The, Holt, 205 226 "Bolina," The, 3 Not. of Cas. 208 9, 12, 22 " Borodino," The, 5 L. T., N. S. 291 64 "Borussia," The, Swab. Ad. 94 225 " Bothnia," The, Lush. 52 ; 29 L. J. Ad. 65 ; 2 L. T., N. S. 160 10, 17 " Bottle Imp," The, 42 L. J. Ad. 48 s 28 L. T., N. S. 286 ; 21 W. R. 600 10 "Bougainville," The, and The "James C. Stevenson," Beal v. Marchais, L. R. 5 P. C. 316 ; 28 L. T., N. S. 822 ; 21 W. R. 653 17, 140, 151, 180, 184, 200, 208 Bowcher v. Noidstrom, 1 Taunt. 568 37 "Breeze," The, 6 Bened. 14 53 "Bridgeport," The, 14 Wall. 116j 7 Blatchf. 361 219, 227 . 6 Blatch. 3 227 Brinsmead v. Harrison, L. R. 6 C. P. 584 ; 24 L. T., N. S. 790 ; 40 L. J. C. P. 281 ; 19 W. R. 956 5 on app. L. R. 7 C. P. 547 ; 41 L. J. C. P. 190; 27L. T., N. S., 99 5 20 W. R. 784 39 " British Princess," The, and The " Sedmi Dubrovacki," Mitch. Mar. Reg. March, 1878 13, 91 Brown V. Mallett, 5 C. B. 599 8, 41 v. Willdnson, 15 M. & W. 391 74, 76 " Bruckenholme," The, and H. M. S. " Supply," 2 Mar. LawtlJas. O. S. 262 240 BuUer V. Fisher, 3 Esp. 67 20 Burnard?;. Aaron, 31 L. J. C. P. 334 ....._. 28 Burrell v. Simpson, 4 Sess. Cas. 4th ser. 177 66 Butterfield v. Boyd, 4 Blatchf. 356 234 "Byfoged Christiansen," The, and The "William Frederick," 4 App. Cas. 669 ; 41 L. T., N. S. 535 ; 28 W. R. 233 6, 136, 199, 209 Byrne v. Wilson, 15 Ir. C. L. 332 60 " Bywell Castle," The, 4 P. D. 219 6, 178, 193 TABLE OF CASES. C. PAGE " C. M. Palmer." The, and The " Lamex," 2 Asp. Mar. Law. Cas. 94 ; 29 L. T., N. S. 120; 21 W. R. 702 6, 7, 146 " C. S. Butler," The, L. R. 4 A. & E. 238 ; 31 L. T., N. S. 549 ; 23 W. R. 113 238 and The " Baltic," L. R. 4 A. & E. 178 ; 43 L.J. Ad. 17} 30L. T., N. S. 475; 22 W. R. 759 9, 46 " Calabar," The, Moss v. The African Steam-ship Co., L. R. 2 P. C. 238 ; 19L. T., N. S. 768 Ill, 113, 217 " Calcutta," The, 3 Mar. Law. Cas., O. S. 336 ; 21 L. T., N. S. 768 ... 210 "Calla," The, Swab. Ad. 465 156 "Calypso," The, Swab. Ad. 28 37 •' Calypso," The, and The "Mississippi," Mitch. Mar. Reg. 1878 18 " Cambridge," The, The " Underhill," and The " Chase," 4 Bened. 366 86 "Canada," The, Lush. 586 63 Cargo ex "Argos," L. R. 3 A. & E. 568 ; 41 L. J. Ad. 89 j 27 L. T., N. S. 64 } 21 VV. R. 564 i on app. L. R. 5 P. C. 134 ; 42 L. J. Ad. 1 ; 28 L. T., N. S. 77; 21 W. R. 420 59 Cargo ex " Capella," L. R. 1 A. & E. 356 ; 16 L. T., N. S. 800 46 "Carl Johan," The (cited), 3 Hag. Ad. 186 74, 90 "Carolus Rotchers," The, 3 Hag. Ad. 343 (note) 7 " Carrier Dove," The, Br. & Lush. 113 106, 112, 225 "Carroll," The, 1 Bened. 286 ; 8 Wall. 302 7, 10, 169, 181 "Carron," The, 1 Sp. E. & A. 91 9, 161 Carruthers v. Sidebotham, 4 M. & S. 77 102, 119, 126 "Cartsburn," The, 5 P. D. 35 ; 49 L. J, Ad. 14 ; on app. 41 L. T., N. S. 710 ; 28 W. R. 378 84 Castrique v. Imrie, 2 L. T., N. S. 180 ; on app. L. R. 4 H. L. 414 ; 39 L. J. C. P. 350 ; 4 L. T., N. S. 143 ; 19 W. R. 1 96 "Catalina," The, 2 Sp. E. & A. 23 72 "Catharine of Dover," The, 2 Hag. Ad. 145 20 Catherine v. Dickenson, 17 How. 170 218 " Catterina Chiazzare," The, 1 P. D. 368 } 45 L. J. Ad. 105 ; 34 L. T., N. S. 588 97 Cattlin V. Hills. See Thorogood v. Brian. "Cayuga," The, 14 WaU. 270 140, 179, 188, 206 16 WaU. 177 87 "Celt," The, 3 Hag. Ad. 321 13 "Ceres," The, Swab. Ad. 250 221 Chadwick v. City of Dublin Steam Packet Co., 6 Ell. & B. 771 ...169, 170 Chamberlain r. Ward, 21 How. 548 19, 217 "Chancellor," The, 4 Bened. 153 167 "Chanonry," The, 1 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 569; 42 L. J. Ad. 58; 28 L. T., N. S. 284 188 Chapman v. Royal Netherlands Steam Navigation Co. (The "Saver- nake") 4 P. D. 157; 40 L. T., N. S. 433 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 449; 27 W. R. 554 66, 68, 70 " Charkieh," The, L. R. 4 A. E. 59 ; 42 L. J. Ad. 17 ; 28 L. T., N. S. 513 . . 93 '— ^^ L. R. 8 q! B. 197 ; 42 l! J". Q.' K 75 ; ' '28 L. T.'," N.' S. 190 ; 21 W. R. 437 93 "Charles Amelia," The, L. R. 2 A. & E. 330; 38 L. J. Ad. 17 ; 19 L. T., N. S. 429 ; 17 W. R. 624 29 " Charlotte Raab," The, Bruwn Ad. 453 172, 211, 227, 228 "Chase," The, Stuart's Vice-Ad. Rep. Lower Canada (1875) 361 TABLE OF CASES. XI PAGE "China," The, 7 Wall. 53 33, 117 Christian v. Coombe, 2 Esp. 489 9 " Christiana," The, 2 Hag. Ad. 183 ; nom. Hammond v. Rogers, 7 Moo. P. C. C. 160 104, 109, 110, 111, 113, 114, 221, 222 " Christina," The, 3 W. Rob. 27 ; nom. Petley v. Catto, 6 Moo. P. C. C. 371 80, 81, 82, 84 Churchward v. Palmer. See The " Vivid." " City of Antwerp," The, and The " Friedrich," Inman v. Beck, L. R. 2 P. C. 25; 37 L. J. Ad. 25 6, 10, 180, 210, 214 " City of Brooklyn," The, 1 P. D. 276 ; 34 L. T., N. S. 932, 24 W. R. 1056 160, 162, 166, 185, 216 " City of Buenos Ayres," The, 1 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 169 j 25 L. T, N. S. 672 62 " City of Cambridge," The, 35 L. T., N. S. 781 72 . L. R. 4 A. & E. 161 ; 43 L. J. Ad. 6 ; 29 L. T, N. S. 816 ; 22 W. R. 391 j on app. L. R. 5 P. C. 451 ; 43 L. J. Ad. 11 5 30 L. T., N. S. 439; 22 W. R. 578. ..105, 111, 114, 126 "City of Carlisle," The, 11 L. T., N. S. 33 j 2 Mar. Law Cas., O. S. 91 151 "City of Hartford," The, 7 Bened. 350 203 and The "Unit," 7 Otto, 323 66, 86 "City of London," The, or The "London," Morgen v. Sim, 11 Moo. P. C. C. 307 ; Swab. Ad. 245 ; 5 W. R. 678 9, 147, 155 and The " Vesta " 193 " City of Manchester," The, 5 P. D. 3 ; 48 L. J. Ad. 70 ; 40 L. T., N. S. 591 48, 71 " City of Mecca," The, 5 P. D. 28 ; 41 L. T., N. S. 444 ) 28 W. R. 260 96 " City of Mecca," The. See Smith, In re. " City of Paris," The, 14 Blatchf. 531 66, 225 1 Bened. 174 ; 9 Wall 634 7, 185, 191 "City of Washington," The, 2 Otto, 31 19, 158, 232 "Civilta," The, and Tlie "The Restless," 6 Bened. 309 79 "Clara," The, Swab. Ad. 1 49 " Clara Killam," The, L. R. 3 A. & E. 161 ; 39 L. J. Ad. 50 ; 23 L. T., N.S.27J 19W.R.25 73 "Clarence," The, 1 Sp. E. & A. 206 37, 168 3 W. Rob. 283 62, 63 "Clarita," The, and The "Clara," 23 WaU. 1 35, 46, 86, 224 " Cleadon," The, 1 Mar. Law Cas., 0.S.41 ; Lush. 158 ; 4 L. T., N. S. 157 78 "Clement," The, 1 Sprague 257 ; 2 Curtis 363 189 "Cleopatra," The, Swab. Ad. 135 137, 175, 176 "Clyde," The, Swab. Ad. 23 64 Clyde Navigation Co. v. Barclay, 1 App. Cas. 790 ; 36 L. T., N. S. 379 106, 107, 218 Coey V. Smith, 22 Court of Sess. Cas. 955 43 "Coleman," The, and The "Foster,'" Brown Ad. 456 86 " Collier," The, L. R. 1 A. & E. 83 ; 12 Jur., N. S. 789 35 " Cologne," The, and The " Ranger," Malcolmson v. General Steam Nav. Co., L. R. 4 P. C. 519 ; 27 L. T., N. S. 769; 21 W. R. 273 134, 178, 194, 199 "Colonia," The, 3 Not. of Cas. 13, note 138 " Colorado," The, 1 Otto, 692 165, 166 " Columbus," The, 1 Pritch. Ad. Dig. 199 10 2 Mar. Law Cas., 0. S. Dig. 730 228 Abbot, Ad. 384 225 3 W. Rob. 158 59, 63 xii TABLE OF CAS EH. PAGE "Comet," The, and The "Silver Spray," 9 Blatchf. 323 j 22 L. T., N. S. 732 217 "Commerce," The, 3 W. Eob. 287 207 16 Wall. 33 202 " Concordia," The, and The " Esther," L. R. 1 A. & E. 93 j 14 L. T., N. S. 896 211 "Condor," The. See The "Swansea." Conservators of the Thames v. Hall, 3 Mar. Law Gas., 0. S. 73 ; 18 L. T., N. S. 361 ; 16 W. R. 971 103 " Constitution," The, 10 L. T., N. S. 894 ; on app. ib. 895 j 2 Moo. P. C. C, N. S. 453 172 4 P. L. 39 ; 48 L. J. Ad. 13 ) 40 L. T., N. S. 219 93 "Continental,"The, 14 Wall. 345 19, 147 Cope V. Doherty, 4 K. & J. 367 ; 6 W, R. 537 ; 31 L. T. 173 ) on app. 2 De G. & J. 614 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 600 ; 6 W, E. 695 ; 81 L. T. 807 74, 89, 90 "Corinna," The, 35 L. T., N. S. 781 ; 25 W. R. Dig. 259 72 " Corsica," The, 9 Wall. 630 185,203,211 "Courier," The, Lush. 541 97 '• Coxon," The, 2 Mar. Law Cas., 0. S. Dig. 549 231 " Crescent," The, and The " Rowland Hill," Stuart's Vice Ad. Rep. Lower Canada (Lond. 1858), 289 232 Culbertson v. Shaw, 18 How. 584 157, 219 "Cumberland," The, 5 L. T., K S. 496 62 Stuart's Vice Ad. Rep. Lower Canada (Lond. 1858), 75 33, 220 Cunningham's case. Bell's C. C. 220 99 Cushing V. Owners of The "John Eraser," The "James Grey," 21 How. 184 2,86, 87 " Cybele," The, 2 P. D. 224 ; 47 L. J. Ad, 13 ; on app. 3 P. D. 8 ; 47 L. J. Ad. 86 ; 37 L. T., N. S. 773 45 "Cvgnus," The, 2 L. T., N. S. 196 36 " Cynthia," The, 2 P. D. 52 ; 46 L. J. Ad. 58 ; 36 L. T., N. S. 184 '' 114, 117 D. 224 "D. S. Gregory," The, 6 Blatchf. 528 VVm " Daioz," The, 3 Asp. Mar, Law Cas. 477 ; 47 L. J, Ad. 1 ; 3/ L, T N. S. 137 72 Dalyell v. Tyrer, E. B. & E. 899 ; 28 L. J, Q. B. 52 ; 31 L. T. 214 ... 27 Daniel r. Metropolitan Railway Co., L. R. 3 C. P. 216 ; 37 L. J. C, P. 146 : 18 L. T. N. S. 57 ; 16 W. R. 564 ; on app. (Ex. Ch.), L. R. 3 C P. 591 ! 37 L. J. C. P. 280 ; 16 W. R. 988 ; on app. (H. L.), L. R. 5 H. L. 45 ; 40 L. J. 121 ; 24 L. T., N. S. 815 10 "Dapper," The, and The "Lady Normanby," 14 L, T,, N, S, 895 ; Holt, 79 139 Dapueto v. WyUie. See The " Pieve Superiore. Da^des v. Mann, 10 M. & W. 546 18 "DeBrus," The, Ir. Rep. Ad. 1 Eq. 72 123 De Lovio V. Boit, 2 Gall. 398 • 97 De Vaux v. Salvador, 4 Ad. & El. 420;_ 5 L. J., K. B. 134 43, 49 Dean v. Richards, See The " Europa." "Delta," Tlie, and The " Ermiuia Foscolo," 1 P. D. 393 ; 45 L. J. Ad. Ill ; 35L. T., N. S. 376 •■•■•••• . 96 "Demetrius," The, L. R. 3 A. & E. 523; 41 L. J. Ad. 69 ; 26 L. T., N. S. 324; 20 W. R. 761 9, 61, 66 TABLE OF CASES. Xlll PAGE Denison v. Seymour, 9 Wendel, 9 42 Dennis v. Tovell, L. E. 8 Q. B. 10 ; 42 L. J. M. C. 33 ; 27 L. T., N. S. 482; 21 W. K. 170 73 "Despatch," The, 14 Moo. P. C. C. 83; 3 L. T., N. S. 219 3, 57,222, 223, 224 " Dexter," The, 23 Wall. 69 139 " Diana, The, 1 \V. Rob. 131 ; nom. Stuart v. Isemonger, 4 Moo. P. C. C. 11 32, 106, 107, 112, 216 Lush. 539 ; 32 L. J. Ad. 57 ; 7 L. T., N. S. 397, 9 Jur., N. S. 26 97 Dobree v. Schroeder, 2 My. & Cr. 489 74 Dock Company of Hull v. Browne, 2 B. & Ad. 43 125 Dodds V. Embleton, 9 Dow. &. Ey. 27 132 "Don Francisco," The, Lush. 468 ; 31 L. J. Ad. 14; 5 L. T., N. S. 460 37 Donn V. Lippmann, 5 CI. and Fin. 1 88 Doolan v. Midland Eailway Co., 2 App. Cas. 792 ; 37 L. T., N. S. 317 ; 25 W. E. 882 20, 69, 70 "Douglass," The, Brown, Ad. 105 218 Dowell V. General Steam Nav. Co. 5 E. & B. 195 ; 26 L. J., Q. B. 59 5, 17, 184 "Druid," The, 1 W. Eob. 391 33, 37 Dublin Port and Docks Board v. Shannon, Ir. Rep. 7 C. L. 116 ; 21 W. E. Dig. 233 ■_ 120 Dndman and Brown v. Dublin Port and Dooks Board, Ir. Eep. 7 C. L. 518 38 "Duke of Cornwall," The, 1 Pr. Ad. Dig. 135 224,234 " Duke of Manchester," The, 10 Jur. 863 ; 2 W. Eob. 470 ; 4 Not. of Cas. 575; on ajjp. nom. Shersby v. Hibbert,5 Not. of Cas. 470... 82, 84, 116 " Duke of Sussex," The, 1 Not. of Cas. 161 ; 1 W. Rob. 270 ...81, 109, 115 1 W. Eob. 274 137, 191, 195 " Duke of Sutherland," The, L. R. 4 A. & E. 417 ; 44 L. J. Ad. 1 150, 151 "Dumfries," The, Swab. Ad. 63 ; on app. ib. 125; 28 L. T., 110. ..90, 137, 168 "Dundee," The, 1 Hag. Ad. 109; 2 Hag. Ad. 137 71, 74 "Dura," The, 1 Pritch. Ad. Dig. 174 •. H, 219 "Dutchess," The, 6 Bened. 48 222 E. " Earl of Auckland," The, Lush. 164 ; 30 L. J. Ad. 121 ; 3 L. T., N. S. 786 ; on app. Lush. 387; 5 L. T., N. S. 558 ; 10 W. R. 124 120, 122, 128 " Earl Spencer," The, L. R. 4 A. & E. 431 ; 33 L. T., N. S. 235 ; 23 W. R. 661 160, 216, 221 "Ebenezer," The, 2 W. Eob. 206 166 "Echo," The, 7 Bened. 70 87 "Eclipse," The, and The " Eoyal Consort," Holt, 220 190, 211, 227 and The "Saxonia," Lush. 410 ; 15 Moo. P. C. C. 262 ; 31 L. J. Ad. 201 ; 6 L. T., N. S. 6 ; 10 W. R. 431 ; 8 Jur., N. S. 315 88, 90, 134, 146 " Economy," The, 1 Pritch. Ad. Dig. 177 116 TABLE OF CASES. PAGE "Eden," The, 2 W. Rob. 442; 10 Jur. 296 101, 119, 120, 130 " Edinburgh," The 158 "Edith," The, Ir. Eep. 10 Eq. 346 155, 159 "Effort," The, 5 Not. of Cas. 279 232 " Egyptian," The, 2 Mar. Law Cas., O. S. 56 ; 10 L. T., N. S. 910 ; on app. 1 Moo. P. C. C, N. S. 373 4, 61, 220, 221 "Eleanor," The, and The "Alma," 2 Mar. Law Cas., O. S. 240 ...10, 170, 190, 226 " Electra," The, 1 Bened. 282 162 6 Bened. 189 25 "Eliza," The, and Tlie "Orinoco," Holt, 98 14, 175, 206 "Elizabeth," The, 3 L. T., N. S. 159 90 and The " AdaUa, 3 Mar. Law Cas., O. S. 345 ; 22 L. T,, N. S. 74 6, 154 and The "Lotus," 2 Mar. Law Cas., O. S. 238 6 "Ellen S. Teny," The, 7 Bened. 401 232 "Emilv," The 31, 35 "EmmV'The, 2 W, Rob. 315 9 " Emperor," The, and The " Lady of the Lake," Holt. 37 ; ibid. 202... 150, "Emperor," The, and The "Zephyr," Holt, 24 146, 211 " Empire State," The. See Whitney v. The " E. S." "EmpressEugenie,"The, Lush. 138 59, 60, 61 "Empusa," The, 5 P. D. 6 ; 48 L. J. Ad. 36 } 41 L. T., N. S. 383 ; 28 W. R. 263 48 " Energy," The, L. R. 3 A. & E. 48 ; 39 L. J. Ad. 25 j 23 L. T., N. S. 601 ri8 W. R. 1009 2, 35, 55, 78, 80, 83, 84 " EngKshman," The, 3 P. D. 18 ; 47 L. J. Ad. 9 ; 37 L. T., N. S 412... 16, ^ 91, 155, 159 "Eolides," The, 3 Hag. Ad. 367 59 " Ericsson," The, Swab. Ad. 38 137, 138 " Esk," The, and The " Gitana," L. R. 2 A. & E. 350 ; 38 L. J. Ad. 33; 20L.T., N. S. 587 ; 17 W. R. 1064 149, 157 and The "Niord," L. R. 3 P. C. 436} 24 L. T., N. S. 167... 5, 139, 178, 194, 199 "Europa," The, 14 Jur. 627 21, 185, 219 13 Jur. 856 9 Dean v. Richards, 32 L. J. Ad. 188 ; 9 Jur. 699 ) on app. Br. & Lush. 89 ; 2 Moo. P. C. C, N. S. 1 29 European & Australian Royal Mail Co. v. Peninsular & Oriental Steam Nav. Co. 14 L. T., N. S. 704 134 " Evangelismos," The, Xenos v. Aldersley, Swab. Ad. 378 ; 12 Moo. P. C. C. 352 72 Everardr. Kendall, L. R. 5 C. P. 428 ; 39 L. J. C. P. 234 ; 22 L. T., N. S. 508 ; 18 W. R. 892 31 " Excelsior," The, L. R. 2 A. & E. 268 ; 37 L. J. Ad. 54 ; 19 L. T., N S. 87 36, 38, 117,218,221,222 Co. V.Smith, 2L. T., N. S. 90 43 "Exchange," The, 10 Blatchf. 168 224 " Explorer," The, L. R. 3 A. & E. 289 ; 40 L. J. Ad. 41 ; 23 L. T., N.S.604; 19W.R. 166 94 TABLE OF CASES. xv F. PAGE "Falcon," The, 19 Wall. 75 7, 181 " Falkland," The, and The " Navigator," Br. & Lush. 204 ; 9 L. T., N. S. 1 190, 200, 226 "Fama," The, 2 W. Rob. 184 101, 122 "Fanita," The, 14 Blatchf. 545 215 "Fanny M. Carvill," The, L. R. 4 A. & E. 417, 422} 44 L. J. Ad. 1 ; 23 W. R. 598 ; on app. 44 L. J. Ad. 34 ; 32 L. T., N. S. 646 j 24 W. R. 62 15, 91, 150, 151 "Farragut," The, 10 Wall. 334 18, 19 "Favorita," The, 18 Wall. 598 7, 229 Fenton v. Dublin Steam Packet Co., 8 Ad. & El. 835 27 Ferguson and Hutchinson, £x parte, L. R. 6 Q. B. 280 ; 40 L. J., Q. B. 105; 24 L. T., N. S. 96; 19 W. R. 746 13, 14, 134 "Figlia Maggiore," The, L. R. 2 A. & E. 106 ; 37 L. J. Ad. 52 ; 18 L. T., N. S. 532 ; 16 W. R. Dig. 15 48 Fletcher v. Braddick, 2 N. R. 182 28 "Flint," The, 6 Not. of Cas. 271 211, 230 " Flora," The, L. R. 1 A. & E. 45 ; 35 L. J. Ad. 15 ; 14 L. T., N. S. 192 30, 44 "Flora Macdonald," The, and The "Palestine," Holt, 42 146 "Florence Bragington," The, 2 Mar. Law Cas., O. S. 237 175 Flower v. Bradley, 44 L. J. Ex. 1 72 "Flying Fish," The, Br. & Lush. 436 ; 2 Mar. Law Cas., O. S. 221 ; 3 Moo. P. C. C, N.S. 77 ; 34 L. J. Ad. 113 ; 12 L. T., N. S. 619. ..58, 61 "Foyle," The, Lush. 10 9 " Francis King," The, 7 Bened. 11 87 "Franconia," The, see Harris v. Owners of The F. 2 C. P. D. 173 94, 98 2 P. D. 8 ; 35 L. T., N. S. 721 ; 25 W. R. 197... 38, 134, 175, 178, 183, 187, 188, 189, 201 2 P. D. 163 ; 46 L. J. Ad. 33 ; ibid. 71 ; 24 W. R. 699 65 Hamburg, &c., Gesellschaft v. Burrell, 38 L. T., N. S. 719 ; 26 W. R. 743 ; on app. 3 P. D. 164 ; 39 L. T., N. S. 57 j 27W.R. 218 66 Reg. V. Keyn, 2 Ex. D. 63; 46 L. J., M. C. 17 38 _ 4 Bened. 181 165 " Frankland," The, and The " Kestrel," L. R. 4 P. C. 529 ; 27 L. T., N. S. 633 163 "Franz Sigel," The, 14 Blatchf. 480 ; 6 Bened. 550 230 "Free State," The, Brown Ad. 251 ; 1 Otto, 200 136, 139, 183, 197 "Freedom," The, L. R. 3 A. & E. 495 ; 41 L. J. Ad. 1 ; 25 L. T., N.S. 392 36 Fretz V. Bull, 12 How. 466 234 "Friends," The, 1 W. Rob. 478 ; 4 Moo. P. C. C. 314 37, 195 "Fruitez," The, and The " Fingal," 2 Mar. Law Cas., O. S. 291 ; 13 L.T.,N. S. 611 177 "Fyenoord," The, Swab. Ad. 374 91, 134, 239 XVI TABLE OF CASES. G. PAGE "Gala," The, and The "Zenobia," Holt, 112 179 "Galatea," The, 2 Otto, 439 86, 229 Gale V. Laurie, 5 B. & C. 156 70, 74 "Gazelle," The, 5 Not. of Gas. 101 168 1 W. Rob. 471 ; 2 W. Eob. 279 64, 137, 195 " General De Caen," The, Swab. Ad. 9 108, 109 General Iron Screw Collier Co. v. Schurmanns, 1 J. & H. ISO ; 29 L. J. Ch. 877 ; 4 L. T., N. S. 138 j 8 W. R. 732 89, 90 " General Lee," The, 3 Mar. Law Cas., O. S. 204 ; 19 L. T., N. S. 750 ; 17 W. R. Dig. 19 182, 184, 200 General Mutual Insurance Co. v. Sherwood, 14 How. 352 43 "General Parkhill," The, and The "Centurion," 2 Mar. Law Cas., O. S. Dig. 552 ; 1 Pritch. Ad. Dig. 172 112 General Steam Navigation Co. v. British and Colonial Steam Naviga- tion Co., L. E. 3 Ex. 330 ; 37 L. J. Ex. 194 ; 19 L. T., N. S. 35> ; 17 W. R. 615 ; on app. L. R. 4 Ex. 238 ; 38 L. J. Ex. 97 5 20 L. T., N. S. 581 ; 17 W. R. 741 102, 105, 120, 129 V. Gillou, 11 M. & W. 877 96 V. London and Edinburgh Shipping Co., 2 Ex. D. 467 72 r. Mann, 14 C. B. 127 138 V. Morrison. See IMoi-rison v. General, &c. Tonkin. See The " Friends. "GeneralU. S. Grant," The, 6 Bened. 465 202 "General Wm. McCandlass," The, 6 Bened. 223 230 "George," The, 4 Not. of Cas. 161 Ill, 166 5 Not. of Cas. 368 ; 6 Not. of Cas. 53 168 andThe "Lidskjalf," Swab. Ad. 117 220 " George and Richard," The, L. R. 3 A. & E. 466 ; 24 L. T., N. S. 717; 20 W. R. 245 47, 57 " George Arkle," The, Lush. 222 ; on app. i6. 382 149, 150 "George Law," The, 3 Bened. 396 231 "Georgiana," The, and The "Anglican," 21 W. R. 280 62 "Germania," The, 19 L. T., N. S. 20 ; 3 Mar. Law Cas., O. S. 140 ; on app. ib. 269 ; 21 L. T., N. S. 44 92, 216 "Gipsey King," The, 2 W. Rob. 537 ; 5 Not. of Cas. 282... 4, 60, 81, 85, 111, 221 "Giraffe," The, 1 Pritch. Ad. Dig. 153 78 "Girolamo," The, 3 Hag. Ad. 169 33, 90, 92, 112, 115, 163 " Gjessins:," The, and The "Hansa." See The " Hansa." Glaholm r. Barker, 34 L. J. Ch. 533 ; 12 L. T., N. S. 317 ; 13 W. R. 671 ; on app. L. R. 1 Ch. 223 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 259 ; 13 L. T., N. S. 653 ; 14 W.R. 296 65, 68 L. R. 2 Eq. 598 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 657 ; 14 L. T., N. S. 880; 14 W. R. 1006 65, 68 " Glannibanta," The, 1 P. D. 283 ; 46 L. J. Ad. 75 ; 34 L. T., N. S. 935; 24W.R.1033 216 "Gleaner," The, 38 L. T., N. S. 650 ; 3 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 582 62 " Glengaber," The, L. R. 3 A. & E. 534 ; 41 L. J. Ad. 84 ; 27 L. T., N. S. 386 ; 1 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 401 39, 46, 47, 78 " Glengarry," The, 2 P. D. 235 (note) ; 43 L. J. Ad. 37 ; 30 L. T., N. S. 341 ; 22 W. R. Dig. 225 235 "Globe," The, 6 Not. of Cas. 275 230 "Golden Pledge," The, and The "Cognac," Holt, 133 194 TABLE OF CASES. XVU PAGE "Governor," The, Abbot Ad. 108 189 and The "John Mclntyre," Holt, 184 3, 19 "Granite State," The, 3 Wall. 310 In7, 219 " Gray Eagle," The, 9 Wall. 605 19 1 Biisel, 476 ; 2 Bissel, 25 146 "Great Conquest," The, and The "David Cawson," Holt, 235 199 "Great Eastern," The, Holt, 169 9 2 Mar. Law Gas., O. S. 97 ; 3 Moo. P. C. C., N. S. 31 ; 11 L. T., N. S. 5 ; 13 W. R. Di./. 11 140, 169, 200, 205 Greenland v. Chaplin, 5 Ex. 243 ; 15 L. T. 185 ; 19 L. J. Ex. 293... 4, 5, 19, 60 " Grief-swrald," The, Swab, Ad. 4.30 37, 96, 97 Grill V. General Iron Screw Collier Co., L. E. 1 C. P. 600 ; 35 L. J. C. P. 321 ; 14 L. T., N. S. 711 ; 14 W. R. 893 ; on app. L. R. 3 C. P. 476 ; 37 L. J. C. P. 205 ; 18 L. T., N. S. 485 ; 16 W. R. 797 20, 38, 61, 143 "Guldfaxe," The, L. R. 2 A. & E. 325 ; 38 L. J. Ad. 12 ; 19 L. T., N. S. 748; 17 W. R. 578 G4, 94 " Gustaf," The, Lush. 506 ; 31 L. J. Ad. 207 ; 6 K T., N. S. 660 30 see The " New Ed." F. H. P. Baldwin, Brown Ad. 300 211, 218 Hadgraft v. Hewith, L. R., 10 Q. B. 350 ; 44 L. J., M. C. 140 ; 32 L. T., N. S. 720 ; 23 W. R. 911 127 "Halcj-on," The, Lush. 100 169 " Halley," The, L. R., 2 A. & E. 3 ; 17 L. T., N. S. 329 ; 37 L. J. Ad. 1 ; 16 W. R. 284 ; on app. L. R., 2 P. C!. 193 ; 37 L. J., Ad. 33 ; 18 L. T., N. S. 879 ; 16 W. R. 998 26, 32, 76, 95, 98, 102, 103 Hamburg Americanishe Packetfahrt Action Gesellschaft v. Ban-ell. See The "Franconia." Hancock r. York, Newcastle, & Berwick Railway Co., 10 C. B. 348 .. 41 "Hand of Providence," The, Swab. Ad. 107 142, 191, 192 Handayside r. Wilson, 3 Car. and P. 528 206, 207 "Hankow," The, 4 P. D. 197 ; 48 L. J., Ad. 29 ; 40 L. T., N. S. 3:35 : 28 W. R. 156 105, 119, 120, 129 " Hanna," The, L. R., 1 A. & E. 283 ; 36 L. J., Ad. 1 ; 15 L, T., N. S. 334 ; 15 W. R. 263 119, 128, 131 " Hannah Park," The, and The " Lena," 2 Mar. Law Cas., 0. S. 345 ; Holt, 61, 213; 14 L. T., N. S. 675 r,S, 160 "Hannibal," The, and The "Queen," L. R., 2 A. & E. 53 13, 14 "Han,sa," The, 5 Beued. 501 167, 185 Harmer r. Ball. See The " Bold Buccleugh." Harmond I'. Pearson, 1 Camp. 515 41 Harris v. Anderson, 14 C. B., N. S. 499 85 Harris v. The Ovraers of The " Franconia," 2 C. P. D. 173 ; 46 L. J. 363 ; 25 W. R., Dig. 209 42, 94, 98 Havelock V. Rockwood, 8 T. R. 268 96 Hay V. Le Neve, 2 Shaw's Scotch Appeal Cas. 395 2 " Helen J. Holwa3%" The, and The " Enoch Moore," 6 Bened. 536 ... 168 "Helen R. Cooper," The, and The " Mabey," 7 Blatchf. 378 219 b xviii TABLE OF CASES. PAGE " Helvetia," The, 3 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 43 (note) ; Mitch. Mar. Keg. (1868), p. 150; ibid., p. 1554 149 " Henry Coxon," The, 3 R D. 156 ; 47 L. J. Ad. 83 ; 38 L. T., N. S. 819 ^ " Henry Morton," The, 2 Asp. Mar. Cas. 466 ; 31 L. T., N. S. 859 ^ 188, 229, 237 Hibbsv. Ross, L. R, 1 Q. B. 534 ; 15 L. T., N. S. 67 27 " Hibemia," The, 2 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 454 ; 31 L. T., N. S. 805... 15, 71, 217 - 4 Jur., N. S. 1244 22, 24, 115 "Hibernian," The, Redpath r. Allen, L. R., 4 P. C. 511 ; 42 L. J. Ad. 8 ; 27 L. T., N. S. 725 ; 21 W. R. 276 102, 103, 104 HiU V. Audus, 1 K. & J. 263 ; 24 L. J., Ch. 229 ; 24 L. T. 251 ; 3 W. R. 230 71 Hodgkinson v. Fernie, 2 C. B., X. S. 415 ; 26 L. J., C. P. 217 29 Hoffman r. Union Ferry of Brooklyn, 68 New York (Sicker's) Rep. 385 ; 7 Amer. Rep. 435 19, 62, 164 "Hope," The, 1 W. Rob. 154 37, 109 2W. Rob. 8 229 and The " Chili," 2 Mar. Law Cas., O. S. Dig. 546 58 Hossack V. Gray, 34 L. J. Q. B. 256 ; 12 L. T., N. S. 701 ; 13 W. R. 859 _ 127,131 "Hudson," The, 5 Bened. 206 165, 224 Hunter v. McGowan, 1 Bligh. 571 67 " Huntress," The, 2 Sprague 61 8 " Ida," The, Lush. 6; 1 L. T., N. S. 417 37. 98 and The "Mary Ida" 147 and The " Wasa," 2 Mar. Law Cas., O. S. 414 ; 15 L. T., N. S. 103 206, 207,226 "IloV'The, Swab. Ad. 100 47 "Immaganda Sancta Clarissima," The, 7 Not. of Cas. 582 198 Ince V. Ea.st Boston Ferry Co., 106 Mass. Rep. 149 218 "Independence," The. See The "Arthur Gordon." "Indian," The, and The "Jessie," 2 Mar. Law Cas., O. S. 217 ; 12 L.T., N. S. 586 220 " Industrie," The, L. R., 3 A. & E. 303 ; 40 L. J., Ad. 26 ; 24 L. T., N S. 446 ; 19 W. R. 728 35, 40, 55, 145, 154, 157 " Inflexible," H. M. S., Swab. Ad. 32 ; 28 L. T., N. S. 374 ; 5 W. R. 517 139 Inman v.. Beck. See The " City of Antwerp." "Innisfail," The, and The "Secret," 3 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 337 ; 35 L. T.,N. S. 819 23, 72, 220 "In^-incible," The, 2 Gall. 29 97 "lona," The, L. R., 1 P. C. 426; 16 L. T., N. S. 158 107 "Iron Duke," The, 4 Not. of Cas. 94; ibid., 585 144 Holt, 227 237 "Ironmaster," The, Swab. Ad. 441 64 "Itinerant," The, 2 W. Rob. 236 166 "Ivanhoe," The, and The " Martha," M. Heath, 7 Bened. 213 40, 79, 193 TABLE OF CASES. J. PAGE "Jacob," The, 1 Pritch. Ad. Dig. 178 117 "Jacob Landstrom," The, 4 P. D. 191 ; 40 L. T., N. S. 38 ; 27 W. K. Dig. 205 49 " Jame.s" The, Swab. Ad. 5.5 ; 4 W. R. 353 155. 215 James r. London & South Western Raily. Co., L. R., 7 Ex. 187 ; 41 L. J. Ex. 82 ; 26 L. T., N. S. 187 ; 20 W. R. 538 ; on app. L. R., 7 Ex. 287 ; 41 L. J. Ex. 186 ; 27 L. T., N. S. 382 ; 21 W. R. 25 70, 71 "James Gray," The, and The "John Eraser." See Gushing r. The Owners of The " John Eraser.'' "James Watt," The, 2 W. Rob. 270 2, 8, 140, 183 " Java," The, 14 WaU. 189 25, 229 " Jeanie S. Barker," The, 3 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 42 ; 44 L. J. Ad. 20 ; 33 L. T., K S. 318 144, 149, 181 " Jesmond," The, and The " Earl of Elgin," L. R., 4 P. C. 1 ; 25 L. T., N. S. 514 6, 139, 140, 176, 183, 215 " Johann Friedrich," The, 1 W. Rob. 35 97 "John and Mary," The, Swab. Ad. 471 36, 37 " John Bellamy," The, 22 L. T., X. S. 244 ; 3 Mar. Law Cas., 0. S. 360 44 " John Brotherick," The, 8 Jur. 276 142 "John Buddie," The, 5 Not. of Cas. 387 22, 205 "John Dunn," The, 1 W. Rob. 159 36 "John Fenwick," The, L. R., 3 A. & E. 600 ; 41 L. J. Ad. 38 ; 26 L. T., N. S. 322 145 " John Harley," The, and The " WHUam Tell," 2 Mar. Law Cas., 0. S. 290 ; 13 L. T., N. S. 413 11, 222, 230 "John L. Hasbronck," The, 3 Otto, 405 196 "John Taylor," The, 6 Bened. 227 199, 203 "Johnson," The, 9 WaU. 146 139, 142 Johnson v. Black. See The "Two Ellens." Jones r. Boyce, 1 Stark. 493 6 "Joseph Straker," The, and The " Karla," Holt, 203 183 "Joseph W, Dver," The, v. The National Steamship Co., 14 Blatchf. 483 ; 4 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 26 63, 74, 76 Joycer. Capel, 8 Car. & Pay, 370 27 "Julia," The, Lush. 224 ; 14 Moo. P. C. C. (nom. Bland v. Ross) 210 ; 10 W. R. Dig. 10 82, 83, 84, 109, 111, 112, 114, 115 "Julia M. Hallock," The, 1 Sprague, 539 225 " Juliet Erskine," The, 6 Not. of Cas. 633 22, 162, 165 "Juniata," The, 3 Otto, 337 39, 66, 86 "Juno," The, 1 P. D. 135 ; 45 L. J. Ad. 105 ; 34 L. T., N.S. 741 ; 24 W. R. 902 72, 127 K. "Kalamazoo," The, 15 Jur. 885 36 "Kepler," The, 2 P. D. 40 23, 27, 218, 223 "Kezia," The, and The "Eliza." Holt, 67 139 and The " Victoria," Holt, 70 177 Kidson v. McArthur, 5 Sess. Cas., 4th Series 936 8, 41, 70 62 TABLE OF CASES, PAGE "Killarney," The, Lush. 427 ; 6 L. T., N. S. 908 119, 125, 129 Lush. 202 ; 30 L. J. Ad. 41 ; 5 L. T., N. S. 21 102, 122 "King.ston by Sea," The, 3 W. Rob. 152 78, 79, 226 " Kjobenhavn," The, 2 Asp. Mar. Law C'as. 213 ; 20 L. T., N. S. 136 8, 140, 224 L. "La Plata," The, Swab. Ad. 220 ; on app., ibid. 298 80, 142, 230, 236 Lack V. Seward, 4 Cas. & Pay. 106 216 " Laconia," The, 7 L. T., N. S. 164 ; on app. 2 Moo. P. C. C, N. S. 161 ; 33 L. J. Ad. 13; 9 L. T., N. S. 37 ; 12 W. Pv. 90 20 "Lady Anne,' The, 15 Jur. 18 172, 207, 215 " Lady Downshire," The, 4 P. D. 26 ; 48 L. J. Ad. 41 ; 39 L.T., N. S. 236 ; 27 W. P. 648 18, 143 "Lady Pike," The, 21 Wall. 1 87 "Lake St. Clair," The, and The "Underwriter," 3 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 361 ; 36 L. T., N. S. 155 169, 172, 200, 226, 227, 228, 232 " Lancashire," The, L. P., 4 A. & E. 198 ; 29 L.T., N. S. 927... 163, 224, 230 " Leda," The, Br. & Lush. 19 ; 32 L. J. Ad. 58 ; 7 L. J., N. S. 864 ... 72 Leddy v. Gibson, 1 1 Macpherson's Session Cas. 304 49 "Legatus," The, and The "Emily," Holt, 217 207 "Leith," The, 7 Not. of Cas. 137 191 " Lemington," The, 2 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 475 ; 32 L.T., K S. 69.... 34 "Leo," The, Lush. 444 ; 31 L. J. Ad. 78 ; 6 L. T., JN. S. 58 30 " Leonidas," The, Stuart's Vice Ad. Rep. Ijower Canada (Lond. 1858) 226 227 Leycester r. Lngan, 4 K. & J. 725 ; 29 L. T. 74 73 Liddy v. Gibson, 11 Sess. Cas. 3rd Ser. 304 49 "Ligo," The, 2 Hag. Ad. 356 10 "Linda," The, Swab. Ad. 306 ; 30 L. T. 234 ; 4 Jur., N. S. 146 57, 58, 59, 61 "Linda Flor," The, Swab. Ad. 309 ; 30 L. T. 234 ; 6 W. P. 197 ; 4 Jur.,N. S. 172 30 "Lindsay," The, Ir. Rep. Ad. 1 Eq. 259 58 " Lion," The, L. R. 2 A. & E. 102 ; 37 L. J. Ad. 39 ; 18 L, T., N. S. 803 ; 17 W. R. 577 ; on app. L. R. 2 P. C. 525 ; 38 L. J. 51 ; 21 L. T., N. S. 41 ; 17 W. R. 993 119 "Little Lizzie,"The, L. P. 3 A. & E. 56 ; 23 L. T., N. S. 84 9 "Livia," The, 25 L. T., N. S. 887 ; 1 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 204 109 "Livingstone," The, Swab. Ad. 519 156 "Ljudica," The, 23 L. T., N. S. 474 ; 19 W. R. Dig. 18 9 " Lloyds," The. See The " Sea Queen." Lloyd V. General Iron Screw Collier Co., 3 H. & C. 284 ; 33 L. J. Ex. 269 ; 10 Jur., N. S. 661 ; 10 L. T., N. S. 586 ; 12 W. R. 882 20 r. Guibert, L. R., 1 Q. B. 115 ; 33 L. J., Q. B. 241 ; 10 L. T., N. S. 570 ; 12 W. R. 953 74 "Lochibo," The, 3 W. Rob. 310; on app. nom. Pollock v. M'Alpin, 7 Moo. P. C. C. 427 21, 111, 112, 114, 115, 116, 166 TABLE OF CASES. XXI PAGE Lohre v. Aitchison, 3 Q. B. D. 558 ; 46 T.. J., Q. B. D. 715 ; 36 L. T., N. S. 794 ; 26 W. R. 42 ; on app. 28 W. R. 1 64 " London," The. See The " City of London." "London," The, 6 Not. of Cas. 29 10, 171 " London," The, 1 Mar. Law Cas., O. S. 398 ; 9 L.T,, N. S. 348 23 London and South-Western Railway Co. v. James, li. R. 8 Ch. 241 ; 28 L. T., N. S. 48 ; 42 L. J. Gh. 337; 21 W. R. 151 69 London General Steam Nav. Co. v. London and Edinburgh Shipping Co 120 " Londonderry," The, 4 Not. of Cas. Snppl. xxxi 144 "Lord Saumarez," The, 6 Not. of Cas. 600 5, 162, 186 "Lord Seaton," The, 3 W. Rob. 391; 4 Not. of Cas. 164 9 Lords BailiiT Jurats of Romney Marsh r. Corporation of, &c. See Romnev Marsh, &c. "Lotty," The, Olcott Ad. 329 104 "Louisa," The, ami The "City of Paris," Holt, 15 152 "Louisiana," The, 3 Wall. 164 222 " Lucia Jantina," The, and " Tae Mexican," Holt, 130 14, 210 "Lucile," The, 15 Wall. 676 7, 181 Luceyv. Ingram, 6 M. & W. 302; 9 L. J. Ex. 196 101, 122 Luxford V. Large, 5 Car. & Pay. 421 4, 5, 56, 234 "Lydia," The, 11 Blatchf. 415 165 Lynch r. Nurdin, 1 Q. B. 29 ; 10 L. J., Q. B. 73 60 " Lyra," The, and " The Venus." See "The Venus." M. "M. M. Caleb," The, 10 Blatchf. 467 24 " M. Moxham," The, 1 P. D. 43 ; 45 L. J. Ad. 36 ; 33 L. T., N. S. 463 ; 24 W. R. 283 ; on app. 1 P. L». 107 ; 46 L. J. Ad. 17 ; 34 L. T., N. S. 559; 24 W. R. 650 26,32, 76, 95 McCord v. The Steamboat "Tiber," 6 Bissel, 409 36 Mcintosh V. Slade, 6 B. & C. 657 120 MacManus v. Cricket, 1 East, 106 37 "Masander," The, and The "Florence Nightingale," 1 Moo. P. C. C, N. S. 63 ; Br. & Lush. 29 ; 9 Jur., N. S. 475 ; 11 W. R. 542.. ..191, 192 "Ma^^ne Armstrong," The, and The "Blue Bell," 2 Mar. Law Cas., O. S! 318 ; 14 L. T., N. S. 340 220, 222 " Magna Charta," The, 1 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 153 ; 25 lu T., N. S. 512 185 " Mao'net," The, L. R., 4 A. & E. 417 ; 44 L. J. Ad. 1 ; 32 L. T., N.°S. 129 91, 150, 151 "Maid"of"Aukland," The, 6 Not. of Cas. 240 20, 52 " Maid of the Mist," The, 21 W. R. 310 36 " Mali Ivo," The, L. R., 2 A. & E. 356 ; 38 L. J. Ad. 34 ; 30 L. T., N. S. 681 ; 17 W. R. Dig. 23 97 "Malvina," The, Lush. 493 ; 31 L. J. Ad. 112 ; 6 L. T., N. S. 369 ; on app. Br. & l/ush 57 ; 1 Moo. P. G. C., N. S. nom. Malcomson v. Meeson, 357 ; 11 W. R. 576 31, 191 "Manchester," Tlie, 1 W. Rob. 63 9 " Mangerton," The, Swab. Ad. 120? 27 L. T. 207 9, 137 "Marathon," The, 48 L. J. Ad. 17; 40 L. T., N. S. 163 47, 48, 107 XXH TABLE OF CASES. PAGE " Marcia Tribou," The, 2 Sprague 17 11, 216, 219 "Margaret," The, 4 Otto, 494 87 and The "Tuscar," Holt, 44 ; 15 L. T., N. S. 86 156, 228 "Maria," The, L. R., 1 A. & E. 358 ; 16 L. T., N. S. 717 106, 125 1 W. Eob. 95 33, 92, 101, 102, 111, 115, 119 "Maria Martin," The, 12 Wall. 31 87 " Mark Eveline," The, 16 WaU. 348 ...: 178 "Markland," The, L. R. 3 A. & E. 340 30 "Marmion," The, 1 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 412; 27 L.T., N. S. 255. ..169, 200 London General Steam Nav. Co. v. London and Edinburgh Shipping Co., Mitch. Mar. Reg., 1st June, 1877 120 " Marpesia," The, L. R., 4 P. C. 212 ; 26 L. T., N. S. 333 ...6, 10, 12, 21, 22, 25, 215 Marshall v. Moran. See The " Ocean Wave." Martin v. Temperley, 4 Q. B. 298 ; 12 L. J. Q. B. 129 ; 7 Jur. 150 ... 117 "Mary," The, 5 P. D. 14 ; 48 L. J. Ad. 66 ; 41 L. T., N. S. 351 ; 28 W. R. 95 ...35, 78, 81, 109 " Mary Hounsell," The, 4 P. D. 204 ; 48 L. J. Ad. 54 ; 40 L. T., N. S. 368 ; 28 W. R. 140 7, 15, 78, 146, 152, 158 "Massachusetts," The, 1 W. Rob. 371 61, 109, 114, 222 "Masten," The, Brown Ad. 436 221 "Masters," The, and The "Raynor," BrowTi Ad. 342 216 " Matthew Cay," The, 5 P. D. 49 ; 41 L. T., N. S. 759 ; 28 W, R. 262 72 "Maverick," the, 1 Sprague, 23 229 "Maybey," The, and The "Cooper," 14 WaU. 204 21, 86 Mayhew V. Boyce, 1 Stark. 423 5, 207, 230 " Mellona," The, 3 W. Rob. 7 56,215 3 W. Rob. 16 29,30, 31, 74 "Mentor," The, 1 C. Rob. 179 45 "Merle," The, 31 L. T., N. S. 447 ; 23 W. R. Dig. 216 73 " Merrimac," The, 14 Wall. 199 22,25, 117, 232 Metcalf V. Herington, 24 L. J. Ex. 314 ; 25 L. T. 86 38 " Michelimo," The, and The "Dacca" 91, 146, 237 "Midlothian," The, 15 Jur. 806 9 "Milan," The, Lush. 388 ; 31 L. J. Ad. 105 ; 5 L. T., N. S. 590 2, 40, 48, 52, 65, 66 "Milwaukee," The, Brown Ad. 313 139, 183, 187, 194, 197, 214 "Minna," The, L. R., 2 A. & E. 97 ; 17 W. R. Dig. 20 48 Mitchell V. Tarbutt, 5 T. R. 649 38 " Mobile," The, Swab. Ad. 69 ; 5 W. R. 830 ; on App. Swab. Ad. 127 ; 28 L. T. 129 106. 172, 226 "Moderation," The, 1 Mar. Law Cas., O. S. 413; 9 L. T., N. S. 586 140 "Mohler," The, 21 Wall. 231 232 " Monsoon," The, and The " Neptune," 2 Mar. Law Cas., 0. S. 289 ; Holt, 186; 13 L. T., N. S. 510 182,200 "MonticeUo," The, 1 Pars, on Ship. (ed. 1869) 566 162 "Montreal," The, 1 Sp. E. & A. 154 (note) 126 " Morning Light," The, 2 Wall. 550 25, 166, 216,218 Morrison v. General Steam Xav. Co., 22 L. J. C. P. 179 ; 21 L. T. 76 ; 13 C. B. 581 ; on App. 8 Ex. 733 ; 22 L. J. Ex. 233 17, 134, 138 Morse v. Slue, 1 Ventris, 238 41 Morton v. Hutchinson. See "The Frankland" and "The Kestrel." TABLE OF CASES. XXUl PAGB "Moselle," The, 32 L. T., N. S. 570; 23 W. R. Dig. 216 ; 2 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 586 120, 128 Mostyn v. Fabrigas, Cowp. 161 9° "Moxey," The, Abbot Ad. 73 1 " Mud Hoxiper," The, 40 L. T., N. S. 462 9, 47 " Mullingar," The, 26 L. T., N. S. 326 ; 1 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 252 ^^ Mumford v. Crocker. See " The Queen of the Bay." Murphy v. Palgrave, 21 L. T., N. S. 209 ; 3 Mar. Law Cas., O. S. 284. 228 » Nabob," The, Browoi Ad. 115 48, 218 " Narragansett," The, 10 Blatchf. 475 191 National Steam Co. v. Merry. See "The Pennsylvania." "NeUieD.," The, 5 Blatchf. 245 227 Nelson v. Couch, 15 C. B., N. S. 99 ; 33 L. J. C. P. 46 ; 8 L. T., N. S. 577; 11 W. R. 964 36 "Nepotes," The, L. R, 2 A. & E. 375 ; 38 L. J. Ad. 63 ; 22 L. 1., N. S. 177 ; 18 W. R. 49 48 "Neptune the Second," The, 1 Dods. Ad. 467 33, 221 "Nereus," The, 3 Bened. 238 227 "Nevada," The, 27 L. T., N. S. 720 92 " New Ed," The, and The " G-ustav," 1 Mar. Law Cas., O. S. 407 ; Holt, 28 ; 9 L. T., N. S. 547 lo^ New York and Baltimore Transportation Co. v. Philadelphia and Savannah Steamship Co., " The Keystone State," 22 How. 461 79 New York & Liverpool U. S. Mail Steamship Co. v. Rumball, 21 How. 372 , 10, 136, 198 " Newburgii,' ' The, and The " Oscar," Holt, 231 201,226 "Nichols," The, 7 Wall. 656 7, 138, 139, 140 Nicholson v. Mouncey, 15 East, 384 45 " Nio-htwatch." The, Lush. 542 ; 32 L. J. Ad. 47 ; 7 L. T., N. S. 396 84 Nixon I'. Roberts, IJ. & H. 739 ; 4 L. T., N. S. 679 30 "Nor," The, 2 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 264 ; 30 L. T., N. S. 576 ; 22 W. R. 30 6. 169 "Norye," The, and The "Wolverine," Holt, 89 168 " Norma," The, 3 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 272 ; 35 L. T., N. S. 41 8... 182, 201 "Normanby," The, L. R. 3 A. & E. 152 ; 39 L. J. Ad. 48 ; 23 L. T., N. S. 631 ; 18 W. R. 903 69 " North American," The, and The " Wild Rose," 2 Mar. Law Cas., O. S. 319 ; 14 L. T., N. S. 68 115, 163 " Northampton," The, 1 Sp. E. & A. 152 27, 111, 126, 219 "Northern Indiana," The, 3 Blatchf. 92 186, 217 •' Northumbria," The, L. R. 3 A. & E. 6 ; 39 L. J. Ad. 3 ; 21 L. T., N. S. 681 ; 18 W. R. 188 64, 70, 71 Norwich Steamboat Co. -y. Wright, 13 Wall. 104 76 Notara v. Henderson, L. R. 5 Q. B. 346 ; 39 L. J. Q. B. 167 ; 22 L. T., N. S. 577 ; on app. L. R. 7 Q. B. 225 ; 41 L. J. Q. B. 158 ; 26 L. T., N. S. 442 5 20 W. R. 443 59 XXIV TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Nothard i'. Pepper, 17 C. B., N. S. 39; 10 L. T., N. S. 782 9 Nugent V. Smith, 1 C. P. D. 19 ; 45 L. J. C. P. 19 ; 33 L. T., N. S. 731 ; on app. 1 C. P. D. 423 ; 45 L. J. C. P. 697 ; 34 L. T., N. S. 827 ; 24 W. R. 237 20 "Nymph," The, Swab. Ad, 86 20 Oakley v. Speedy, 40 L. T., N. S. 881 ; 27 W. R. Dig. 199 46, 101 " Obey," The, L. R. 1 A. & E. 102 ; 12 Jur., N. S. 817 70, 112 " Ocean Wave," The, Marshall v. Moran, L. R, 3 P. C. 205 ; 23 L. T., N. S. 218 81, 108, 109, 111,112, 126 Oceanic Steam Nav. Co. v. Jones. See The " Alexandria." "Oceano," The, and The "Virgo," 3 P. D. 60 178, 194 "Oceanus," The, 5 Bened. 545 ; on app. 12 Blatchf. 430 189, 197 O'Neal V. Sears, 2 Spragne, 52 225 " Orient," The, Mar. Law Cas., 0. S. 321 ; 39 L. J. Ad. 8 ; 21 L. T., N. S. 761 ; on app. nom. Yeo. v. Tatham, L. R. 3 P. C. 696 ; 40 L. J. Ad. 29 ; 20 W. R. 6 31,32, 33, 36, 37 "Orion," The 2 Mar. Law Gas., O. S. Dig. 822 163 " Orpheus," The, L. R. 3 A. & E. 308 ; 40 L. J. Ad. 24 ; 28 L, T., N. S. 855 ; 19 W. R. Dig. 16 30, 71 "Ostrich," The, and The " Benbow," Mit<>h. Mar. Reg. 1878 101 "Otter," The, L. R. 4 A. & E. 203 ; 30 L. T., N. S. 43 ; 22 W. R. 557 163,230 " Owen Wallis," The, L. R. 4 A. & E. 175 ; 43 L. J. Ad. 36 ; 30 L. T., N. S. 41 ; 22 W. R. 695 234 Owners of The " Velasquez " v. Brigga, See The " Velasquez." "Pactolus," The, Swab. Ad. 173 ; 28 L. T. 220 64 " Palatine," The, 1 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 468 ; 27 L. T., N. S. 631 182, 190, 201, 227 "Palestine," The, 13 W. R. Ill 17 " Panther," The, 1 Sp. E. & A. 31 17, 191 "Parana," The, 1 P. D. 452 ; 45 L. J. Ad. 108 ; 35 L. T., N, S. 32 ; on app. 2 P. D. 118 ; 36 L. T., N. S. 388 63 " Parkersburg," The, 5 Blatchf. 247 218 "Parlement Beige," The, 4 P. D. 129 ; 48 L. J. Ad. 18 ; 40 L. T., N. S. 222 Addenda, 93, 94 "Patriotto," The, and The "Rival," 2 L. T., N. S. 301 218, 220 Peaker. Scrutch, 7 Q. B. 603 128 Pearce v. Page, 24 How. 228 234 TABLE OF CASES. XXV PAGE "Peckforton Castle," The, 2 P. D. ■222 ; 47 L. J. Ad 12 ; 37 L. T., N. S. 539 ; 26 W. R. 81 ; on app. 3 P. D. 11 ; 47 L. J. Ad. 69 ; 37 L. T., N. S. 816 ; 26 W. R. 346 175, 187, 188 " Peerless," The, Lush. 30 ; 29 L. J. Ad. 49 ; 2 L. T., N. S. 25 ; on app. nom. Prowse v. European, &c., Co., 13 Moo. P. C. C. 484 ; 30 L. J. Ad. 89 ; 3 L. T., X. S. 125 23, 97, 103, 111, 112, 114, 222, 237 " Pennsylvania," The, National Sceamsbip Co. v. Merry, 3 Mar. Law Cas., O. S. 477 ; 23 L. T., N. S. 55 3, 17, 20, 96, 155, 161 " Pennsylvania," The, 19 Wall. 125 ; 31 L. T., N. S. 103 15, 19, 96, 155, 161, 162, 163, 185 " Pensher," The, Swab. Ad. 211 ; 29 L. T. 12 56 " Pepperell," The, Swab. Ad. 12 166 " Perkins," The, 2 Mar. Law Cas., 0. S. Dig. 548 36,55 "Peru," The, 1 Pritch. Ad. Dig. 440 109 "Pet," The, 20 L. T., N. S. 961 ; 17 W. R. 899 36 Petley v. Catto. See The " Christiana." "Phebe," The, Ware's Rep. 263 28, 32, 35 "Philotaxe," The, 37 L. T., N. S. 540 ; 3 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 512 ...180, 186, 214, 221 "Pieve Snperiorp," The, L. R. 4 A. & E. 170 ; 43 L. J. Ad. 1 ; 29 L. T. X. S. 702 ; 22 W. R. 416 ; on app. L. R. 5 P. C. 482 ; 43 L. J. Ad. 20 ; 30 L. T., X. S. 887 : 22 W. R. 777 36, 48 " Piadda," The, 2 P. D. 34 ; 46 L. J. Ad. 61 2-3, 26, 216, 223 "Planet," The, Brown Ad. 124 219 and The "Aura," Holt, 255 211 "Plato," The, and The " Perseverance," Holt, 262 21, 226, 231 "Plymouth," The, 3 Wall. 20 36 Pollok V. M'Alpin. See The " Lochibo." Portevant v. The "Bella Donna," Xewb. Ad. 510 219 " Portsmouth," The, 6 C. Rob. 317 (note) 101 " Potomac," The, 8 WaU. 590 9, 182. 199 Poulton V. London & South Western Ry. Co., L. R. 2 Q. B. 534 ; 36 L. J. Q. B. 294 ; 17 L. T., X. S. 841 ; 16 W. R. 309 38 Priestly V. Fowler, 3 M. & W. 1 ; 7 L. J. Ex. 42 49 " Princessan Lovisa, " The, and The "Artemas," Holt, 75 ; 2 Mar. Law Cas., O. S. 241 168, 175, 177 " Princeton," The, 3 P. D. 90 ; 47 L. J. Ad. 33 ; 38 L. T., N. S. 260 72,105, 111, 126 " Priscilla," The, L. R, 3 A. & E. 125 ; 23 L. T., X. S. 566 ...172, 190, 211, 227 "Protector," The, 1 W. Rob. 45 33 " Promise," The, and H. M. S. "Topaze," 2 Mar. Law Cas., O. S. 38 ; Holt, 165 143 Purkia V. Flower, L. R. 9 Q. B. 114 ; 43 L. J. Q. B. 33 ; 30 L. T., X. S. 40 ; 22 W. R. 239 31 " Pyrus," The, and The " Smales," 2 Mar. Law Cas., 0. S. 288 ; Holt, 40 6, 17 Q. Queen," The, L. R. 2 A. & E. 354 ; 20 L. T., N. S. 855 13, 105 of the Bay," The, Mumford v. Crocker, Ship. Gaz , June 14th, 1878 n? XXVI TABLE OF CASES. PAGE " Queen of the East," The, and The " Calvpso," 4 Beued. 103 220 of the " OrweU,' The, 1 Mar. Law Cas., O. S. 300 ; 7 L. T., N.S. 839 14 "Quickstep," The, 9 Wall. 665 87 R. "R. B. Forbes," The, 1 Sprague 328 33, 86 Radley v. London & Xorth Western Ry. Co., 1 App. Cas. 754 ; 46 L, J.Ex. D. 573 ; 35 L. T., K S. 637; 25 W. R. 147 5 "Raithwaite HaU," The, 2 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 210 ; 30 L. T., N. S. 233 237 " Rajah," The, L. R. 3 A. & E. 539 ; 1 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 403 ; 41 L.J. Ad. 97; 27 L. T., N. S. 102; 21 W. R. 14 69 Ramsayr. Quinn, Ir. Rep. 8 C. L. 322 49 " Ranger," The. See The " Cologne" and The " Ranger." Rankine v. Raschen, 4 Ses. Cas. 4th Sei-ies, 725 71 Rayne, Ex parte, 1 Gale & Dav. 374 71 "Rebecca," The, Ware's Rep. 188 32, 74 Redpath v. Allan. See The " Hibernian." Reg. V. Anderson, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 161 ; 38 L. J. M. C. 12 ; 19 L. T., N. S. 400 ; 17 W.R.208 99 V. Keyn, 2 Ex. D. 63 ; 46 L. J. M. C. 17 ; 25 W. R. Dig. 87 ...88, 91, 94 99 100 V. Lewis, 1 D. & B. C. C, 182 .'....' 100 V. Menham, 1 F. & F. -369 99 • r. Sattler, D. & B.C. C. 525 99 V. Spence, 1 Cox C. C. 352 46 V. Stanton, 8 EU. & B. 445 ; 27 L. J. Q. B. 105 ; 22 Jur. 10 ; 30 L. T. 118 ; 6 W. R. 39 120, 122, 128 V. "SvenSeberg," The, 22 L. T., K S. 523 99 V. Taylor, 9 C. & P. 672 45 "Regina del Mare," The, Lush. 315 44 "ReUef," The, Olcott, Ad. 104 165 "Renown," The, and The "Rattler," 2 Mar. Law Cas., O. S. 243 17 "Rescue," The, 2 Sprague 16 , 86 "Retriever," The, and The "Queen," 2 Mar. Law Cas., O. S. 555 ; 17L. T., N. S. 329 47 Rex V. Allen, 7 Car. & P. 153 46 V. Green, 7 Car. & P. 156 46 r. Watts, 2 Esp. 675 41 " Rhode Island," The, Olcott Ad. 505 ; 1 Blatchf . 363 189 "Richmond," The, 3 Hag. Ad. 431 Rio Grande do Sul Steamship Co., In re The, 5 Ch. D. 282 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 277; 36 L. T., N. S. 603; 25 W. R. 328 31 "Ripon," The, 6 Not. of Cas. 245 114 River Wear Commissioners v. Adamson, 1 Q. B. D. 546 ; 29 L. T., N. S. 530 ; 22 W. R. 47 ; on app. 2 App. Cas. 743 ; 46 L. J. Q. B. C. P. & Ex. 82 ; 37 L. T., N. S. 543 ; 24 W. R. 872 27, 73, 103 "Rob Roy," The, 3 W. Rob. 190 7, 144, 146 " Robert and Ann," The, and The "Lloyd," Holt, 55 155, 159, 216 TABLE OF CASES. XXVll PAGE " Robert Dixon," The, 40 L. T., N. S. 333 'J^' ^'^ "Robert Row," The, Br. & Lush. 99 ; 32 L. J. Ad. 164 ; 9 L. T., N S 237 Rodrkmez V. Melhuish, 10 Ex. 110 ■■■■-■ 1-6 "Roecliff," The, L. R. 2 A. & E. 363 ; 38 L. J. Ad. 56 ; 20 L. T., N. S. 586 ; 17 W. R. 745 30 Romney Marsh, Lords Bailiff Jurats of, v. Corporation 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., N. S. 446 ; 20 W. R. 952 8 " Rona," The, and The "Ava," 29 L. T., N. S. 781 ; 2 Asp. Mar. Law Cas.182 140, 147, 167 184 "Rose," The, 2 W.Rob. 1 ••■ » Royal Charter," The, L. R. 2 A. & E. 362 ; 38 L. J. Ad. 36 ; 20 L. ^ T., N. S. 1U19 ; 18 W. R. 49 8, i2 "Ruby Queen," The, Lush. 266; 10 W. R. Dig. 27 33, 222 "Russia," The, 3 Bened. 471 ; 3 Mar. Law Cas., O. S. 290 ; 21 L. T., N.S. 440 230 S. "Saint Cyran," The, and The "Henry," Holt, 72; 12 W. R. 1014. ..177, 210 "Saint Olaf," The, L. R. 2 A. & E. 360 ; 38 L. J. Ad. 41 ; 20 L. T., N. S. 758; 17 W. R. 743 30 " Samphire," The, and The " Fanny Beck," Holt, 193 151, 165, 182 "Sampson," The, 4 Blatchf. 28 46 " Sapphire," The, 11 Wall. 164 222,225 18 Wall. 51 65, 68 " Saracen," The, Bernard v. Hyne, 6 Moo. P. C. C. 56 ; 11 Jur. 253... 30, 4& "Sarah," The, Lush. 549 31 "Saucy Lass," The, and The "Bolderaa," Holt, 205 201, 226 "Savemake," The, and The "Vesuvius." See Chapman v. Royal Nether- land's Steam Co. " Saxonia," The. See The " Eclipse " and The " Saxonia." . 2 Mar. Law Cas. 0. S. 417 ; 15 L. T., N. S. 113 226 "Schwalbe," The, Lush. 239 ; 4 L. T., N. S. 160 106, 111 Swab. Ad. 521 9 "Schwann," The, L. R. 4 A. & E. 187; 43 L. J. Ad. 18 ; 30 L. T., N. S. 537; 22 W. R. 743 72 "Scioto," The, Davies 359 218 Scott f. Scott, 2 Stark. 438 29^ "Scotia," The, 7 Blatchf. 308; on app. 14 Wall. 170; nom. The " Berkshii-e," 3 Mar. Law Cas., O. S. 510 ; 23 L. T., N. S. 370 7,. 10, 135, 146 "Scout," The, L. R. 3 A. & E. 512 ; 41 L. J. Ad. 42 ; 26 L. T., N. & 371. 35- "Sea Gull," The, 23 Wall 165 7, 19i> "Sea Nymph," The, Lush. 23 22t> "Sea Nymph of Chester," The, Holt, 34 1^/ "Sea Queen," The, or The "Lloyds," Lush. 197; 32 L. J. Ad. 197; 9 L. T., N. S. 236 129 Seccombe v. Wood, 2 Moo. & Rob. 290 » XXVllI TABLE OF CASKS. PAGE • Secret," The. See The " Innisfail " and The " Secret." 26 L. T., N. S. 670 219, 221 Sedgworlh r. Overend, 7 T. K. 280 48 "Seine," The, Swab. Ad. 411 ; 5 Jur., N. S. 298 38, 91, 191 "Selina," The, 2 Not. of Cas. 18 30 " Seringapatam," The, 3 W. Rob. 38 ; 5 Not. of Cas. 61 170 "Shannon," The, 1 W. Eob. 463; 7 Jur. 380 23, 221 Shersby r. Hibbert. See The " Duke of Manchester." Sherman r. Mott, 5 Bened. 372 25 SUls V. Brown, 9 Car. & P. 601 3,60 Simpson r. Blues, L. R. 7 C. P. 290 ; 41 L. J. C. P. 121 ; 26 L. T., N. S. 697; 20 W. R. 680 65 V. Thompson, 3 Ap. Cas. 279 ; 38 L. T., N. S. 1 ; 26 W. R. Dig. 219 26, 27, 39, 42, 44 "Singapore," The, and The "Hebe," Holt, 124 170 "Siren," The, 7 Wall. 152 45 "Sisters," The, 1 P. D. 281; 2 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 589 ; 32 L. T., N. S. 837 71 44 L. J. Ad. 23 ; 32 L. T., N. S. 343 ; on app. 1 P. D. 117; 34 L. T., N. S. 338; 45 L. J. Ad. 39; 24 W. R. 412 6, 10, 22 Smith, In re, The " City of Mecca," 1 P. D. 300 ; 45 L. J. Ad. 92; 35 L. T., N. S. 380; 24 W. R. 903 42, 97, 98 V. Brown, L. R. 6 Q. B. 729 ; 40 L. J. Q. B. 214 ; 24 L. T., N. S. 808; 19 W. R. 1165 65 V. Condry, 1 How. 28 63, 103, 117 V. Dobson, 3 M. & G. 59 ; 3 Scott. N. R. 336 234 V. Kirby, 1 Q. B. D. 131 ; 24 W. R. 207 71 Saint Lawrence Tow Boat Co., L. R. 5 P. C. 308 ; 28 L. T., N. S. 885 ; 21 W. R. 569 80, 83, 84, 163 V. Scott, 4 Taunt. 126 42 Steele, L. R. 10 Q. B. 125 ; 44 L. J. Q. B. 60 ; 32 L. T., N. S. 195 ; 23 W. R. 388 49 V. The " Creole" and The " Sampson," 2 Wall. Jur. 485 86, 117 V. Voss, 2 H. & N. 97 ; 26 L. J. Ex. 233 ; 29 L. T., 97 ; 5 W. R. 534 5, 41, 192 " Smyrna," The, mentioned Lush. 385 149 2 Mar. Law Cas., 0. S. 93; 11 L. T., N. S. 74. ..165, 229, 239 "Southsea," The, Swab. Ad. 141 60 " Spindrift," Tlie. See The "Jennie S. Barker." "Spirit of the Ocean," The, Br. and Lush. 336; 34 L. J. Ad. 74 ; 2 L J. Ad. 74 ; 2 Mar. Law Cas., O. S. 192 ; 12 L. T., N. S. 239 69 "Spring," The, L. R. 1 A. & E. 99 ; 12 Jur., N. S. 788 172 "Stadacona," The, 5 Not. of Cas. 371 142 " Star of India," The, 1 P. D. 466; 45 L. J. Ad. 102 ; 35 L. T., N. S. 407; 25 W. R. 377 62, 64 Steel V. Lester, 3 C. P. D. 121 ; 47 L. J. C. P. 43 ; 37 L. T., N. S. 642 ; 26 W. R. 212 28, 69 Steinback v. Rae, 14 How. 532 21 "Stephen Morgan," The, 4 Otto, 599 202 " Stettin," The, Br. & Lush. 199 ; 31 L. J. Ad. 208 ; 6 L. T., N. S. 613 120, 129 Stevens v. The " S. W. Downs " and The " Storm," Newb. Ad. 458 ... 9 "Stirlingshire," The, and The "Africa," 2 Mar. Law Cas., O. S. Dig. 672 226 "Stranger," The, 6 Not. of Cas. 36 168, 215 TAl'.T.F. OF CASKS. PAGE " Stranger," The, Brown Ad. 28 1 ; 24 L. T., N. S. 364 87 Stua,rt V. Isemonger. See The " Diana." Sturges r. Boyer, 24 How. 110 85 r. Clough, 21 How. 4.51 232 "Sunnyside," The, 1 Otto, 208 19, 142, 144, 149, 181, 200, 203, 206, 208, 217 " Superb," The, and The "Florence Bragington." See The "Floience Bragiiigton." "Superior," The, 6 Not. of Cas. 607 204, 205, 206 " Supply," H.M.S., 2 Mar. Law Cas., O. S. 2o2 ; Holt, 189 ; 12 L. T., N. S. 799 240 "Swallow," H.M.S., Swab. Ad. 30 72 "Swallow," The, 3 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 371 ; 36 L. T., N. S. 331. ..24, 234 "Swan," The, 3 Blatchf. 285 41 "Swanland," The, 2 Sp. E. & A. 107 11, 17 " Swansea," The, and The " Condor," 4 P. D. 115 ; 48 L. J. Ad. 33 ; 40 L. T., N. S. 442 ; 27 W. R. 718 19, 72, 143 "Sweepstakes," The, Brown Ad. 509 84 "Swift," The, 1 Dods. Ad. 320 93 "Sylph," The, 2 Sp. E. & A. 75 137, 142, 146, 191 Swab. Ad. 233 140 — L. R. 2 A. & E. 24 ; 37 L. J. Ad. 14 ; 17 L. T., N. S. 519 64 " Sylvester Hale," The, 6 Bened. 523 136, 168 "Syracuse," The, 9 Wall. 672 184 12 Wall. 167 87, 142 T. Taylor r. Dewar, 5 B. & S. 58 ; 33 L. J. q. B. 141 ; 10 L. T., X. S. 267; 12 W. R. 579 43, 44, 65 V. Carryl, 20 How. 584 31 "Telegraph," The, Valentine v. Cleugh, 1 Sp. E. ft A. 427 10, 17 "Temora," The, Lush. 17 ; 1 L. T., N. S. 418; 8 W. R. Dig. 21 119, 120, 128 Test," The, 5 Not. of Cas. 276 139, 198, 199, 204, 210 " Teutonia," The, 23 Wall. 77 163 " Thames," The. See The " Sisters." 5 C. Rob. 345 231 and The "Stork," Holt, 151 177 " Thetis," The, L. R. 2 A. & E. 365 ; 38 L. J. Ad. 42 ; 22 L. T., N. S. 276 ; 3 Mar. Law Cas., 0. S. 357 9, 38, 84 " Thomas Lea," The, 35 L. T., N. S. 406 ; 3 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 260 145 "Thomas Martin," The, 3 Blatchf. 517 166 "Thoma.s Powell," The, and The "Cuba," 2 Mar. Law Cas., O. S. 344 ; 14 L. T., N. S. 603 5, 21 Thompson v. Reynolds, 7 E. & B. 172 ; 26 L. J. Q. B. 93 ; 21 Jur. N. S. 464 ■; 43 "Thomley," The, 7 Jur. 659 24, 231 "Thornton," The, 2 Bened. 429 224, 225 Thorogood r. Brian, 8 C. B. 115 : 18 L. J. C. P. 336 47 XXX TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Thorp ?•. Hammond, 12 WalL 408 35, 218, 227 "Thuringia," The, 1 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 283; 41 L. J. Ad. 44 ; 26 L. T., N. S. 446 58, 59, 92 "Ticonderoga," The, Swab. Ad. 215 34 "Tirzah," The, 4 P. D. 33 ; 48 L. J. Ad. 15 ; 39 L. T., N. S. 547 ; 27 W. R. 584 18, 150, 152, 156 "Topaze," H.M S., 2 Mar. Law Cas., O. S. 38 ; Holt, 165 ; 10 L. T., N. S. 659 ; 12 W. R. 923 240 "Tracy J. Bronson," The, 3 Beued. 341 53, 168 "Transit," The, 3 Bened. 192 171, 200 "Traveller," The, 2 W. Rob. 197 169 "Trident," The, 1 Sp. E. & A. 217 141, 229 Tuff V. Warnam, 2 C. B., N. S. 740 ; 26 L. J. C. P. 263 ; 5 W. R. 685 ; on app. 5 C. B., N. S. 573 ; 27 L. J. C. P. 322 ; 29 L. T. 199 ; 6 W. R. 693 5, 17 "Two Ellens," The, Johnson v. Black, L. R. 4 P. C. 161 ; 41 L. J. Ad. 33; 26 L. T., X. S. 1 31, 35, 36 "Two Sisters," The, 1 Pritch. Ad Dig. 199 10 Tyne Improvement Commissioners v. General Steam Nav. Co., L. R. 2 Q. B. 65 ; 36 L. J. Q. B. 22 ; 15 L. T., N. S. 487 ; 15 W. R. 178 119, 132 U. "U. S. Grant," The, and The "Tally Ho," 7 Bened. 195 78, 152 " Uhla," The, L. R. 2 A. & E. 29 (note) ; 3 Mar. Law Cas., O. S. 148 ; 37 L. J. Ad. 16 (note) ; 19 L. T., N. S. 89 21, 36, 73, 225, 230 " Ulster," The, 1 Mar. Law Cas., O. S. 234 ; 6 L. T., N. S. 736 ; 10 W. R. 794 215, 234 "Uncas," The, and The " Mseander, Holt, 243 199 "Union," The, 3 L. T, N. S. 280 89 Steamship Co. r. Owners of The " Aracan," The " American," and The "Syria," L. R. 4 A & E. 22-3 ; 43 L. J. Ad. 25 ; 22 W. R. 845 ; on app. L. R. 6 P. C. 127 ; 43 L. J. Ad. 30 ; 31 L. T, K S. 42 ; 22 W. R. 927 69, 78, 79, 80, 145, 149, 153, 181, 212 " United States," The, 2 Mar. Law Cas., O. S. 166 ; 12 L. T., N. S. 33 2,236 "Unity," The, Swab. Ad. 101 78, 142, 191, 192 " Urania," The, 1 Mar. Law Cas., O. S. 156 ; 5 L. T., N. S. 402 ; 10 W.R. 97 41,72 V. "Vanderbilt," The, 6 Wall. 225 142, 193 Vanderplank r. MDler, M. & M. 169 216 " Velasquez," The, Owners of The " Velasquez " v. Briggs, L. R. 1 P. C. 494 ; 36 L. J. Ad. 19 ; 16 L. T., N. S. 777 ; 16 VV. R. 89... 112 "Velocity," The, L. R. 3 P. C. 44 ; 39 L. J. Ad. 20 ; 21 L. T., N. S. 686 ; 18 W. R. 264 5, 37, 134, 142, 178, 193, 194, 199 Vennall v. Garner, 1 Cr. & M. 21 6 "Venus," The, 1 Pritch. Ad. Dig. 129 ; 2 Mar. Law Cas., O. S. Dig. 522 23, 40 TAni,E OF CARES. PAGE "Vernon," The, 1 W. Rob. 316 92, 107 "Vesta," The, and The "City of London," "Times," Sept. 15th, 1879 101 " Vianna," The, Swab. Ad. 405 235 " Vicksburg,"' The, 7 Blatchf. 216 """""!'"!!!'!'"/ 227 "Victor," The, Lush. 72 ; 29 L. J. Ad. 110 ; 2 L. T., N. S. 331...... 30, 44 "Victoria," The, 3 W. Rob. 49 144, 146 163, 166 " Victoria," The, Ir. Rep. Ad. 1 Eq. 336 ' 120* 130 " Ville du Havre," The, 7 Bened. 328 .. '217 " Virgil," The, 2 W. Rob. 201 ...^........... 21 "Virginia Ehrman," The, 7 Otto, 309 66, 86 "Virgo," The, 3 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 285 ; 35 L. T., N. S 519 ; 25 ' W. R. 397 24 7 Bened. 495 902 " Vivar," The, 2 P. D. 29 ; 35 L. T., N. S. 782 ; 25 \v"R."379";"on ' app. lb. 453 42, 97, 98 "Vivid." The, Swab. Ad. 88; on app. nom. Churchward r. Palmer, 10 Moo. P. C. C. 472; 4 W. R. 755 17, 186 7 Not. of Cas. 127 167, 183, 198 1 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 601 ; 42 L. J. Ad. 57 ; 28 L. T., N. S. 375 220, 223 " Volant," The, 1 W. Rob. 383 70 74 " Volcano,,' The, 2 W. Rob. 337 45 220 222 W. "W. C. Redfield," The, 4 Bened. 227 179 228 W. T. Clark," The, 5 Bissel, 295 .'.'.'...'.' 36 Wahlberg v. Young, 45 L. J. C. P. 783 ; 24 W. R. 847 68, 84 " Wanata," The, 4 Bened. 310 ; 5 Otto, 600 71 V'S " War Eagle, The, 6 Bissel, 364 '" ' 76 " Warrior," The, L. R. 3 A. & E. 553 ; 27 L. T., N. S. 101 ; 21 w! R. 82 79, 181, 212 " Washington," The, 5 Jur. 1067 ,31 "Waterloo," The, 2 Dods. Ad. 433 3.5 "Webb," The, 14 Wall. 406 84 87 "Wesley," The, Lush. 268 128 "Westphalia," The, 4 Bened. 404: 1 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 12- '^4 L. T., N. S. 75 '..... 166 " Wheatsheaf," The, and The " Intrepide," 2 Mar. Law Cas O. S 292 • Holt, 210; 13 L. T., N. S. 612 55 is7 White V. Crisp, 10 Ex. 312 8, 41 Whitehall Transportation Co. v. New Jersey Steamboat Co., 51 New York (Sicker's) Rep. 369 I9 Whitney r. The Empire State, 1 Bened. 57 19, 169, 201, 227 228 Whitridge t'. Dill, 23 How. 448 189 218 Whittel r. Crawford, 27 L. T. 223 '." ' 17 " Wild Ranger," The, Lush. 553 ; 32 L. J. Ad. 49 ; 7 L. T., isT. S. 725- 9 Jur., N. S. 134 74, 89 " Willard Saulsbury," The, 1 Pars, on Ship. (ed. 1869) 564 157 "William Hutt," The, Lush. 25 9, 49 4 Mitch. Mar. Reg. 718 ; Lowndes on Coll. i87 237 XXxii TABLE OF CASES. PAGE " William Liiulsay," The, L. R. 5 P. C. 338 ; 29 L. T., N. S. 355 ; 22 W. K. 6 23 "William F. Safford," Tbe, Lush. 69 49 Williams v. Nevvt-.n, 14 M. & W. 747 ; 15 L. J. Ex. 11 128 Wilson V. Dickson, 2 B. & Aid. 2 69, 74 " WirraU," The, 3 W. Rob. 56 216 " Woburn Abbey," The, 3 Mar. Law Caa., O. S. 240 ; 38 L. J. Ad. 28; 20 L. T., N. S. 621 104, 228 Wood r. Smith. See The " City of Cambridge." " Woodrop Sims," The, 2 Dods. Ad. 83 1 X. Xenos V. Fox, L. R. 4 C. P. 6^5 ; 38 L. J. C. P. 351 ; 19 L. T., K S. 84; 17 W. R. 893 43 Y. Yates r. Wh3i;e, 4 Bing. N. C. 272 ; 7 L. J. C. P. 116 44 " Yorkshireman," The, 2 Hag. Ad. 30 (note) 61 "Young Mechanic," 2 Curtis, 404 29 Z. " Zephyr," The, 2 Mar. Law Cas., O. S. 146 ; 11 L. T., N. S. 351 ; 12 W. R. 890 36 "Zollverein," The, Svv;ib. Ad. 96; 27 L. T. 160; 2 Jur. X. S. 429 90, 92, 230 Cases Decided hy Courts of the United States of America are Cited from the follouing Reports: — Abbot, Admiralty (Distiict Court) Reports. American Reports (all the Courts of last resort). Benedict, District Court Reports. Blatchford, Circuit Court Reports. Brown, Admiralty Reports. Gallison, Circuit Court Reports. Howard, Supreme Court Reports. Newberry, Admiralty (District Court) Reports. Olcott, Admiralty (District Court) Reports. Sprague, Admiralty (District Court) Reports, Ware, District Court Reports. Wallace, Supreme Court Reports. Wallace, Junior, Circuit Court Reports. THE LAW OF MAKITIME COLLISION. CHAPTER I. GENERAL RULES. For the pnqDose of determining by whom and in what The four cases shares the loss is to be borne, collisions between ships °^ ''"^"''''°- have been 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 vis m,anor 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 toWame^^ where there has been want of due^iligence or ot'sKll 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 m^conduct of the suffering party only ; I 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 I party would be entitled to an entire compensation from the \ other " (a). («) Per Lord Stowell in The Admiralty see The Mo.m, Ahbnt Woorfj-op, 8ims, 2 Dods. 83, 85. As Ad. 7.3. to the meaning of "collision" in 2 GENERAL RULES. Rule as to The law " apportions " the loss where both ships are in of loss ^vhere fault by obliging each of them to pay half the loss of the both ships are Q^j^gj.. Thiis, if the loss on A. is £1000 and that on B. is in fault. £2000, A. can recover £500 against B., and B. can recover £1000 against A. The Courts make no attempt to administer distributive justice by apportioning the loss according to the degree of fault of which each ship is guilty (b). The rule as to equal division of loss where both ships are in fault now prevails in all the Courts. Until recently (c) it prevailed only in Admiralty proceed- ings ; at Common Law neither ship could recover anything against the other where both were in fault (d). Whether the rule of equal division of loss where the ships in collision are both in fault applies where there is a collision between two ships, A. and B., caused by the fault of one of them, B., and of a third ship, C, so as to entitle B. to recover half her loss from C, is not clear (e). It has been applied as between a ship being launched and another under way, where the fault of the former was committed on shore and consisted in being started at an improper moment (/). What IS negli- -j,-^^ mere fact that a ship strikes, or goes foul of another, gence causing _ _ J- ' o collision. creates no liability against herself, her owners, or those in charge of her. Nor does it advance the case to assert that the one ship "ran down " the other, or "ran into " her (g). So that damages may be recovered fault must be proved for which the owners or persons on board the ship sued are responsible. What degree of fault entitles the plain- tiff to recover it is difficult or impossible to define (h). (6) Hay v. Le Nece, 2 Shaw's foot of this chapter, infra, p. 49. Scotch App. Cas. 395, and cases (e) See The Energy, infra, p. 80 ; there cited ; The Milan, Lush. 388. The James Gray, 21 Wall. 184. (c) The Judicature Act, 1873, (/) The United States, 12 L. T. altered the law ; 36 & 37 Vict. c. N. S. 31. 66, s. 25, sub-s. 9. iff) The James Watt, 2 W. Rob. (d) For some account of the law 270, 278. as to the incidence of loss where {h) BjTikershoek says : prwcipue both ships are in fault in this and ed in re valet judicis arbitrium. other countries, see the note at the NEOLIGEXCE CAUSINT} COLLISION. Apart from the particular circumstaDces of each case the question does not admit of an answer. A collision can seldom or never be avoided at the moment of its occurrence. It is often inevitable for some moments before the ships come together. It is not enough for a ship to show that as soon as the necessity for taking measures to avoid a collision was perceived, all that could be done was done. 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 (i). If there would have been no loss but for the vessels coming into contact, it is immaterial, upon the trial of the question. Who is to bear the loss, that its amount was increased by negligence, pre- vious to, or at the time of, the collision, provided such negligence did not contribute to the collision (J). Thus, when a ship. A., was, by her own fault, in collision with another, B., that was negligently carrying her anchor a-cock- bill in the Thames, and in consequence of the anchor being in that position its fluke was driven into B.'s side and she sank, it was held that B. was entitled to recover full damages against A. (Jc). In a similar case, where the question was whether the damage was caused by the negligence of the pilot in navigating the vessel so as to come into collision, or by the negligence of the master and crew in carrying the anchor improperly. Dr. Lushington held that it was caused not by the improper position of the anchor, but by the ship being improperly steered and towed. It was held that the posi- {i) Maddox v. Fisher ; The Inde- question of damages. See below, pendence, 14 Moo. P. C. C. 103, 109 ; pp. 55, seq. The Despatch, ibid. 83 ; The Perm- {k) Sills v. Broum, 9 Car. &, P. sylvaniu, 3 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 601. As to an act material only as 477 ; The America, 2 Otto. 432; and regards the parts of the ships which see below, p. 6. are in contact, see The Governor and (j) Negligence subsequent to the The John Mclntyre, Holt's Rule collision, by which the loss is in- of the Road, 184. creased, may be material upon the B 2 GENERAL KULES. tion of the anchor was material only in case there would have been no damage but for its being carried where it was (I). So if a vessel suffers more severely in a collision in consequence of her being in a weak or strained condition, she is not on that account prevented from recovering full damages (rii). Nor is it any answer to an action for damasfes that the loss would not have occurred but for the negligence of a third ship, if the collision or loss was in fact caused partly by the fault of the vessel sued (n). Though, at the time of the collision, a vessel is being navigated in an improper manner, she will not be held in fault for the collision, if it is proved that the particular act of imprudence or negligence did not cause or contribute to the collision. Though it be proved that her crew was in- sufficient, her speed too great, her condition unseaworthy, or her officers incapable, if the circumstance had no con- nection with the collision, it is altogether irrelevant (o). If the negligence of the party injured did not, in any degree, contribute to the immediate cause of the accident, that negligence ought not to be set up as an answer to the action ('p). If it is open for a vessel to adopt either of two courses, one of which is safe and the other hazardous, and she elects the latter, she is responsible for mischief which ensues. And she cannot, in such a case, insist upon the fact that she had a right to be where she was, or that she complied with the letter of the law. " If it be practicable to pursue a course which is safe, and you follow so closely upon the track of another that miscliief may ensue, you are bound to adopt the safe course. This is the principle that is (/) The Gqjsetj Kinr/,^ 'Noi.oi Ca^. (n) See p. 40, ?w/nf. 282. ■ (o) The Hope, 1 W. Rob. 1.'54 ; (»;) The E(jyptian, 2 Mar. Ivaw The Lord Saumarez, 6 Not. of ('as. Cas. O. S. .nfi '; Luxford v. Large, 5 600. C. & P. 421 ; The Batarier, 1 Sp. (p) Per Pollock, C.B., Greenland E. & A. 378 ; and see iiifru, Ch. II. v. Chaplin, 5 Ex. 243. NEGLIGENCE CAUSING COLLISION. 6 always acted upon in cases of injuries done to ships at sea " ((/). Where there is negligence on the part of both vessels, Where there • • IS Ilfc!"^ll"'CTlC6 but one of them might, by the exercise of ordinary care, ^^jt ,°nf g^p ' have avoided the collision, she will be held solely in might by ordi- . nary care have fault (r), unless the negligence of the other consists m an avoided a infringement of one of the Statutory Regulations for pre- collisKjn. venting collision, which might, by possibility, have con- tributed to the collision. In that case, whether it did in fact contribute to the collision or not, both ships will be held to be in fault (s). And where negligence is proved on the part of the plaintiff, unless the Court -is satisfied that it did not contribute to the accident, he can recover nothing, unless the other ship is also in fault (t). As to the degree of skill and precaution which the law Degree of requires of seamen. Dr. Lushington described it as ordinary ^ ^^'^^^ '^^' skill and ordinary diligence : " We are not to expect extra- ordinary skill or extraordinary diligence, but that degree of skill and that degree of diligence which is generally to be found in persons who discharge their duty " (w). A ship that is partially disabled, or navigating in an unusual manner, or otherwise especially dangerous to other vessels, must take more than ordinary care to avoid collision (oc). Where two vessels are upon courses which will take them clear of each other, the one which, by unnecessarily altering her course, causes risk of collision, is in fault (?/). {q) Per Ellenborough, C.J., in below, p. 14, seq. Mayhew v. Boyce, 1 Stark. 423. (t) Luxford v. Larrje, 5 C. & P. (r) Tuff V. Warnam, 2 C. B. N. S. 421. 740 ; 5 C. B. N. S. 573 ; Doicdl v. (u) The Thomas Powell and The General Steam Navigation Co., 5 Cuba, 2 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 344, E. & B. 195; The Lord Saumarez, 345. 6 Not. of Cas. 600 ; Radley v. Lon- (x) See iyifra, Ch.VL, Art. Sand don and N. W. Ity. Co., 1 Ap. Art. 23 ; The Eleanor and Tlie Alma, Cas. 754, 759 ; Greenland^. Chaplin, 2 Mar. Law C^as. O. S. 240. 5 Ex. 243 (infra) ; Smith v. Voss, 2 (y) The Vcloclti/, L. R. 3 P. C. 44. H. & N. 97. See also The Esh and The Niord, (s) 36 & 37 Vict. 0. 85, s. 17 ; see ibid. 436. 6 GENERAL RULES. A wrong step If a vessel by her own fault makes a collision so immi- a"-ony of the nent that it cannot be avoided except by the exercise of collision is not extraordinary skill or exertion on the part of the other negligence. . • -n i i i i i i ship, and a collision occurs, it will be held to have been occasioned by the former, and she will be liable for the entire loss. In such a case, and in every case where a ship by her own negligence places another in sudden peril, the latter will not be held in fault for omitting at the last moment to do something that would have averted the collision (^). And the rule is the same whether the emer- gency and sudden peril is caused by the fault of the other vessel or not. A vessel is not required to foresee and pro- vide for every accident. The mere omission to do some- thing that would have prevented the collision, or the doing something without which the collision would not have occurred, is not in every case negligence. The plaintiff can recover, although by taking steps other than those he did take he might have prevented the collision, provided he was not in fault for not taking such steps (a). Where a steam-ship coming up the Thames at night passed a schooner, and when about 300 yards a-head of her took the ground and stopped, the schooner was held not in fault for a collision which followed, although, pos- sibly, if she had at once let go her anchor she might have prevented the collision (6). A steam-ship bound down the river Thames on a very (2) The Nor, 2 Asp. Mar. Law Sisters, 1 P. D. 117; The Marpesia, Cas. 264 ; The C. M. Palmer and The L. R. 4 P. C. 212 ; Vennall v. Gar- Larnax, infra; The Pyrus and The ner, 1 Cr. & M. 21; The City of Smales, Holt 40 ; The Elizabeth and Anticerp and The Friedrich, Inman The Lotus, 2 Mar. Law Cas. 0. S. v. Becl<, L. R. 2 P. C. 25. Cf. per 238; The Sisters, 1 P. D. 117 ; The EUenborongh, C.J., in /owes v. 5o?/ce, Bywell Castle, 4 P. D. 219. The 1 Stark. 493, 495: "If I place a same rule prevails in the American man in such a situation that he courts. The Benefactor, 14 Blatchf. must adopt a perilous alternative (as 254 ; 2'he Byfoged Christiansen, 4 jumping off a coach), I am respon- App. Cas. 669. sible for the consequences." (a) The Jesmond and Tlie Earl of (h) The Mizahcth and The Adalia, Elyin, L. K. 4 P. C. 1, 7 ; The 3 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 845. NEGLIGENCE CAUSING COLLISION. / 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 steam- ship 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 steam-ship was not guilty of negligence because, at the moment, it did not occur to him to let go his anchor (c). But if a ship seeks to excuse herself for taking a wrong step which, in fact, caused or contributed to the collision, upon the ground of sudden peril, she must show clearly that she was in no way responsible for the sudden peril (d). Upon the same principle, if a ship, by carrying wrong Misleading lights, or by navigating in an improper or unusual manner, ofotherembar- misleads or embarrasses another, she cannot attribute as a passing acts. fault to the latter any act which was the probable result of her own negligence (e). So where a ship is hailed from another to take a particular course, and she obeys the 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 (/). (c) The C. M. Palmer and The Fa2w? J (p) The Ewflishman, 3 P. D. 18. N. S. 368. (q) The Mary IloimscU, 40 L. T. {>■) See i»fm, p. 78. INFRINGEMENT OF THE REGLTLATIOXS. 17 in effect, tliat if a collision was occasioned by an infringe- ment of the Regulations of those Acts, the vessel guilty of such infringement should recover no part of her loss, either in the Admiralty or any other Court. The effect of these enactments was that she could recover nothing, although the other ship was also in fault. An in- fringement of the Regulations was constituted negligence, and the question had to be tried in every case, whether it was negligence contributing to the collision or not (s). By 25 & 26 Vict. c. G3, s. 29, the old Admiralty rule as to the division of damages was applied to cases of statutory negligence, and a vessel guilty of an infringement of the Regulations Avhich contributed to the collision was enabled to recover half her loss in the Admiralty Court, if the other vessel was also in fault. The question whether the infringe- ment did, in fact, contribute to the collision or not, had still to be tried in every case (t). The alteration in the law effected by s. 17 of the Act now in force consists in excluding evidence that an infringement that might by possibility have contributed to the accident did not, in fact, do so. In a case under the Act of 1854 it was doubted by Dr. Lushington whether the disabhng section (s. 296) applied if the helm was ported, but not sufficiently (u). Under the present Act it could scarcely be contended that insufficient porting, or an infringement, even to the smallest extent, of any one of the Regulations which was material to the collision, couhl not, by possibility, have contributed to the (s) The Panther, 1 Sp. E. & A. Fattkr,2Ma.r. Law. Cas. 0. S. 243 ; 31 ; TheAIiwal, ibid. 96; The Fairy, Whittel v. Crau-ford, 27 L. T. 223. ibid. 298 ; The Telegraph, ibid. 427 ; (t) The Palestine, 13 W. R. Ill ; The SwanJand, 2 Sp. E. & A. 107 ; The Bougainville and The James C. Tuff V. Warnum, 2 C. B. N. S. Stevenson,!^, li. 5 P. C, 316; The 740 ; on app.. 5 C. B. N. S. 573 ; Pyrns and The Smales, 2 Isl&r. Law Morrison v. (Jen. St. Nav. Co.,8 Ex. Cas. 0. S. 288 ; The Pennsylvania, 733 ; Dowtll V. Gen. 8t. Nav. Co., 5 3 Mar. I^aw. f'as. O. S. 477. E. &B. 195; The Vivid, 10 Moo. P. (n) The But/niia, Lush. 52. C. C. 472 ; The Renown and The 18 OEXERAL RULER. disaster (i-). In The Tirzah (x), a barque, with the wind free, was in collision with a brig close-hauled. The brig's side-lights had, so as to protect them from seas breaking over her, been shifted to the after-part of the vessel a few hours before the collision. In their position on the quarter they were not visible from right ahead to a point, or a point and a-half, on either bow. It was held, under s. 17, that the brig was in fault for the collision. Sir U. Phillimore considered that the question whether the partial obscuration of the side-lights could, by possibility, have contributed to the collision, was for the nautical assessors to advise the Court upon. Infringement It has been held that a ship which infringes the river rules*^involves Mersey sea channels Regulations (y) is to be deemed in the penalty of f^ult for the collision under 36 & 37 Vict. c. 85, s. 17 (z). But where a foreign ship came into the Mersey without having on board a second riding-light, as required by the Mersey rules, and, the master having gone ashore to get one, the collision occurred before he returned, it was said that the circumstances made a departure from the Regula- tions necessary within the meaning of s. 17 (a). Bad seaman- TJ^e object of s. 17 appears to be to enforce the observ- gence, apart ance of the Statutory Regulations, and not the rules of from the seamanship generally. Ne^rlect to keep a look-out, or to is not within observe any precaution required by the ordinary practice the penalty of ^£ seamen would not, it is submitted, bring a ship within the penalty of s. 17 (b). Nor would the infringement of one of the Regulations which could not by possibility have contributed to the collision, although it may have aug- {v) In such a case s. 17 would sippi, Ad. Ct., March 7th, 8th, and prevent the application of the doc- 9th, 1878 (Mitch. Mar. Reg.), trine of Davies v. Mann, 10 M. & (6) By American Courts neglect of W. 546. such precautions has been called an (x) 4 P. D. 33. infringement of the Act of Congress \y) Under 37 & 38 Vict. c. 52. embodying the Regulations : The (z) The Lady Downshire, 4 P. D. Farragut, 10 Wall. 334 ; The Atlas, 26. 10 Blatchf. 459, 466. (a) The Calypso and The Missis- INFRINGEMENT OF THE REGULATIONS. 19 17. mented the damage (c), prevent a ship from recovering full damages. It has not been decided whether an infringement of local Whether in- Regulations, such as those m force m the Thames, which local Regula- are not, by the local Act, specially incorporated with the *'™^ '** '^'*^^'" General Regulations, brings a ship within the penalties of s. 17. It would probably be held that such local rules are not within the provisions of that section. This was the opinion of the Court of Appeal in a recent case, but it was not there necessary to decide the point ; in the Court below the learned judge appears to have been of a contrary opinion (d). The same question arises as to rules made under 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, s. 32. The application of s. 17 to foreign ships is considered in a subsequent chapter (e). (c) As in The Governor and Tht>. John Mclntyre, Holt 184; Green- land V. Chaplin, 5 Ex. 243. (d) The Swansea and The Condor, 4 P. D. 115. (€) See infra, p. 91. There is no law in America correspond- ing to 36 & 37 Vict. c. 85, s. 17. The Supreme Court has declared that it will not " accept blindly an artificial rule which is to de- termine in all cases whether the navigator is liable to the charge of negligence in causing any damage that may happen:" The Farrayut, 10 Wall. 334. But the burden is on a vessel which has infringed the Statutory Regulations to prove that the infringement did not contribute to the collision : The Pennsylvania, 19 Wall. 125 ; The Ariadne, 2 Bened. 472. If, however, such proof is forthcoming, a ship will recover full damages although she did not com- ply with the Regidations: 1 Parsons on Shipping (ed. 1869), 596, 597; ChamberlAiin v. Ward, 21 How. 548, 567 ; The Gray Eayle, 9 \\a\\. 505 ; The Continental, 14 Wall. 345 ; The Sunnysid£, 1 Otto. 208 ; The City of Washington, 2 Otto. 31. And Blanrhard v. Nen- Jersey Steamboat Co., 59 New York Rep. 292 ; and Whitehall Transpjort Co. v. Neio Jersey, cbc., Co., 51 N. Y. Rep. 369 ; and Hoffman v. Union Ferry of Brooklyn, 7 Amer. Rep. 435, are decisions of the State of New York Courts to the same effect. In The Pennsylvania a steam-ship and a sailing-ship were in collision. The latter was not sounding her fog- horn, but was ringing a bell, though she was under way. The Supreme Court refused to admit evidence that the bell could be heard further than the horn, and held that the sailing- ship was in fault for the collision. The following passage, which occurs in the judgment of the Court, shows that the law in America as to the effect of an infringement of the Regulations is identical with that of this country : " Where a ship, at the time of collision, is in actual viola- tion of a statutory rule intended to prevent collisions, it is no more than a reasonable presumption that the fault, if not the sole cause, was at least a contributory cause of the collision. In such a case the burden rests upon the ship of showing, not merely that her fault might not have been one of the causes, or that c 2 20 GENERAL RULES. Ownei-'s lia- bility as carrier. Case of " inscrutable fault." Proof of negligence is not always necessary to enable the owner of cargo, or a passenger, to recover against the carrier. The ship-owner's liability as carrier, apart from the express stipulations of the contract of affreightment, is that of insurer, except as against the Queen's enemies and the act of God (/). Except where^it is caused by the fault of the carrying ship, collision is a peril of the sea " within the meaning of that term in a bill of lading (g). In the absence of a special contract restricting his liability it seems that the ship-owner is liable for loss or injury to the owners of cargo or passengers on board his ship, in the case of collision, whether his ship is in fault or not. Rail- way companies, carrying by sea, cannot, by notice, free themselves from liability to passengers and cargo owners for a collision caused by the fault of the carrying ship (h). By the law of this country every ship bears her own loss by collision, unless it is proved to have been caused by the negligence of the other ship (i). And this is so if the evidence does not satisfy the Court with whom the fault lies, although each ship alleges negligence against the other, and it is manifest that the collision was caused by fault somewhere. The English law as to the incidence of loss in this case differs from the general maritime law (k). it probably was not, but that it cijuld not have been." The same ship was, in this country, held free from fault : see The Pennsylvaiiia, 3 ^lar. Law Cas. 0. S. 477. (f) X agent v. Smith, 1 C. P. D. 19. As to what is an " act of God," see ihid., p. 34. Some cases of col- lision by "inevitable accident," as defined below, woidd not come within the exception of " acts of God." (g) Bidler v. Fisher, 3 Esp. 67 : Lloyd V. General Iron S. C. Co., 3 H. & C. 284 ; Orill v. General Iron S. C. Co., L. R. 3 C. P. 476. [h) iJoohin V. Midland Raihrny Co., 2 App. Cas. 792. (/) The Maid of Aukland, 6 Not. of Cas. 240 ; The Catherine of Dover, 2 Hag. Ad. 1.54 ; The Laconia, 2 Moo. P. C. C. N. S. 161. (k) See Bell's Commentaries on the Law of Scotland, 581. There is no express authority for this state- ment as to the peculiarity of English law beyond the cases cited above, and the fact that no case is to be found in the books in which damages have been recovered in a case of inscrut- aljle fault, or in any case in which neg- ligence has not been proved against the other ship. As to the Roman and foreisTi law on the point, see the note at the foot of this chapter. INEVITABLE ACCIDENT. 21 Where a collision occurs without fault on the part Case of inevi- of either ship, it is said to be the result of inevitable * ^ *°^^ ^° ' accident. In this case each ship bears her own loss (/;. Inevitable accident is " where one vessel doing a lawful act without any intention of harm, and using proper precau- tions to prevent danger, unfortunately happens to run into another vessel " (m). In another case it was thus defined : " To constitute an 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 skill and that degree of diligence which is generally to be found in persons who discharge their duty " (n). Elsewhere inevitable accident has been defined to be " that which a party charged with an offence could not possibly prevent by the exercise of ordinary care, caution, and maritime skill " (o). It is not enough to show that the collision was inevitable at the moment of, or immediately previous to, its occur- rence (p). The question is what previous measures could have been adopted to make its occurrence less probable. If a vessel is shown to have been proceeding at too great speed, she cannot be heard to allege that the collision was an in- evitable accident. " Inevitable accident is not this : where a man proceeds carelessly on his voyage, and afterwards circumstances arise, and it is too late for him to do what is fit and proper to be done " (q). (I) The law in America is the the Supreme Court of the United same: Stelnhack v. Rae, 14 How. States, see The Mayhey and The 532. As to Roman, mediaeval, and Cooper, 14 Wall. 204, 215. foreign law on this point, see the (o; The Virgil, 2 W. Rob. 201, note at the foot of this chapter. cited by the P. C. in The Marpesia, (vi) Per Dr. Lushington in The L. R. 4 P. C. 212, 220 ; and see The Luropa, 14 Jur. 627, 629. Lochiho, 3 W. Rob. 310, 318. (n) The Thomas Powell and The {p) The Uhlo, 3 Mar. Law Cas. Cuba, 2 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 344 ; O. S. 148. and see The Pinto and The Perscver- (7) Per Dr. Lusliington, The rt«ce, Hult 262. I'oi- a definitiouby Juliet Krskinc, 6 Not. of Ca.s. 633 ; 22 GENERAL RULES. Burden of Where a collision is the result of inevitable accident the proving iuevi- , , „ . , . ■ t n • table accident, burden oi provmg that it was so does not m the nrst in- stance attach to the ship alleging it. But where a pr'imd facie case of negligence is made out, then it lies on the ship alleging inevitable accident to prove it (o). Vessel in- It seems that a vessel in default for not having lights, or fringing the ,. i • • i i -n i • ^ Regulations lor not Complying with the Kegulations, cannot, at least cannot plead ^yhere such non-compliance by possibility might have inevitable , -"^ _ _ ./ x ^f o ^ accident. contributed to the collision, successfully plead inevitable accident (p). But such a defence may be good where the circumstances of the case made a departure from the Regulations necessary, or where her inability to take the proper measures was caused by no fault of her own, A collision may be an inevitable accident so far as the ship sued is concerned, although it was caused by fault elsewhere ; as in the case of a ship which is thro^vn against another by the swell of a passing steam-ship, or by a third ship coming foul of her (5'). 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 collision occurr- ing 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 (r). The Aimo, close-hauled on the starboard tack, saw the red light of The Amelia, a vessel closed-hauled on the port tack, a little on her port bow. The Aimo kept her course. The Amelia, having lost her head-sails in a previous collision, was unable to andsee yAeil/errimac, 14 Wall. 199, (7) See 1 Parsons on Ship. (ed. 203. 1 869), 533 ; The Sisters, 1 P. D. {0) The Bolina,Z Not. oiC&s. 20s ; 117; The Hibernia, 4 Jur. N. S. The Marpesia, L. R. 4 P. C. 212; 1244. and see above, p. 9. (?•) The John Buddie, 5 Not. of ip) 36 & 37 Vict. c. 85, s. 17 ; see Cas. 387. supra, p. 14, seq. INEVITABLE ACCIDENT. 23 bear up, and a collision occun-ed. It was held to be an inevitable accident (s). In the following cases the Courts have held that the Instances of T • 1 PI- -1 1 • 11 inevitable collisions occun-ed without fault m either ship, and that accident, they were the result of inevitable accident. A steamer rounding-to in the Thames on a dark night against a strong flood-tide under a starboard helm, with her head to the southward, was seen by a brig coming down. Notwithstanding that all that could be done was done by both vessels, a collision occurred. It was held to be a case of inevitable accident. The Court said that if the steamer had put her helm to starboard with a view to bring up after seeing the brig she would have been to blame (t). 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 (u) ; and a collision caused by the parting of the band was held to be an inevitable accident. In the absence of evidence of negligence on the part of the crew, the jamming of the cable round the windlass, when the anchor was let go, was held to be an inevitable accident (x). The parting of a cable in a gale of wind (y), and of moorings in calm weather (z), has been held to be an inevitable accident. But if there is negligence in not letting go an anchor, or in not having an anchor ready to let sfo when the vessel is adrift, she cannot sustain the defence of inevitable accident (a). Where a collision occurred in consequence of the break- (s) The Aiiiio and The Amelia, 2 (;/) The Loiulon, 1 Mar. Law Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 96 ; and see Cas. O. S. 398. The Venus, 1 Pritch. Ad. Dig. 129. {z) The Ambassador, Ad. Ct., As to a vessel disabled by her own Feb. 12th, 1875, cited in The fault, see supra, p. 8. Pladda, 2 P. D. 34, 37. («) The Shannon, 1 W. Rob. 463. («) The Pladda, 2 P. D. 34 ; The \u) The William Lindmy, L. R. Kepler, ibid. 40. As to such a plea 5 P. C. 338. by a ship which has given another (x) The William Lindsay, supra; a foul berth, see The Secret, infra, The Peerless, Lush. 30. p. 220. 24 GENERAL RULES. ing of part of the steering gear, there being a latent defect in the metal, it was held to be an inevitable accident (6), But if the gear is manifestly insufficient or weak, the defence of inevitable accident cannot be sustained (c). Where a ship, A., at anchor in the Thames, was run into by another, B., and was, without fault on her own part, driven by B. against a third ship, C, it was held that, so f;ir as A. was concerned, the collision between her and C. was an inevitable accident (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 would 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 Avhich 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 800 (6) The Virgo, 3 Asp. Mar. Law 1244. Cas. 285. (e) The Thornhy, 7 Jur. 659. (r) The M. M. Caleb, 10 Blatchf. (/) The Swallnir, 3 Asp. Mar. 467. Law Cas. 371 {d) The HibtDiin, i Jur. X. S. INEVITABLE ACCIDENT. 25 yards, and a collision occurred in less than a minute, it was held that the ship in stays was not in faidt for not having hauled 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 acci- dent (g). In the following American cases the defence of inevitable American accident has been sustained. A vessel in the open sea overtook another at night, the darkness being so gi-eat that she could not see the vessel ahead in time to avoid her (h). 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 steam-ship close astern unavoidably ran into her (i). A large steamer was entering a harbour by a course that was not the usual one, but which was a course she had a right 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 off from her tug, was setting her sails and drifting with the tide in a helpless condition. The collision was held by the Supreme Court to have been inevitable (k). But where a schooner in a leaky condition, in order to avoid sinking in deep water, cast off from a wharf alongside which she was lying, and, before she was got under com- mand, drove against another vessel, it was held that the collision was not an inevitable accident (I). A ship improperly attempting to pass another ashore in a narrow channel failed to sustain the defence of inevitable accident ; and it was held that in attempting to pass clear of the ship ashore she did so at her own peril (m). In this country it iff) The Marpesia, L. R. 4 P. C. (k) The Java, 14 Wall. 189. 212. (/) Sfiernmn v. Mott, 5 Bened. (h) The Morning Light, 2 Wall. 372. 550, 557. (m) The Mcvriinac, 11 Wall. 199. (0 The Elect ra, 6 Bt'ncd. ISO. 2G (lENERAL RULES. Parties liable. " The wrong- iloer." Owners of the ship in fault are p7'imd facie liable. was held recently 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, on the ground of inevitable accident, because she omitted to let go another anchor (n). Where fault is established against a ship, a further question frequently arises as to who is liable for damages. It is not in every case where a ship is injured in a collision caused by the negligence of those on board the other ship that damages can be recovered against the owners of the latter, either personally, or indirectly by proceedings in rem against the ship. In many cases there is difficulty in determining on whom the liability for damages falls, as well as who is the actual wrong-doer. This question is distinct from that already considered as to which ship is in fault. The custom of speaking of the ships themselves as being in fault, or wrong-doers, though convenient, is some- times misleading. " 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 seizure and sale of the ship or carriage, the chattel itself is only the instrument by the improper use of which the injury is inflicted by the real wrong-doer (o). In most cases it is sought to make the owners of the wrong-doing ship liable, either personally in an action at law, or indirectly by Admiralty proceedings in rem against the ship herself Prima facie the registered owners of a ship are liable for the negligence of those in charge of her. If the actual owner is a different person from the registered owner, or if it is shown that the latter is not the employer (n) The Pladda, 2 P. D. 34. (o) Per Selwyn, L.J., in The Halley, L. P. 2 P. C. 193, 201. And see The M. Moxham, 1 P. D, 107, 111 ; Simpson v. Thompson, 3 Ap. Cas. 279, as to the necessity of determining who is "the actual wronsr-doer." LIABILITY OF OWNERS AND CHARTERERS. 27 of the crew or person causing the collision, the presumption is otherwise. It has been held that, in the absence of proof to the contrary, those in charge of a ship are pre- sumed to be in the employment of the owners (p). So far as the liability of the owners is concerned, it makes no difference that the collision occurs whilst the ship is in dock, or the master ashore, or when, for any other reason, the ship is in charge of the mate or some one of the crew {q). Owners are liable at common law only where the person. Owner's Ha- by whose wrongful act the collision is caused, is their agent mo\/irwr*^"^ or servant, and he is acting within the scope of his employ- ment (r). 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 amounts to 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 of the ship, either by himself or his agents, he is liable, though she is under charter to another. Where a ship was chartered to J. D. for six months at £20 a week for the carriage of passengers and goods as he should direct — J. D. paying all disburse- ments and the wages of officers and crew, but the owners keeping the ship in repair — it was held that the owners were liable for a collision caused by the fault of their ship (s). In Daly ell v. Tyrer (t), H., the lessee of a ferry, hired a tug with her master and crew to assist in working the fen-y for a day. A person who had contracted with H. for a season ticket was injured whilst on board the tug by the negligence of her crew, who were the owners' servants. (p) Joyce V. Capel, 8 C. & P. v. Adamson, 2 Ap. Cas. 743, 751. 370 ; Hibbs v. Ross, L. R. 1 Q. B. (s) Fenton v. Dublin Steam Packet 534, and cases t^ere cited. Co., 8 Ad. & Ell. 835. The decision (q) The Northampton, 1 Sp. E. & went upon the words of the charter- A. 152 ; Hibbs v. Ross, itbi supra; party ; but it was proved that the The Kepler, 2 P. D. 40. owners had appointed and had (r) See per Lord Blackburn in power to dismiss the crew and Simpson v. Thompson, 3 App. Cas. officers. 279, 293 ; River Wear Commissioners (t) Ell. Bl. & Ell. 899. 28 GENERAL RULES. It Avas 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. In Steel v. Lester {x), the actual owner, who was also registered as managing owner {y), 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 ship's net profits. It was held by the Common Pleas Division that the owner was liable for a collision caused by the fault of his ship. AVhether the skipper was the o\\'ner's servant, or his partner {z) in the adventure, navigating the ship for the joint benefit of him- self and the owner, it was held that the o^vner's liability was the same. It has been doubted whether the owners of a ship which is manned by a master and crew who are the owners' ser- vants, but who, by the charter-party, are bound to obey the orders of a third party wdio is not the owners' servant, are liable at law for damage done by the ship while acting under the immediate orders of such third party. Upon principle it is difficult to see why the owners, by placing their servants under the control and orders of a third party, should escape liability for their wrongful acts. And in Fletcher \. Braddick (a) Sir J. Mansfield held the owners liable in such a case. But where a vessel was one of a fleet of transports en- gaged in the service of the Government upon an expedition of war, it was held by Cockburn, C. J., that it was an inci- dent to such an employment 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 (x) 3 C. P. D. 121. («) 2 N. E. 182. This case is («) Uiider'38'& 39 Vict. c. 88. stated by the editor of Abbot on (z) But see co)}trfi, Burnard v. Shipping (11th ed.), p. 44, to be Aaron, 31 L. J. C. P. 334 ; The unsatisfactory. Phebc, Ware's Hep. 2(33. LTABILTTY OF THE SHIP IN ADMIRALTY. 29 acting in strict obedience to such orders, her owners would not be liable (b). Where a Thames barge was lent by her owner to a per- son 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 (c). Where a ship in the course of her employment for the Admiralty owner's benefit, by the fault of those on board, does injury Maritime lien by collision with another ship, a charge for the amount of f^r damage, the loss attaches to her in favour of the injured party. This charge or privilege, called a maritime lien, may be enforced against the ship in an action on the Admiralty side of the Probate and Admiralty Division of the High Court of Justice, or in a County Court or other inferior Court having Admiralty jurisdiction (d). Proceedings in such an action are against the ship herself, and are said to be in rem. They commence with the arrest of the ship, which, thereupon, with her gear and tackle, and the freight she is earning at the time of the collision, become security to the plaintiff for any damages he may recover in the action (e). The privilege or right of the injured party against the ship is inchoate from the moment of collision, and cannot be displaced even by a subsequent sale to a bond fide pur- chaser without notice (e) ; or by a sale under the order of a foreign Court where the proceedings are not in rem (/). The injured party must, however, sue within a reasonable time, or he will lose the benefit of the lien {g). (b) Hodfjkhison v. Fernie, 2 C. B. owner's bankruptcy; The Young Me- N. S. 415 ; this statement of the law chanir, 2 Curtis, 404 (Amer. case). was approved by the Court. (/) The Charles Amalia, L. R. 2 (c) Scott V. Scott, 2 Stark. 438. A. & E. 330. The doctrine of the (d) As to the Admiralty jurisdic- lien following the ship into the hands tion of the County Courts see Kos- of a purchaser may be compared coe's Admiralty Law and Practice, with the noxa caput sequitur of the pp. 65, seq. civil law. (f) The Bold Buccleugh, Ilarmer (g) In The Europn, 2 Moo. P. C. V. Bell, 7 Mno. P. C. C. 267 ; The C. IST. S. 1, the lien was held to be AV?np/(, Swab. Ad. 86 ; The Mellonn, existing three years after the col- 3 W. Rob. 16 ; or, it seems, by the lision. 30 GENEKAL lUJLES. If between the collision and the arrest the ship has been repaired, and her value increased, the plaintiff, in an action for damage, does not get the benefit of such increase in value {h). Cargo on board the ship arrested forms no part of the res to which the lien attaches ; but it is subject to arrest, in order to compel the payment into Court of freight due to the ship-owner (i). 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 outward voyage with a cargo on board for the owner's benefit, it was held that the cargo which she was then under charter to bring home from the foreign port was liable to arrest (/-;). But where the freight had been paid, and the ship was subsequently, and before arrest, sold, it was held that the new owner was not liable beyond the value of the ship (Z). A plaintiff who obtains judgment against a ship is entitled to enforce his lien to the exclusion of another claimant for damage who institutes his action after judgment, even on the same day (m). And the lien for damage takes precedence of other charges on the ship, such as mortgages and bottomry bonds, though prior in date to the colli- sion (n), liens for wages (o), pilotage and towage (p), and the possessory lien of a shipwright for repairs (q), though, probably, not to a lien for salvage (7'). In the case of a (h) The St. Olaf, L. R. 2 A. & E. 56 ; and see The Markland, L. R, 360 ; and see The Aline, 1 W. Rob. 3 A. & E. 340. 111. (n) The Aline, 1 W. Rob. 111. (i) The Victor, Lush. 72 ; The (o) The Benares, 7 Not. of Cas. Leo, Lush. 444 ; The RoccUff, L. R. Suppl. p. 50 ; The Linda Flor, Swah. 2 A. & E. 363 ; The Flora, L. R. 1 Ad. 309, where, however, the ship A. & E. 45 ; Nixon v. Roberts, 1 J. was foreign. & H. 739. (p) Abbot on Sh., 11th ed., 619. (k) The Orpheus, L. R. 3 A. & (q) It was so held of the lien for E. 308. salvage: The Gmtaf, Lush. 506; but (/) The Mel/ona, 3 W. Rob. 16, 25. see The Aline, 1 VV. Rob. 111. (w) The Saracen, 6 Moo. P. C. C. (r) See7'/ie*W//ia,2 Not.of Cas.18. LIABILITY OF THE SHIP IN AnMIRALTY. 31 ship OAvned by a company in liquidation, the lien may be enforced in priority to the claims of general creditors (s). The assignee of a lien for repairs 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 (t). It seems that the right of an assignee of a lien for damage would be the same. Barges, and craft propelled by oars only, are subject to arrest, wherever the collision occurs on a tideway (w), except, perhaps, where the injury is to a dimib barge and the collision occurs within the body of a county (v). But a ship injuring a barge is liable to arrest (x) ; and a foreign ship, detained under 17 & 18 Vict, c, 104, s. 527, 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 (?/). The nature of proceedings in revi is discussed by Nature of pro- Dr. Lushington in The Mellona (z). He there states that rem. (s) In re Rio Grande do Sul Steam- nullum hnbet fundamentum, was a ship Co., 5 CL. D. 282 ; aud see In practice which formerly extensively re Australian Direct Steam Nav. Co., prevailed on the continent of Europe L. R. 20 Eq. 325. — res totd Europd usitatissima : (0 T^e Hrtsp, L. R. 1 A. & E. 367. Huberi Positiones, juris, ii., 4; (m) The Sarah, Lush. 549 ; Furkis Hub. Prtelectiones, jur. civ., vol. 2, \. Flower, L. R. 9 Q. B. 11 i ; The S3, seq. In Brown's Achn. Law, 143, Emily, Times, July 14tb, 1879. it is stated that it is agreeable to the (i) Everard v. Kendall, L. R. 5 practice of Roman law. The ship- C. P. 428. owner's liability for damage by col- {x) The Malvina, Lush. 493 ; Br. lision under the Roman law is not & Lush. 57. altogether clear. The law on the (y) The Bilhoa, Lush. 149. subject appears to come imder the (z) 3 W. Rob. 16, 20. See further heads oi lex Aquilia,Exercitoria actio, on proceedings in rem The Aline, 1 and Edictctm de nautis, canponihus, et W. Rob. Ill ; TheOrient,ZMa.r.'Law stabulariis : see D. 4, 9 ; D. 14, 1 ; Cas. O. S. 321 ; L. R. 3 P. C. 696 ; D. 9, 2 ; D. 44, 7, 5 ; D. 45, 2, 3, 1 ; The Bold Bucrlevrjh, 7 Moo. P. C. C. D. 47, 5, 1 ; J. 4, 3 ; and see Gains, 267 ; The Two Ellens, L. R. 4 P. C. 3, 218, 219. The liability of the 161 ; Taylor v. Carryl, 20 How. 584. owner {dominus) was not always the In The Bold Bvccleugh arrest in Ad- same as that of the charterer [excr- miralty was compared with the prac- citor) — the person for whose benefit ticeof foreign attachment in the Lord the ship whs worked, and who re- Mayor's Court. Arrest of a defend- ceived her earnings. The latter, ant's property or ptrson, to compel when not the general owner, was, as him to appear, lictt in jure civili pro hdc vice ownei-, generally liable 32 GENERAL RULES. Whether the ship may be liable where the owner is not. the main object of arresting a vessel in a cause of damage is to cause an appearance on the part of her owners to answer for damage to the plaintiff's ship ; and that the pro- cess of the Court can be enforced against a ship without reference to the question whether her owners at the time of her arrest were or were not her owners when the collision occurred. Proceedings against the ship in Admiralty provide the sufferer by collision with a remedy in many cases where he would otherwise be without redress ; as where the owners of the wrong-doing ship are resident abroad, or for other reasons cannot be sued personally. The question has arisen in several cases whether the ship may be liable in proceedings in rem where the collision is not caused by the fault of the owner or his agents, and where, consequently, he could not be made liable at law. In some recent cases the liability of the ship and the responsibility of the owners have been spoken of by the Privy Council as if they w'ere always concurrent («). But for the acts of the master {propositus, vttigister), though not always for the acts of the crew. \\ here the exer- citor and the general owner {dominus) were not the same, the latter was free from liability : 3 Kent's Comm. 161, note. Bynkershoek contends that the exercitor was not liable in the exercitoria artlo for damage to another ship by the fault of the master : ei autem mandatum non est aliorum naves obruere ; quod si fecisset, ipse (magister), quod dedit, luat, non magister. But see contra Voet ad Pandect. 14, 1, 7 : quod si ohliquercit (magister) si quidem in ipso officio cui erat propositus, dum forte data opera, vel culpa atque im- prudentid manifestd in naiigium alienuni impegit suum . . . exercitor ex quasi delicto teneri dehehit ; and see Huberi Prselect., jur. civ., 14, 1, 8, to the same effect. By some authorities it is stated generally that the owner was liable for the obliga- tions of the master arising ex ddictn: 3 Kent's Comm. IGl, note ; and per Ware, J., in The Rebecca, Ware's Rep. 188 ; and The Phehe, ibid. 263, 268. For injury to cargo or pas- sengers on board his own ship the owner or exercitor was liable under the edict, de nautis, &c., D. 4, 9 ; where there were several owners, each to the extent of his share only : D. 4, 9, 7, 0. In the exercitoria actio owners were liable in solido for the acts of the master ; but if they contracted in their own names {per se exerceut), only in proportion to their respective shares in the ship : D. 14, 1, 4. By the Aquilian law the owners were not liable for the negligence of the master or crew, the only remedy being against the ac- tual wrong-doer: Bynkershoek, Ob- serv. jur. Rom. 1. iv., c. 16 ; D. 9, 2, 29,4. [a) The Diana, Stuart v. Ise- monger, 4 Moo. P. C. C. 11, 19 ; The Amalia, 1 Moo. P. C. C. N. S. 471, 484 : The Halley, L. R. 2 P. C. 193 ; The Orient, 3 P. C. 696, 703 ; Tne M. Moxham, 1 P. D. 107. IJABILITY OF THE SHIP IN ADMIRALTY. 3 this is not always the case. There are several decisions of the Admiralty Court holding the ship liable where the owner could not be sued at law (b). 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 in- dependent contractor had no application (c). Where a vessel was chartered to the French Govern- Ships under ment, and whilst in tow of a steam-ship, which the ^ charterers ordered her to employ, by the fault of the steam-ship, went fonl of a third vessel. Dr. Lushington held that, the proceedings being in rem, the maritime lien for damage attached, notwithstanding any prior contract between the owner and a third party. " It is impossible," he said, " that because a person has entered into a volun- tary contract by which he is finally led into mischief, that (6) Besides the cases mentioned Vice. Ad. Rep., Lower Canada, below, it was so held in The Neptune (1858), 75. In Ireland the same has the Second, 1 Dods. Ad. 467 ; and been held by Townsend, J. : see The The Girolamo, 3 Hag. Ad. 169, Mu!lingar,2(}L.T.'N.S.326. Vnder where the vessel was condemned for the Act incorporating the company the fault of a compulsory pilot. owning a ship sued in Admiralty, These decisions were, however, not the company could not be sued with- foUowed in subsequent cases : see out notice. It was held by Town- 2^he Protector, 1 W. Rob. 45 ; Th-; send, J., that notice to the company, Maria, ibid. 95. In The Druid, 1 in proceedings against their ship in W. Rob. 391, Dr. Lushington said Admiralty, was noc necessary. He that the liability of the ship, and said that in Admiralty it is the res the responsibility of the owners, against which the .suit is institutnd ; were convertible terms. In the ca.se this was shown by the old forms of one who charters or hires a vessel, of procedure in which the ship was and works her with his own crew, always called '' the party impug- this dictum must be taken to refer nant or pr<)ceede«>iM, 1 W.Rob. 159 ; The Freedom, L. E. 3 A. & E. 495. (?•) See The Kalamazoo, 15 Jur. 885 ; The Zephyr, 2 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 146; The Hero, Lush. 447. LIABILITY FOR CRIMINAL ACTS OF CKFW. fit proceedings m 2^erso)m)H for the like purpose caiaiut be engrafted («). A verdict and iudgment at law that one of two ships, Juflgment at . . law cMiiiKjt be B., is in fault for the collision, and that her owners are plea.ied in liable to the owners of the other ship, A., for their loss, is ""^'^^ty- no bar to subsequent proceedings in rem against A. by the owners of B. ; nor can they be pleaded or given in evidence in the Admiralty action (t). But a plaintiff who has been unsuccessful on the merits at law (^^), or who has obtained payment of the sum for which he obtained judg- ment («), cannot afterwards proceed against the ship in Admiralty for the same collision ; nor would he be allowed to sue in Admiralty and at law at the same time for the same collision (y). In Admiralty a plaintift' can recover the whole of his No set off loss without regard to any right of set-off to which the "^ ^^"^ ^' defendant would elsewhere be entitled (z). Owners are not liable for damage caused by acts of the Owners not master or crew not within the scope of their employ- wilful or ment (a) ; as where they wilfully drive their ship against criminal acts 17 1 1 T / N T, r 1 "f master or another (6) ; or cut another adrift (c). But for damage crew, caused by non-observance by the master or crew of the Statutory Eegulations for preventing collisions owners are (s) The Hope, 1 W.Rob. 154. pursue all his remedies at once: {t) The Clarence, 1 Sp. E. & A. Fisher on Mortgages, Srd ed., 321. 206; The Friends, i Moo. F. C (J. (z) The Bon Francisco, Lush. 314, 321 ; The Velocity, L. R. 3 P. C. 468. See below, Ch. IL, as to the 44 ; The Calypso, Swab. Ad. 28. decree where both ships are in fiult. (u) See r/ie Grief swahl, Swab. (a) Cf. 1 Parsons on Shipjjing (ed. Ad. 430, 435. 1869), 106 ; Bowcher v. Noidstrom, {x) The Orient, L. R. 3 P. C. 1 Taunt. 568. As to what acts are 696. within the scope of the servant's (y) The John and Mary, Swab. employment, see 1 Smith's L. C, Ad. 471. But if the remedy at law 8th ed., 383; as to the owner's is insufficient, he may proceed in liability by Roman and general both actions ; and an action in maritime law, see supra, p. 31, note personam cannot be pleaded in bar (2) ; Bynk. Qufest. jur. priv. iv., of an action in rem : The Bold c. 20 — 23. Buccleugh, 7 Moo. P. C. C. 267, {b) The Druid, 1 W. Rob. 391 ; 286; The Orient, L. R. 3 P. C. Mocma>nis v. Cricket, I EtK^t 106. 696. An ordinary mortgagee may (c) The Ida, Lu.-.h. 6. 38 GENERAL RULES. Collision caused by compulsory pilot or other person placed in charge by the law. Liability of part owners and joint wronff-doers. liable, although under 25 & 26 Vict. c. Go such non- observance 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 (d). And damages may be recovered against the owners although the negligence of their servants which caused the collision was criminal and amounted to manslaughter (e). Where a master, without any instructions from his owner as to assisting disabled ships, offered to tow a disabled ship to port, and whilst attempting to get her in tow negligently ran into her, it was held that he was acting within the scope of his employment, and the owner was held liable (/). When a ship is being navigated under the orders of a person empowered by the Legislature to take charge of her, as when a compulsory pilot, dock, or harbour-master is in charo-e, the owner is not liable, provided there is no neo-li'^ence on the part of the ship's officers or crew in carr^'ing out the orders of the person in charge, or in performing the ordinary duties of the ship (r/). In such cases it seems that the pilot or harbour-master is alone responsible. Attempts to make the harbour or pilotage authority liable for the negligence of a harbour-master or pilot, appointed or licensed by them, have been made with- out success (Jt). Part owners of a ship in fault for a collision are at law severally liable as joint wrong-doers, or joint emploj^ers of the actual wrong-doer. One of them may be sued alone { i) ; ((/) It was so held under the cor- responding provisions of a former Act: The Seine, Swab. Ad. 411. (Jf. Poullon V. London d- S. W. Ry. Co., L. 11. 2 Q. B. 534 ; and see drill V. General Iron Screw Collier Co., L. K. 3 C. P. 476. (c) The Franconia, 2 P. D. 8, 1(53 ; Jiefj. v. Keijn, 2 Ex. D. 63. (/) The Thetis, 3 Mar. Law Cas. U. H. 357. {rj) See below, Ch. V. (A) Dndman tb Brown v. Dublin Port (L- JJocks Board, Ir. Rep. 7 C. L. 518 ; Metcalfv. Herinrjton, 24 L. ,T, N.S., Ex. 314 ; but see The Excelsior, L. R. 2 A. & E. 2ti8. (i) Mitchell v. Tarbutt, 6 T. K 649. As to the liability of part owners by the civil law, see supra, p. 31, note (z). By the maritime law of the middle ages a part owner was LIAlilLlTY IN VARIOUS CASKS. 30 hut if judgment is recovered against one part owner, it seems that no action can he brought against the others, though the judgment is unsatisfied (k). Where a part owner, witliout the knowledge of his co- owner, entered into a b., or botli oi them, vvlnJst „r more ships in collision, or in consequence of the collision, drive against ^re implicated. liable only to the extent of his 96 8. interest in the ship: Emerigon {m) See ] Smith's liead. Cas. (Sth Contr. h, la grosse, Gh. IV., s. 11 ; ed.), 169 ; and 17 & 18 \ict. c. lOJ, Grotius de jur. belli et pads, lib. 2, s. [>\5. Ch. 11, 8. 13. And this appears to (/;) See Simp-ion v. Thomjind/i, be the law in France : Codes An- 3 App. Cas. 279. The question not^es, Sirey et Gilbert, Art. 21 ti, whether in the latter case a lien for C. C. damage attaches to the wrong- {k) Brinsmead v. Harrison, L. Tl. doing ship does not appear to have 7 C. P. 547. As to the several been decided. In The (ilen(jaba\ liability where two ships are sued L. II. 3 A & E. .534, it whs held in Admiralty, see The Atlas, 3 Otto. that a ship was entitled to salvat,'e, 302; The Juniata, ibid. 337; The nntwithstanding the fact that some Alnhama and The Gamecork, 2 Otto. of her owners were owners of the 605 ; but see note (ji), iufni. Uv^ which had ca\ised the mi.-ehief. (/) Barker v. Ili'jklry,' 11 W. i;. 40 GENERAL RULES. and injure a third ship, C, C. can recover against the ship in fault for the first colHsion. But the ship that comes into her is not liable, unless she was in fault either for the first or the second collision (o). It will, however, be seen in a subsequent chapter (Ch. III.), that a ship in tow is generally responsible for the fault of her tug ; she will, therefore, be liable for a collision between her tug and a third ship, or between herself and a third ship, though she was herself not in fault. 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 against both of them. And, it seems, that she can recover the whole of her loss in an action against one of them {p). But if C. is in tow of A. or B., the rule is different {q). Where, by the negligent navigation of one ship, a collision occurs between two others, or another ship is damaged, either by collision or in any other way, the first ship is liable, and not the less so because she escaped collision herself {r). If a vessel engaged in towing another, or in rendering to her salvage service, negligently damages her by collision or in any other way, the tug or salvor cannot recover for the towage or salvage service. 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, the tug. But a salvor (s) damaged, without negligence on her (o) The Venus, infra ; The Hiber- collision, could recover only one nia, 4 Jur. N. S. 1244 ; The Sisters, half their loss against the other ship. 1 P.D. 117; ThcMo3cey,AhhotAdm.. As to the liability of joint wrong- 73 (Amer. case). doers at law, see above, p. 38. (p) The Li/rasindTheVenus,2Ma,r. (q) As to the liability where a Law Cas. O. S. Dig. 522 ; S. C. nom. tug or tow is in collision, see below, The Venus, 1 Pritch. Ad. Dig. 129. Ch. III. See, however, The Milan, Lush. 388, (r) The Industrie, L. R. 3 A. & E. where it was held that the owners of 303 ; The Jvanhoe a,nd The Ma7-thaM. cargo on board one of two ships, //e«) Taylor v. Dewar, 5 B. & S. Caumont Diet, de Dioit Mar. ti»-. 58 ; but the contrary has been held Aborda^e ; and by German law : in Scotland, Coey v. Smith, 22 Court German C. C, Art. 824. of Session Cases, 955 ; Excelsiw Co. {n) General Mutual Insurance Co. v. Smith, 2 L. T. N. S. 90. V. ,S'Aeri';oorf, 14 How. 352. {q) Thompson v. Reynolds, 7 E. (o) Kcnos V. Fox, ].. 11. 4 C. P. & B. 172. 44 GENERAL RULES. Eights of underwriters in case of collision be- tween ships of the same Cargo owners not liable. they were boundto pay, and have paid to the insured, provided the insured coukl himself have sued for and recovered them, but not otherwise (g). They have no right of action apart from him, and they must sue in his name (■?•). If the insured has received the amount of his loss from the underwriters, he is a trustee for them of any damages he may recover in respect of the collision (s). But the fact that he has been compensated by them is no answer to his claim for damages against the wrong-doer (t). Where a collision occurred between two ships belonging to the same owner, and one of them, with cargo on board not belonging to the ship-owner, was sunk by the fault of the other ship, the ship-owner paid into Court, under the Merchant Shipping Acts, the amount to which his liability, as owner of the wrong-doing ship, was limited. It was held, that as against the cargo owners, underwriters upon the innocent ship, who had paid the insurance upon her, were entitled to no part of the money paid into Court (u). The decision would, it seems, be the same in the case of a collision between two ships owned in part by the same persons. In Simpson v. Thompson, Lords Cairns, Penzance, and Blackburn declined to express an opinion whether the ordinary marine policy covers a loss by collision with another ship belonging to the assured. The owners of cargo on board a ship in fault for a collision are not liable for damage done by the ship (x) ; but the cargo may be arrested in order to secure the pay- ment of unpaid freight due to the ship-owner (y). {q) Yates v. Whyte, 4 Bing. N. C. 272, 283 ; 5 Scott 640 ; The John Bellamy, 22 L. T. N. S. 244. (r) Simpson v. Thompson, 3 App. Cas. 279 ; Regina del Mare, Lush. 315. (s) Yates v. Whyte, vM supra. (t) Tayhr v. Dewar, 4 B. & S. 58. (v) Simpson v. Thompson, 3 App. Cas. 279. In this case the rights and liabilities of underwriters in case of collision were fully discussed by the House of Lords. (x) Tlie Victor, Lush. 72, 76 ; The Flwa, L. K. 1 A. & E. 45. Cf. German C. C, Art. 736. iy) See above, p. 30. LIAIULITY IN VARIOUS CASES, 4-3 Her Majesty's ships, and ships of war of a foreign State, Liability for are not subject to arrest (z). In the case of a collision by the fault of the fault of a Queen's ship, the legal responsibility attaches ^ Queen's ship "^ . . or foreign ship to the actual wrong-doer (a). If the shijD is properly in of war. charge of an inferior officer, the captain is not responsible in a civil action. The appointment of all officers being with the Government, the superior officer is not in such a case answerable for the acts of his subordinate (6). Whether vessels belonging to a 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 belonging to Her Majesty, seems doubtful (c). The liability of owners resident abroad ; in respect of a Foreign collision abroad ; and in case of collision where one of the Usion abroad ; ships is a tug or in tow, is considered in subsequent *"o ^^'^ *^^^- chapters (d). Beyond incurring the civil liability for damages, the tJriminal ., nil ,. . . , •, liability for person guilty or reckless or negligent navigation, whereby a collisiou. a collision occurs in which life is lost, or bodily injury (e) suffered, may be prosecuted criminally. "Those who navigate (the Thames) improperly, either by too much speed, or by negligent conduct, are as much liable, if death ensues, as those who cause it on a public highway, either by furious driving or negligent conduct" (/). The criminal liability attaches only to those by whose personal miscon- (z) As to ships of a foreign Sove- stances of actions against Queen's reign which are engaged in trade, ships. see below, p. 93. In Aiiierica (6) Xichohon v. Mounsey, 15 East Government ships are subject to 384. Admiralty process : The Siren, 7 (c) See The Ct/hele, 3 P. D. 8. Wall. 152. {d) As to foreign shij)s and col- [a) The Mentor, 1 C. Eob. 179. lisions abroad, see C'h. IV. ; as to For the practise in case of an action tug and tow, Ch. III., infra. against a Queen's ship, see Williams (e) As to bodily injury, see Mr. and Bruce Ad. Practice, p. 68. The Justice Stephen's Digest of Criminal Athol, 1 W. Rob. 374 ; The Volcano, Law, Art. -211. 2 W. Rob. 337; The Birkenhead, {f) PerParke,B.,hiIicj.Y.2'ai/lor 3 W. Rob. 75 ; and The Bellerophon, 9 C. & P. 672, 674. 3 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 58, are in- 4G GENERAL RULES. duct or negligence the collision occurs {(j). 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 under- standing 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 understood {K). The criminal liability of the offender in a collision where one or both the ships is foreign, or the offender himself a foreigner, or where the collision occurs out of British waters, is considered in a subsequent chapter (i). 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 {k). BoardofTrade If a collision involving loss of life, or serious damage to r/cl^nctueT^ either ship, is caused by the wrongful act or default of an ofiicer holding a Board of Trade certificate, his certificate may be cancelled or suspended at a Board of Trade enquiry (l). Tug or salvor One of the consequences of negligence causing collision with^heThip is that the wrong- doer cannot claim salvage for service she is assist- rendered to the ship with which he has been in collision, although the latter is also in fault for the collision {m). But a vessel engaged in a salvage service to another does not forfeit her right to salvage by going into collision with the other {n). And an innocent ship may recover salvage ig) Rex V. Allen, 7 C. & P. 153 ; vided for negligent and incompetent Rex V. Green, ibid. 156 ; and see pilots. Oakleij V. Speedy, 40 L. T. X. S. (D See 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 881 J ^ " 242 ; 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, s. 23. (h) Req. V. Srtence, 1 Cox. C. C. Km) Cargo ex ( '(fpella, L. R. 1 352 A. &E. 356 ; and see The Glengaber, (i) See p. 98, infra. L. R. 3 A. & E. 534. The rule is {k) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, ss. 239, the same in America : The Clarita, 366. This Act is more lenient than 23 Wall. 1 ; The Sampson, 4 Blatchf. some of the mediaeval codes. De- 28. capitation at the windlass, or keel- («) The C. S. Biitler and The hauling, was the punishment pro- Baltic, L. R. 4 A. & E. 178. msr PERSONS EXTITLED TO RKCOVER. 47 for services rendered to another which has uegHgently run into her. The law which makes it the duty of a ship which has been in colHsion with another to stand by her, and render assistance, does not prevent her from recoverino- salvage reward for assistance so given (o). A salvor damaged, without negligence on her own part, by collision with the vessel she is assisting, may recover against the latter {p). But a tug cannot recover salvage reward for assistance rendered to a ship with which her tow has been in collision by the fault of herself, the tug {q) ; nor, after a collision between the tow and her tug by the fault of the latter, can tlie tug recover upon towage contract (/■). All persons injured in their persons or property in a Persons collision caused by the fault of one or both ships are ^"*'*^'''^ *« "^ Jr' ^ recover. entitled to recover damages. Such persons may be owners of the injured ship (except where she is alone in fault), whether they be registered owners or not (s); owners, consignees, bailees, and other persons having a special property in, or temporary possession of, cargo on board either ship {t), indorsees of bills of lading {u), persons entitled under Lord Campbell's Act to recover damages for relatives killed {v), or persons on board either ship who are hurt in the collision. There is some doubt whether a person on board a ship Whether per- which is herself in fault can recover at common law {x). Tship'herSf The better opinion is that such a person is not prevented i" ^-"^"^^^ ^^^ by the fault of his own ship from recovering from the '^®'^°^^''" owners of the other {y). In the Admiralty Court there (rt) The lietriever and The Queen, 163. 2 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 555. (v) 9 & 10 Vict. c. 93 ; see below, Jp) The Mud Hopper, 40 L. T. p. 64. An unborn child may re- N. S. 462. cover for the loss of its father : The (q) The Glenr/aber, ubi supra. George and Richard, L. R. 3 A. & E. (r) Infra, p. 63. As to tug and 466. tow generally, see Ch. III. (x) Thorogood v. Brian, 8 C. B («) The Ilos, Swab. Ad. 100. nr, ; Catf/ii, v. I/i//s, ibid. (t) Addison on Torts, 4th ed., 919. {y) Smith's Lead Cas., 7th ed., 300. (u) The Marathon, 40 L. T. N. S. 48 GKNERAL RULES. Bailee of ship indorsee of bill of lading ; consignee of cargo. Actions by part owners ; consolidation of actions. seems no doubt that he could recover; and it has been ex- pressly held that owners of cargo on board a ship in fault can recover against the other, if she is also in fault (z). The indorsee of a bill of lading, even though the cargo has been sold (a) ; bailees, and other persons having a special property in the ship or cargo, can recover in Admi- ralty (h) as well as at law. The consignee or assignee of a bill of lading can, where no owner or part owner of the ship is domiciled in England or Wales at the time of the action being instituted, proceed against the ship in Admi- ralty for damage to the cargo by the fault of the master or crew (c). In such an action it seems he could recover for loss of cargo in a collision for which the carrying ship was wholly or partly in fault. To enable him to maintain the action it is not necessary that the property in the goods should have passed to him (d). The holder of a bottomry bond on freight of a ship. A., is entitled, in an action for limitation of liability by the owner of another ship, B., which has negligently damaged A. by collision, to a rateable share with the owners of A. of the amount payable by the owner of B. (e). It seems that part owners of the injured ship might recover damages for their respective losses in successive actions (/). But the defendant would be entitled to have the other co-owners added as plaintiffs, 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 (z) The Milan, Lush. 388; The City of Manchester, 40 L. T. N. S. 591. (a) The Marathon, 40 L. T. N. S. 163. (b) The Minna, L. R. 2 A. & E. 97. In an American case full dam- ages were recovered for a collision, 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. (c) 24 Vict. c. 10, s. 6 ; 36 & 37 Vict. c. 66, a. 16. {(l) See The Fiylia Maggiore, L. R. 2 A. & E. 106; The Nepoter, ibid. 375; The Pieve Superiore, L. R. 5 P. C. 482. (e) The Em'pusa, 48 L. J. Ad. 36. (/) Addison v. Overend, 6 T. R. 766 ; Sedgworth v. Overend, 7 T. R. 280. RULE AS TO DIVISION OF LOSS. 49 of action survives to the other part owners (g). Where two or more actions are brought by different plaintiff's in respect of the same collision, the actions may be consoli- dated. But it appears that the present practice of the Admiralty Division is not to force consolidation upon un- willing plaintiffs (li). A servant cannot recover against his employer for in- Doctrine of jury sustained in the course of his employment through pJJ^ent!"^' the negligence of a fellow servant (i). It seems, therefore, that the ship's officers and crew cannot recover against the ship-owner for injury suffered in a collision caused by one of themselves {k), except, perhaps, where the wrong-doer is the captain {I). But a compulsory pilot is not a servant of the ship-owner, and the rule above stated does not prevent him from recovering against the owner (m). Where there are several claimants for damaees in Order of several actions in rem in respect of the same collision, they several^a^itiius rank in the order of their judgments {n). A plaintiff" who ^^ ^^»^- institutes his action after another has been instituted, but before judgment, is entitled to damages rateably with the plaintiff" in the previous action (o). NOTE. History of the Law as to Division of Loss where both Ships are in Fault. The history of the rule as to equal division of loss where both ships are in fault is curious. It is at least as old in the Ad- miralty Court of this country as the leign of Queen Anne : The Petersfield and The Judith Randolph^ cited by Lord Giftbvd in ig) See Maude and Polltjck on 3rd ser. 304 (Scotch). Shipping, 2nd ed., 67, 68. (?) Rammy v. Quhni, Ir. Eep. {h) See The William Hutt, Lush. 8 C. L. 322. ' 25; Eules of Supr. Court, Ord. LI., (»i) Smith v. Steele, L. R. 10 Q. B, r. 4 ; The Jacob Landstrom, 4 P. D. 125. 191. (n) The Saracen, 6 Moo. P. C. C. (i) Priestly v. Foioler, 3 M. & W. 56. 1 ; Chitty on Contr., 10th ed., 537. (o) The Clara, Swab. Ad, 1 ; see {k) Ledcly v. (fibson, 11 Sess. I 'as. itifra, pp. 65, 68, 89. 50 NOTE. Hay V. Le Neve, 2 Shaw's Scotch App. Cas. 395 ; and see The Lord Melville cited in the same case. It is opposed to the rule of the common law, that a person cannot recover for a loss caused in part by his own negligence; and in the common law Courts it has been much abused. In De Vaux v. Salvador, 4 Ad. & El. 420, Denman, C.J., says of it : " It is an arbitrary provision in the law of nations, not dictated by natural justice, nor, possibly, quite consistent with it." Though recognised by foreign jurists as part of the law maritime, it meets with little approbation at their hands. Bynkershoek disapproves of it : quia in pari causd melior est conditio possidentis .... 2Kirem autem causam facit utriusque adpa; nam siynul ac accesserit omnem actionem excludit. Qucest. Jur. Priv. 1. TA^, c. 22. By the Laws of Oleron, a maritime code attributed by Par- dessus to the twelfth century, it Avas provided that where a ship at anchor is injured by another under way, " the mayster of the shyp that hyt the other must swere on a boke, and hys marchaunts with hym, that he dyd it not ^Adth hys ^yJ\\," and thereupon the loss shall be equally divided between the ships. The reason for the rule is stated to be " that an olde shyp wyllyngly lyeth not in the waye of a better, so fer forth as it knoweth not to domage it by grevyng, but whan it knoweth wel that it must part by halfe it wyll pass by out of the way." (English translation of the Laws of Oleron, Black Book of the Admiralty, Sir Travers Twiss' Ed. Vol L, p. 109. Cleirac (Us et Coustumes de la Mer, Ed. 1661, Bordeaux, p. 68), in his observations upon this article, agrees with the framers of the Laws of Oleron in their low estimate of maritime morality : "est considerable que les gens de mer sont ordinaire- ment enclins au mal et a la baraterie." He approves of the singular law which deprived ship-owners and merchants of their natural right to receive full compensation for their loss, but only upon the questionable ground above stated, that facilities must not be given for getting ships wilfully run down. He illustrates the principle of the rule by citing the Book of Exodus, Ch, xxi., ver. 35. That he had not a high opinion of the justice of the rule is apparent : " les juris consultes nomment et qualifient cette decision par moitie judicium rusticorum . . . . et se prattique ' ord i na irement par les arbitres, arbitrateurs, et amiables compositeurs. DIVISION OF LOSS. 51 lors et quand rinterieur des parties, ou le motif de la question n'est pas a descouvert et coniieu ; ou bien quand il y a de la coulpe de part et d'autre — aid qumido surd dioer see judicium opinionesMnc indeprobahil. Boer dec. 42, n. 39 — tel fut le jugement reconneu tant juridic du sage Koy Salomon qu'il donna sur la question naturele entre deux mers" {sic). Cliancellor Kent (Kent's Comm., § 231), follows Cleirac in stigmatizing the rule as judicium rusticum. The rule probably had its origin, partly in the dispo- sition of the mediaeval Courts to treat all collisions as perils of the sea, for which seamen and ship-owners could not properly be held responsible ; and partly in their recognition of the extreme difficulty of ascertaining the facts necessary to enable tbevn to arrive at a just decision in each case. So the rule of dividing the loss came to be adopted — oh culpce probandoe, diffi,cultatem, Grotius, De Jure Belli et Pads, 1. 2, c. 17, s. 21, It has by some writers been said that the rule is desirable upon grounds of public policy, in order to make the masters of large ships more careful of smaller craft: see Bell's Comm. 581. The rule of equal division of loss where both ships are in fault forms no part of the Roman law. It is not to be found in the Laws of Oleron or any other mediaeval code of maritime law. '1 here can, however, be little doubt that it had its origin in the provision above quoted of the Laws of Oleron. If its policy or justice can be supported at the present day, it must be upon grounds other than those suggested by Cleirac for the analogous rule of the Laws of Oleron. It narrowly escaped abolition at the time of the passing of the Judicature Act, 1873 ; but under that Act, as finally passed, it has become the law of England, and is now administered by common law, as well as by the Admiralty Courts. By the Judicature Act, as originally drawn, the Admiralty rule was abolished, and gave place to the common law rule, that he who is the author of his own loss can recover nothmg ; but in consequence, it seems, of a letter addressed to the Lord Chancellor by H. C. Kothery, Esq., the then Registrar of the Admiralty Court, the Admiralty rule was reinstated, and, in the result, has superseded the common law riile in all the Courts. A provision similar to that of the Laws of Oleron as to the E 2 52 ' NOTE. division of loss where the collision is not wilful is contained in several of the mediseval codes. See Sir Travers Twiss' Ed. of the Black Book of the Adniiralty, I., 36, 39, 108, 109 ; II., 229, 449 ; III., 21 ; IV., 87, 88, 271, 373, 435. By some of these codes the loss was not necessarily divided in equal shares ; it appears to have been apportioned between the ships in proportion to their values, or their fault; ibid. Vol. III., 287; IV., 435; Danish Code of 1683, 1. IV., c. 3, s. 4. But BjTikershoek was unable to persuade the Superior Court of Holland to adopt any other than the rule of division in equal shares : memhii me seuatore et de geometried proportione perorante, reliquos senafores uhstapuisse, atque si Jovis ignihus ieti essent ; Bynk. Qu^st. Jur. Priv. IV., 20. The rule of division of damages does not appear to have been applied by the Admiralty Court of this country except where both ships have been found to be in fault for the collision. By the general maritime law it was not confined to this case. It was applied in the case of inevitable accident, and also in the case of inscrutable fault : see Bell's Commentaries on the Law of Scotland, p. 581. Valin, Sur I'Ordonnance, 1. III., tit. 7, Art. 11, says of it : " par la difficulte de reconnoitre de quel cote est la faute, et juger meme si la faute est de nature a meriter que celui, a qui elle est imputee, supporte le dommage en entier, il arrive presque toujours que le dommage regude part et d'autre est juge avarie commune, ce qu'approuve Grotius, &c." Although, by the maritime law, the loss was divided between the two ships in the case of inscrutable fault, and the rule is so applied in the Courts of France and other countries, it has never been adopted in the Admiralty of this country. In The Maid of AurMand, 6 ISTot. of Cas. 240, where, if such a rule had existed, it would have been applicable, or at least mentioned, Dr. Lushington dismissed both suits upon the ground of deficit pruhatio. The rule has been applied, in some cases, so as to prevent an innocent sufferer by collision from recovering more than half his loss against a wrong-doer : The Milan, Lush. 388 ; Comm. Code of Holland, Art. 540 ; Bynk. Qucest. Priv. Jur. IV., c. 21. In America the rule as to the incidence of loss by collision is DIVISION OF LOSS. 53 the same as that of this country; except, perhaps, in the case of inscrutable fault. In this case, according to some writers, the loss is divided : The Tracy J. Bronson, 3 Bened. 341 ; and see 1 Parsons on Sh. (Ed. 18G9) 527 ; Story on Bailments, § 609 ; 3 Kent's Comm., § 231 ; Sedgwick on Damages (6th Ed.) 577, note ; but in a recent case before the District Court of Xew York, it was held that neither ship could recover : The Breeze, 6 Bened. 14. Art. 407 of the French Commercial Code is as follows : En cas d'abordage de na vires si I'evenement a ete purement fortuit, le dommage est supporte, sans repetition, par celui des navires qui I'a eprouve. Si I'abordage a ete fait par la faute de I'un des capitaines, le dommage est paye par celui cpii Fa cause. S'il y a doute dans les causes de I'abordage, le dommage est repare a frais communs, et par egale portion, par les navires qui Font fait et souflfert. Dans ces deux derniers cas, I'estimation du dommage est faite par experts. The case of inscrutable fault is that described in Ai't. 407 — "s'd y a doute, &c."— that is, "lorsqu' il est impos- sible de preciser par la faute de qui le dommage est arrive." In this case the French differs from the English law in dividing the loss equally — Abordage iSTautique, Caumont, § 151. But the French law agrees with our own in requiring proof of negligence to enable the cargo owner to recover in such a case, ibid. § 154, 155. "Where both ships are in fault, but not to the same extent, the damages are apportioned according to the degree of each ship's fault ) but as between ship-owners and third parties, the former are severally liable for the whole of the damages, subject to the right of each to free himself by abandonment of his interest in the ship and freight: ihid. § 12, 108, 152. Where both ships have been guilty of an infringement of the Rule of the Road (manceuvres r^glementaires), it seems that neither can recover : iJnd, § 109. The case of inevitable accident is complicated by attempts to attribute the collision partly to " force majeure," and partly to negligence : ibid. § 94. The Belgian Commercial Code (Art. 407) contains the same provisions as to the incidence of loss as the French Code. The law in Germany as to the incidence of loss in the four cases of collision seems to be the same as that of this country ; 54 NOTE. except that where both ships are in fault, neither can recover. See German Commercial Code, Arts. 736 — 741. By the Dutch Code, where both ships are in fault, and also when the collision occurs without fault in either ship, each bears her own loss. If there is doubt Avhether the collision was caused by the fault of one or both ships, or not, the aggregate loss upon both ships and cargoes is made good by a general average contribution between the owners of ships and cargoes. Where a ship under way goes foul of another at anchor, even if the collision is an mevitable accident, the ship under way has to pay half the loss. But these rules apply only to seagoing ships, and not to inland navigation. See the Commercial Code of Holland, Arts. 534—540, 756. The Spanish Commercial Code contains no provision as to the division of the loss where both ships are in fault, or any other case. It distinguishes between collisions caused by the faidt of one or both ships, and those caused by mevitable accident. In the first case it seems that the captain, or the actual wrong-doer, is alone responsible ; in the other case each ship bears her own loss, unless insured. Ahordaje casual, which, besides cases of inevitable accident, includes collisions by the fault of one or both ships, where fault is not proved, is a par- ticular average, and is at the risk of insurers. See Codigo de Comercio, Arts. 624, 676, 682, 861, 935, § 7. Art. 516 of the Italian Comm. Code, and Arts. 1567 — 1570 of the Portuguese Comm. Code, are to the same effect as Art. 407 of the French Code, supra. Art. 1581 of the Portuguese Code requires a ship under way damaging another at anchor to pay half the loss. This code is identical with the Dutch Code in many of its provisions, and goes into considerable detail : see Port. Code, Arts. 1567—1581. The Eussian Code is not clear as to the incidence of loss. Wliere the colHsion is an inevitable accident, and where both ships are in fault, it seems that the loss rests where it falls : Arts. 835, 845. But in some cases the total loss on the ships, though not on cargo, is borne by the two rateably : Art. 847. See Ptussian Code, Arts. 835—848. i^o CHAPTER II. DAMAGES. Owners, and other persons answerable for damage caused The wrong- by the negligent navigation of a ship, are liable for all the for all the reasonable consequences of their neglio-ence (a). reasonable . ^ o <:d \ / ^ ^ consequences This is the rule whether the negligence causes a collision of his negli- or not. In a case where, in order to avoid a collision with ^fj^g't'^er there a ship. A., made imminent by A.'s own fault, a tug, B., is a collision was compelled to cast off her tow, C, and C. went ashore and was damaged, it was held that C. could recover against A. (h). Where, in order to avoid A., lying ashore in a fair- way without a light up, B. was obliged to put herself ashore, and received injury, it was held that B. could recover against A. (c). The value of an anchor and chain slipped to avoid collision was recovered in an American Admiralty Court {cl). If the negligence of one ship causes a collision between two others, the damage received by both of them can be recovered against the first. And if a vessel is in an unmanageable state, or has lost her lights, by her own (a) MayT}e on Damages (3rd ed.), collision : The Industrie, L. R. 3 39. As to damages for collision A. & E. 303 ; The Energy, ibid. 48 ; generally, see Sedgwick on Damages and it t^eems that so far as it decides (6th ed.), 576. the contrary The Rnhert Pow, Br. (6) The W heatsheaf Rnd The In- & L. 99, would not now be followed. trepide, 2 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 292. (c) The Industrie, nbi supra. The Admiralty Court has jurisdic- (d) The Perkins, 2 Mar. Tjaw Cas. tion where a ship has done or re- O. S. Dig. 548. ceived damage, though there is no 56 DAMAGES. negligence, any damage she does while in that state would probably be held to be the result of her own negligence (e). So if a vessel sinks another by her swell raised by going at too great speed, she is liable for the loss (/). Loss of injured Where a ship is lost, or receives further injury after a lisioifpre-''*'^' collision, the presumption is that the loss or damage is Bumed to be caused by the collision ; and the burden is on the other collision/ ^ vessel, if proved to be in fault for the collision, to show that the subsequent loss or damage was not caused by her negligence. Where a ship was partially disabled in a colli- sion for which she was not in fault, and subsequently drove ashore in consequence 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 of the other ship {g). In this case Dr. Lushington said : " It is admitted that The Peusher 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 Peusher, 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 another case (h), The Mellona, a ship claiming damages against the ship with which she had been in collision, had gone ashore after the collision, in con- sequence of having been disabled in the collision, and was totally lost. For the other ship it was contended that The Mellona need not have gone ashore if she had been hove-to, and proper skill had been shown by those on board. It was held that ijrmid facie the loss was attributable to the collision. Dr. Lushington said that where one vessel is found in fault for a collision, and the other is subsequently lost, the presumption of law is that (e) See mjyra, p. 8, {y) The Peusher, Swab. Adm. 211, /) The Batavier, 1 Sp. E. & A. 213. 378 ; 9 Moo. P. C. C. 286 ; Luxford ijt) The Mellona, 3 W. Roh, 7, 13. T. Large, 5 C. & P. 421. ABANDONMENT OF INJURED SHIP. 57 the latter was lost in consequence of the collision. " In all questions of this description that is the prima facie presumption ; and great, indeed, would be the incon- venience, and still greater the difficulty, if, in all cases of this kind when the vessel did not go down immediately, but was subsequently lost, the Court had to enter into an investigation whether all the measures adopted on board the damaged vessel were right, or whether, if other measures had been pursued, the vessel might not have been saved" (i). In another case a ship was run 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 by the collision (Jc), So where, bad weather having come on, the injured ship went ashore twenty-one hours after the collision, the representatives 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 (l). But the fact of a ship being injured by the negligence Those on of another does not justify those on board in neglecting injured ship to take all reasonable measures to save the ship, and n^ust exhibit n . . rni i • i • Ordinary skill lessen the effects of the collision, ihey must exhibit and courage ordinary courage in standing by their vessel, and show |^ standing by proper skill and seamanship according to the circum- stances of the case. The Court, however, will make reasonable allowance for the excitement which usually attends a collision, and those on board will not be expected (i) See also The Linda, Swab. Ad. 83. 306; 30 L. T. 234 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 146. (I) The George and The likhard, (/!•) The De^patrh, 14 Moo. P. C. C. L. R. 3 A. & E. 46(5. 58 DAMAGES. to be so acute in their judgment, or to act with the same skill and coolness as if there had been no collision (m). They must Where the injured ship went ashore, and those in charge ance.'if wilfully refused assistance to get her off, it was held that necessary. ^^Qr owners could not recover for loss arising from the obstinacy of those on board {n). Iftheyaban- If the injured vessel is abandoned unjustifiably, the unjustifiably, other vessel, if Id fault for the collision, is not liable for damages r^ ^Qj;^al loss, but Only for the actual damage done in the cannot be ' '^ ° recovered as Collision (o). for a loss rpj^ question whether the abandonment of a ship caused by the t- ^ collision. 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 requir- ing those on board to stand by her. In The Blenheim (p) 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 gi-eater 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 circumstances that would justify the aban- donment of a vessel. If there be any reasonable prospect that the lives of the crew are endangered, I have deter- mined, and I will do so, until I am overruled, that they are justified in quitting the vessel, and the consequences most fall on the wrong-doer " (q). Salvage ex- If a ship is improperly abandoned after a collision, her (ni) The Hannah Park and The (o) The Thuringia^ uhi supra. Lena, 2 Mar. Law. Cas. O. S. 345 ; (p) 1 Spinks E. & A. 285, 289. The Thuringm, 1 Asp. Mar. Ijaw {q) See also The Linda, 30 L. T. Cas. 283. 234 ; The Hope and The Chili, 2 (to) The Flying Fish, Br. & Lush. Mar. Law Cas. O. S. Dig. 546 ; The 436 ; 2 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 221. Lindsay, Ir. Eep. Ad. 1 Eq. 259. WHAT CAN BE RECOVERED. 59 owner will not be entitled to recover, as damage caused penses not by the collision, either the value of the ship or salvage abandonment expenses payable upon her being brought into port (r). unjustifiable. The Thuringia, a steam-ship 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 (s). The collision in that case occurred sixteen or eighteen miles from Heligoland in fine weather. The ship re- mained afloat three hours after the collision, and might have been taken to Heligoland. In another case (t) no attempt was made to repair the ^°^f through . . . . . neglect to damage received in the collision, such damage consisting repair injury in a small hole which might easily have been stopped. In [^rcollLion consequence of the hole being left unstopped the cargo not recover- was injured by water. It was held that the cargo owner ^jg^j^j^o-gg could not recover damages against the other ship, although caused by its . . collision. 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 circumstances to sell an injured cargo has been considered in several cases (u). It was held negligence in a master not to have discharged a cargo of beans which were wetted in a collision (v). But where a ship is sunk at sea by collision, there is no Where the IT • 1 -1 -n ■ ^ , ship is sunk, obligation upon the owner to raise her, even ii it would be possible to do so (w). If he elects to raise her, and it turns out, upon a survey, 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 (w). If he repairs her at a cost exceeding her value before collision, (r) The Linda, Swab. Ad. 306. Q. B. 225. (s) The Tharinyia, 1 Asp. Mar. {w) The Columbus, 3 W-Roh. 158. Law Cas. 283. The principles of abandonment as (t) The Bolides, 3 Hag. 367. applied in insurance cases do not (u) See Cargo ex Argos, L. R. 5 apply in collision cases : ibid. 165. P. C. 134, 165, and cases there cited. {x) The Empress Eiujenie, Lush. (v) Notara v. Henderson, Jj. R. 7 138. GO DAMAGED. he cannot recover the cost of repairs beyond such value ; nor anything in the nature of demurrage {y). 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 collision, less the proceeds of sale, together w^ith interest from the date of the collision (z). Difficulty of There is difficulty, in some cases, in determining whether wliethe™"^ the damage is caused by the collision or not. A passenger on damage conse- board The Bachelor was injured by an anchor on board lision is caused that vessel which was caused to fall on him by a collision by the col- ^^^ which The Sons of the Thames was in fault. In an lision. "^ . n mi o J^ action by the passenger against the owners of The ou7is oj the Thames, Pollock, C.B., left it to the jury to say whether there was negligence on the part of the crew of The Bachelor in stowing the anchor so that it fell on the plaintiff, and whether there was negligence on the plaintiffs part in being in the part of the ship where the anchor was stowed. The verdict was for the plaintiff; the jury finding that there was no negligence on his part, or on part of the crew of The Bachelor. A rule nisi for a new trial which was obtained on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence was discharged. In discharging the rule, Pollock, C.B., said, with regard to the general law, that if the negligence of the plaintiff did not in any degTee contribute to the immediate cause of the accident, that negligence ought not to be set up as a defence to the action. And he doubted whether a person, who is guilty of negligence, is responsible for all the consequences which might under any circumstances arise, and in respect of mischief which could, by no possibility, have been fore- seen, and which no reasonable person would have anti- cipated {a). (y) The Empress Eugenie, Lush. 243 ; see also The Gipsey King, 5 138. Not. of Cas. 282 ; Sills v. Brown, 9 (2) The South Sea, Swab. Ad. C. & P. 601 ; Lynch v. Nurdin, 1 141, Q. B. 29 ; Byrne v. Wilson, 15 Ir. (o) Greenland v. Chaplin, 5 Ex. Com. Law, 332. CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES. Gl Damage occurring during or after the collision, but caused by negligence other than that which caused the collision, cannot be recovered as resulting from the collision. Where, whilst two ships were in collision, the damage was increased by those on board the plaintiffs ship omitting to cut a lanyard which held the ships together, it was said by the Court to be negligence on their part not to have cut it (6). If the damage received in a collision is greater because of the weak condition of one of the vessels, the other is 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 wrong-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 (c). Consequential damages are in some cases recoverable. Consequential Where a smack was run down while performing a salvage coverabL^-^" service, it was held that she was entitled to recover what loss of salvage, she would have earned if she had not been prevented from charter-party ; completing the salvage service (d). In another case, where demurrage; • 11-1 TVT salvage a ship was run down whust on a voyage to Norway to expenses ; bring home a cargo of lobsters, and another ship was taken j-^[n^\jej up for the purpose, it was held that the freight of the market value lobsters was recoverable as consequential damages (e). ship! If the injured ship sinks in consequence of the collision, the expenses of raising and docking her (/), and salvage expenses generally, are recoverable as damiages, if they are properly incurred, and in consequence of injury received in the collision (g). In an American case the expense of (b) The Massachusetts, 1 W. Rob. 28. 371 ; see also The Flying Fish, Br. (p) The Yorl-shircman,2 Hag. Ad, & Lush. 436 ; GriU v. General Iron 30, note. Screw Collier Co., L. R. 1 C. P. 6()0 ; (/) The Empress Euyenie, Lush. ihid. 3 O. P. 476. 138. (c) The Egyptian, 2 Mar. Law (y) The Linda, 30 L. T. 234. For Cas. O. S. 56 ; The Sam Gaty, 5 decisions of French Courts to the Bissel, 190. same effect, see Abordage Nautique (d) The Betsy Caines, 2 Hag. Ad. (Caun^ont), § 11. 62 DAMAGES. detaining the crew after the collision, and of attempts to save cargo was allowed (A). Where it was proved that the market value of a yacht sunk in a collision was diminished, it was held that in addi- tion to the sum required for repairs, the difference between her market value before and after the collision was recover- able as damages (i). Where the owners suffer loss by the enforced idleness of their ship which has been injured in a collision, demurrage is allowed by way of damages whilst the necessary repairs are being effected. And demurrage runs whilst the ship is detained for the transaction of business connected with the collision, such as making a protest, and obtaining the necessary official documents (k). Where, in consequence of the collision, a vessel lost the benefit of a charter-party, damages were allowed for the loss of the charter-party in addition to demurrage (l). A fishing smack recovered, besides the value of her nets and gear which she was obliged to cut adrift, the amount she might reasonably have been exj)ected to earn during the rest of the fishing season (m). Where the innocent ship was sunk by the collision, and her owners recovered for a total loss, the master and crew, in a subsequent action, recovered the value of their clothes and effects {n). If the injured ship is in the course of earning freight, and is prevented by the collision from completing the voyage, the amount of freight, less the charges which would have been incurred in earning it, together with interest (h) Hoffman v. Union Ferry of fixed intervals, see The Black Prince, BrooJclyn, 68 New York Eep. 385. Lush. 568. {{) The Georgiana and T?ie AngJi- (1) The Star of India, 1 P. D. 466. can (Irish case), 21 W. E. 280. (wi) The Gleaner, 3 Asp. Mar.Law (k) The City of Buenos Ayras, 1 Cas. 582. Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 169 ; The (n) The Cumberland, 6 L. T. N. Clarence, 3 W. Eob. 283. As to S. 496. The master and crew are demurrage where the injured ship usually co-plaintiffs with the owners is one of a line advertised to sail at in such a case. WHAT CAN BE RECOVERED. 63 from the probable termination of the voyage, is recover- able (o). If she is lost, and was not engaged in earning freight, interest upon her value at the time of the collision from the date of the collision to the time of payment is in all cases allowed {p). Where damages are estimated upon the footing of a total loss, although, in fact, the ship was subsequently saved and repaired, with the exceptions mentioned above, no more than the ship's value at the time of the collision can be recovered. In such a case nothing will be allowed for, or or in the nature of, demurrage (;). • In two cases recently before the Admiralty Division, it was assumed that it applied to a British ship in collision with a foreigner on the high seas (I). The wording of 36 & 37 Vict. c. 85, s. 16, favours the conten- tion that that part of it which relates to presumption of fault applies to foreign as well as British ships. Both sections, moreover, would probably be held to be rules of (h) 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, ss. 32, 57 ; (k) The Mar/net, L. R. 4 A. & E. seeTlie Fi^enoord,Swa.h.Ad.37i; The 417. See per Sir R. Phillimore in Seine., ibid. 411, as to the law on this Eey. v. Keyn, 2 Ex. D. 63, 85. The subject under the M. S. Act, 1854 ; doubt expressed by the PrivyCouncil amlsee The MichelimonndThe Dacca, in The F. M. Carvill, 2 Asp. Mar. Mitch. Mar. Reg. 1877, as to the Law Cas. 565, 569, appears to be not application to British ships of local well founded. Regulations abroad. (I) The British Prinxess and The (i) 36 & 37 Vict. c. 85, ss. 16 and Sedmi Dubroracki, Ad. Ct. March, 17; see above, pp. 12, seq. 1878 ; The Englishman, 3 P. D. 18. 92 FOREIGN SHIPS — FOREIGN LAW. Defence of " compulsory pilotage" available for foreign ships. evidence, or otherwise apjjlicable to foreign ships as lex fori (m). The defence of " compulsory pilotage " is available for a foreign as well as for a British ship («). The statutory exemption of owners from, liability for damage done by a ship when in charge of a compulsory pilot probably applies to foreign ships ; 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 (o). The employment of a pilot may be made compulsory on a foreign ship by a British statute beyond three miles from the shores of the United Kingdom (p). (m) It was held by Dr. Lushing- ton in The ZoUverein, Swab. Ad. 96, that s. 298 of 17 & 18 Vict, c. 104 was a lex, fori relating to remedies. In that case the section was held not to apply in the case of a collision between a British and a foreign ship on the high seas, so as to prevent the British ship from recovering against the foreigner. The ground of the decision was that the previous section (s. 296), contain- ing the rule of the road, was a muni- cipal law not applicable to foreign ships on the high seas, and that therefore s. 298, which depended on s. 296, had no appHcation to the foreign ship. Since, therefore, the foreigner was not prevented by s. 298 from recovering against a British ship that to which by the maritime law he would be entitled, it was held to be unfair to allow the foreigner to avail himself of a breach by the British ship of the municipal law as a defence. The existing Regulations being international, it is submitted that the decision in The ZoUverein, as to the application of s. 298 of the Act of 1854, affords no ground for contending that s. 17 of the Act of 1873 does not apply to foreign ships. In The Nevada, 1 Asp. INIar. Law Cas. 477, however, the Vice- Admi- ralty Court of N. S. Wales held that s. 33 of the Act of 1862 did not apply to an American ship. In The (rcrmania, 3 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 140, s. 29 of 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63 was applied to a foreign ship ; but in the same case on appeal (ibid. 269) Lord Romilly appears to have considered that s. 33 of that Act (as to "'standing by") aj^plied only to British ships. In The Thurim/ia, 1 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 283, nothing was said as to the application of that section to a foreign ship on the high seas. As the effect of ss. 57 and 58 of the same Act, see the observations of Lord Chelmsford in The Amalia, 1 Moo. P. C. C. N. S. 471, 485. (n) As to compulsory pilotage generally, see Ch. V. (o) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 388 ; The Marki, 1 W. Rob. 95, 106. In The Girolamo, 3 Hag. Ad. 169, and other cases under 6 Geo. IV. c. 125, it was held that the statutory exemption of owners from liability for the fault of a compulsory pilot did not apply so as to exempt of the owners of a foreign ship in proceed- ings in rem. In The Vernon, 1 W. Rob. 316, Dr. Lushington appears to have considered that the statutory exemption of owners was lex fori. ili) The Annapolis &ndi The Johanna Sloll, Lush. 295. SHIP OF FOREIGN SOVEREIGN. 93 It is a principle of international law that a sovereign Damage by prince or state cannot be sued in a foreign Court. And it foreign '^ seems that this principle applies in the case of proceedings sovereign; in rem against the public ship of a foreign sovereign {q). in rem. But it has been said by Sir E. Phillimore that if a ship of a foreign sovereign engages in trade, she 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 {r). It has also been held that it is not in the power of the Crown, without the consent of Parliament, to exempt the trading ship of a foreign sovereign from arrest (.s). 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 Con- gress, 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 aiTest could issue either in respect of ship or cargo {t). The Parlenient Beige, a vessel belonging to the King of the Belgians, commanded and manned by officers and men commissioned and paid by him, was engaged in carry- ing 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 Parlerment 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 to {q) The Constitutwn, 4 P. D. 39. decision of the case : The Swift, 1 See, however, The Charkieh, L. R. 4 Dods. Adm. 320, 339. A. & E. 59 ; ibid. 8 Q. B. 197. (s) The Parlement Beige, 4 P. D. (?•) The Charkieh, supra ; but the 129. dictum was not necessary to the (t) The Constitution, 4 P. D. 39. 94 FOREIGN SHIPS — FOREIGN LAW. proceedings in rein at the suit of tlie owner of the injured vessel (u). Foreign ship A foreicrn ship that has injured a British ship, or pro- in collision ° . . . i' r with British perty 01 a British subject, in any part of the world, may ship out of the ]3g detained if found within three miles of the coasts of United King- dom liable m the United Kingdom (x). But owners resident abroad can seldom be sued personally in respect of a collision on the high seas below low-water mark of the shores of the United Kingdom (//). Application of It has been held bj Sir R. Phillimore that the repre- be"ll's AcTto sentatives of foreigners killed in a collision on the high foreigners and seas on board a foreign ship can recover damages under foreign ships. -^ , ^ ith •• t ^ ai- Lord Campbell s Act m the Courts of this country (z) ; and under the same Act a foreign ship has been made liable, in proceedings in rem, for loss of life on the high seas caused by her negligent navigation (a). Collision The liability for damage done by a vessel depends, in applkation of ^^^^ cases, upon the law of the place where the collision foreign law. occurs, and of the country to which the ship belongs. If it occurs in the territorial waters of a 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. Nor is he 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 Courts 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 (m) 77ie Parlement Beige, 4 P. D. 289 ; and see infra, p. 98. 129 ; see Addenda. («) The Guldfaxe, L. R. 2 A. & E. (a?) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 527. 325. There is, however, doubt (y) Barris v. Owners of IVie whether it is competent to proceed Franconia, 2 C. P. D. 173 ; and see in rem for damages un^ler Lord infra, p. 98. Campheirs Act : see above, p. 64. (z) The Explorer, L. R. 3 A. & E. COLLISIONS ABROAD. 95 country where it is committed, and also by the law of this country "(6). 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 ship-owners, 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 (c). The owners of a British ship, which had been in col- Compulsory 1 •• 1 (-1 1 1 1 11 1 pilotage lision with a foreign ship m the Scheldt, were sued by the abroad, foreign ship in this country. The British ship alleged that the collision was caused entirely by the negligence of the pilot, whom, by the Belgian law in force in the Scheldt, she was compelled to take. By the Belgian law owners are liable 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 (ci). 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 corporation, who were the proprietors (6) Per Mellish, L.J., in The M. (d) The Halley, L. R. 2 P. C. 193; Moxham, 1 P. D. 107, 111. in the Court below, ibid. 2 A. & (c) The M. Moxham, 1 P. D. 107. E. 3. 96 FOREIGN SHIPS — rOREIGN LAW. JRes judicata : effect of foreign judg- ment. Foreign judg- ment in rem enforced by the Admiralty Court of this country. of the ship, and the master's employers, were alone liable. The plea was held good (e). The judgment of a competent foreign Court upon the merits of a collision, given in the presence of both parties, is a bar to an action in this country between the same parties for the same collision (/). If the parties are not the same, as where the ship-OAvners sue in one country and the cargo-owners in the other {g), or if the foreign tri- bunal had not jurisdiction (h), 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 (i), or if the foreign judgment went by default (j), it is not a bar to an action here, and is immaterial. It has been held, in a recent case, by Sir R. Phillimore, that a foreign judgment, condemning a ship for collision, may be enforced against the ship by Admiralty proceedings in rem in this country. The City of Mecca, a British steam-ship, was in collision on the high seas with a Portu- guese ship. The City of Mecca was aixested in Portugal and found by the PortugTiese Court to be in fault for the collision. Owing to some informality she was released from arrest by the PortugTiese authorities, and came to England, the foreign judgment remaining unsatisfied. She was arrested in England by the plaintiffs in the PortuoTiese action ; and it was held that international comity required that the English Admiralty Court should enforce the decree of the Portuguese Court (A;). (e) The General Steam Navigation Co. V. Gillou, 11 M. & W. 877, 895. (/) See Phillimore's Internat. Law, 2nd. ed. IV. 733, seq.; West- lake's Private International Law, 376. (rj) Cf. The PevnsyJrania, 19 Wall. 125 ; TJie Pennsylrania, 3 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 477. As to the effect of a foreign judgment in rem, see Castrigue v. Imrie, L. E. 4 H. L. 414. {h) The Greifsvald, Swab. Ad. 430 ; Havelock v. Roclcu-ood, 8 T. R. 268. (i) General Steam Navigation Co. V. Gillou, 11 M. & W. 877, 894. _ {j) Tlie Delta and The Erminia Foscolo, 1 P. D. 393. (k) The City of Mecca, 5 P. D. 28. It was held that the Judicature Acts did not interfere with the ancient jurisdiction of the Court in such a case ; this case is imder appeal. COLLISIONS ABROAD. U , Foreign municipal regulations as to ships' lights, and Foreign local 1,11 1- • j_- r • J. rules for navi- rules to be observed m navigating foreign waters, may, as gatino- foreign evidence of negligence, be material in determining, in the waters. courts of this country, the liability for a collision in such waters ; although foreign municipal law is not binding on our Courts. Actions for collision are said to be communis jiirii:i; and Jurisdiction the Admiralty Court has never refused to entertain an coji^gfon" action because the owners of both ships are foreigners, or abroad, or because the collision did not occur within British jurisdic- foreign ships, tion (I). A British subject injured by a foreign ship abroad may cause her to be arrested wherever she is found within British jurisdiction (vi). The ancient jurisdiction of the Admiralty extended over all waters where the tide ebbs and flows; and although the Admiralty Court was for many years restrained by prohibition from exercising its jurisdiction in cases of collision occurring within the body of a county, by a recent statute its jurisdiction over such waters has been restored. Under the same Act the Admiralty Court has jurisdiction in all cases of collision, 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 (n). In the case of a collision in foreign waters between foreign ships, if it is clear that an action is pending in a foreign court in respect of the same matter, the Ad- miralty Court will stay its proceedings (o). In a case of wilful damage by the master of one foreign ship to another (?) The Johnnn Friedrich, 1 W. Lush. 539 ; The Courier, ibid. 541 ; Rob. 35 ; In re Smith, 1 P. D. 300 ; The Mali Ivo, L. R. 2 A. & E. 356 ; The Greifswald, Swab. Ad. 430 ; The as to colonial waters, The Peerless, Vivar, 2 P. D. 29 ; and see per Lush. 30. As to Admiralty juris- Story, J., in The Invincible, 2 Gall. diction generally, see per Story, J., 29. in De Lovio v. Boit, 2 Gall. 398. (m) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 527. (o) The Mali Ivo, uhi supra; The (n) 24 Vict. c. 10 ; The Diana, Catterina Chin.z?.are, 1 P. D. 368. H 98 FOREIGN SHIPS — FOREIGN LAW. Liability of owners re.>i dent abroad. Criminal lia- bility where the ship or the offender foreign ship in foreign waters, the Court refused to enter- tain the action {j)). The common law courts have jurisdiction, whether the ships are British or foreign, and whether the collision occurs in 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 Mostyn 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 impression which had prevailed to the contrary seems erroneovis (r)." Unless the writ can be served within the jurisdiction, owners resident abroad cannot be sued personally for a collision occurring on the high seas below low-water mark of the shores of the United Kingdom (s). But their ship is liable in proceedings in rem, and in some cases may be detained if found within three miles of the United Kingdom, so as to compel the owner to abide the event of any action for damage caused by her (t). But the ship cannot be detained in respect of personal injury received in a collision for which she was in fault (u). In the case of a collision caused by the criminal fault of a foreigner, or where the collision occurs abroad, if it is sought to punish the offender in this country^ questions of {p) The Ida, Lush. 6. This case was decided before 24 Vict. c. 10, came into operation. In America the Admiralty jurisdiction of the U.S. (Courts extends to inland waters. (q) 1 Smith's Leading Cases, Sth ed. 652. (?') Per Selwyn, L.J., in The H alien, L. R. 2 P. C. 193, 202, 203. (n) Harris v. Oimers of The Fran- conia, 2 C. P. D. 173 ; He Smith, 1 P. D. 300 ; The Vivar, 2 P. D. 29. {t) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 527. As to an action in rem, see The Bilboa, Lush. 149. In America any property of the owners of the ship sued which is found within the jurisdiction of the Court may be seized ; 2 Parsons on Ship. (ed. 1869), 390. (u) Harris V. Oimers of The Fran- conia, 2 C. P. D. 173 ; and see supra, p. 64. CRIMINAL LIABILITY. 99 difficulty arise as to his liability to the criminal law of i^ foreign, or England, and the jurisdiction of our courts (x). The occurs abroad. liability and jurisdiction depend upon (1) the offender's nationality ; (2) the flag of the ship on board which the oiFence was committed ; and (3) the place of collision. In the case of a person killed or injured on board one ship in a collision caused by the fault of a person on board another, the offence, if intentional, would probably be held to have been committed on board the latter ; if not intentional, as where it consists in negligence, on board the former {y). The criminal liability for reckless or negligent navigation seems to be as follows. If the ship is British, the offender is liable whether a British subject or a foreigner, and wherever the collision occurs (s). If it occurs in the United Kingdom, or in British territory or waters, he is liable, whether a British subject or a foreigner, and whether the ship is British or foreign (a) ; if he is a British subject, and probably also if he is a foreigner (b) and the ship British, or if within three months of the offence he has been employed on board a British ship, he is liable wherever the collision occurs (c) ; if he is a British subject, and the ship British, he is liable if the collision occurs in a foreign port or harbour (d) ; if he is a foreigner, and the ship British, he is liable if the collision occurs on the high seas ; if he is a British subject, and the ship British or foreign, and also, perhaps, if he is foreigner, and the ship British, he is liable if the collision occurs out of, and the [x) As to criminal negligence evidence of the ship being British, causing collision, see supra, p. 45. see Eeff. v. Sren Seburg, 22 L. T. N. (y) See the judgment of Cock- S. 523. burn, C. J., in Reg. v. Keyn, 2 Ex. [a] CunningJiam's Case, Bell's D. 68, 232, seq. But see also the 0. C. 220, 234 ; 4 Phillimore's judgments of Deiiman, J., and International Law, 2nd ed. 767. Lord Coleridge, C.J., ibid. pp. 101, (b) See Reg. v. Anderson, i/bi 158. supra ; Reg. v. Menham, 1 F. & F. (z) Reg. V. Sattlcr, D. & B. C. C. 369. 525 ; Reg. v. Anderson, L. R. 1 C. (c) 17 & 18 Vict c. 104, s. 267. C. R. 161. As to what is sufficient (d) 18 & 19 Vict. c. 91, s. 21. H 2 100 FOREIGN SHIPS— FOREIGN LAW, injured person dies within, England or Ireland {e) ; if he is a British subject, and the ship a foreign ship to which he does not belong, he is liable if the collision occurs else- where than in the Queen's dominions (/) ; and, lastly, if he is a foreigner and the ship foreign, he is liable if the collision occurs within three miles of low-water mark on the shores of the United Kingdom {g). (e) 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, s. 10. Cockbum, C.J., in Reg. v. Keyn, 2 This Act does? not apply to foreigners Ex. D. 63, 171. on board foreign ships; see Reg. v. (/) 30 & 31 Vict. c. 124, b. 11. Lewis, 1 D. & B. C. C. 182, decided (^) 40 & 41 Vict. c. 73. upon 9 Geo. IV. c. 31 ; and per 101 CHAPTER V. COMPULSORY PILOTAGE. A PILOT, whether licensed or not, whom the owners are P^^^" ^'^p^* ' _ ' ^ _ tor the negli- not compelled or required by any penalty or direction of gence of a law to employ, is their servant ; and they are answerable volunumly^^ for a collision caused by his fault or negligence (a). The master is not responsible for the acts of a pilot ^^^ ^°^ ^^^ . ... IS master. properly placed in charge, either civilly in damages (b) or at a Board of Trade inquiry in respect of his certificate (c). Nor is he liable in such a case for penalties imposed by law for improper navigation of the ship (d). In some waters the law requires a ship to be navigated ,9^^^,^ ^°} .. -T • li^D'e for to® by a qualified or licensed pilot ; and not to take a pilot is negligence of a statutory offence punishable by a penalty. A pilot taken f^P^hala^by'^ under these circumstances is called a " compulsory " pilot, the law. He is not the owners' servant, and they are not responsible (a) The Maria, 1 W.Rob. 95, 108; the non-liability of those in charge The Eden, 2 W. Rob. 442 ; and see of a prize for the fault of a pilot the cases cited below. Under 6 is expressly recognised by Sir W. Geo. IV. c. 125, and former Pilot Scott. Acts, it was held that where the (c) See The Vesta and The City of pilot was employed in pursuance of London, before the Wreck Commis- the Acts, but without compulsion, sioner, Times, Sep. 15th, 1879. But the statutory exemption of owners see also The Ostrich and The Benbow, from liability applied : Lucey v. In- Mitch. Mar. Reg. 1878, where it gram, 6 M. & W. 302 ; The Fama, was held that the master was in 2 W. Rob. 184. Under the Act now fault for the ship's speed, in force there is no exemption except (d) Oakley v. Speedy, 40 L. T. N.S. where the employment of the pilot 881. As to the relative positions of is compulsory. the pilot and captain on board a (6) See 3 Kent's Comm.§ 176. In Queen's ship, and in foreign ships. The Pwtsmouth, 6 C. Rob. 317, note, see below, p. 110, note (;/). 102 COMPULSORY PILOTAGE. What consti- tutes compul- sory pilotage. for his negligence. For a collision caused entirely by the fault of a compulsory pilot, the pilot alone is responsible. Pilotage is held to be compulsory, so as to exempt owners from liability for the acts of the pilot, in all waters, and for all ships, in and for which the employment of the pilot is enforced by penalty, or where the pilotage charge can be recovered against the ship or her owners, whether the pilot is employed or not (e). Where a ship is navigated by her own master having a pilotage certificate, her owners are not exempt from liabi- lity, although, except for the master's certificate, pilotage is compulsory for the ship {/). Owners Owners are exempt from liability for the negligence of a statute and at compulsory pilot by Statute, as well as by the Common common law. j^^^^ Section 388 of 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, is as follows :— "No owner of or master of any ship shall 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 such ship within any district where the employ- ment of such pilot is compulsory by law." Independently of the statute, owners are not liable at common law for the acts of a compulsory pilot who is placed in charge of the ship by the law, and who is not their servant (g). It seems doubtful whether the statute has any effect except as declaratory of the common law (h). In The Mai'ia (i) Dr. Lushington said, " The leading prin- ciple 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 (e) Carruthers v. Sidehotham, 4 M. & S. 77 ; The Maria, 1 W. Rob. 95, 109 ; The Arbutus, 2 Mar. Law Cas. 0. S. 136 ; The Hibei-nian, L. R. 4 P. C. 511. (/) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104. ss. 340- 844, 355 ; The Killarney, Lush. 202 ; The Beta, 2 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 165. (g) The Maria, 1 W. Rob. 95 ; The Halley, L. R. 2 P. C. 193 ; The Annafolis and The Johanna Stoll, Lush. 295. (h) See General Steam Nav. Co. V. British <£• Colonial Steam Nav. Co., L. R. 4 Ex. 238. (i) 1 W. Rob. 95, 99. OWNERS EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY. 103 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 management of their property, and over whom they have no control. This, I apprehend, is a rule founded upon a great principle of justice and equity." The rule has been applied even in the case of a collision Damage by in the territorial waters of a country by the law of which pilot abroad. ' owners are expressly made liable for the Degligence of a compulsory pilot {k). Whether the compulsion is by the law of this country, or by the law of the place where the collision occurs, the owner is equally free from liability (/). By the Thames Conservancy Act, 1857, (m) it is enacted Damage to that owners of vessels navigating the Thames shall be Thames Con- liable for damage to property of the Conservators caused ^*^'"^^^^y ^'7 by persons belonging to or employed in their vessels. It pilot, has been held that this Act does not affect sect. 388 of the Merchant Shipping 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 belonging to the Conservators {n). Although the ship-owner is, under the Harbours, Docks Damage to and Piers Clauses Act, 1847, liable for damage to a pier or harbour works harbour works, even when such damage is caused by his caused by . . '' compulsory ship when m the possession and control of persons for pilot, whose acts he would not be responsible at law, it is ex- pressly provided that he shall not be liable under the Act when his ship is in charge of a compulsory pilot (o). The fact that the compulsory pilot is selected by the Damage by compulsory (h) TheHalley, L. E. 2 P. C. 193. Halley, uhi sup. See also Smith v. Condry. 1 How. (mi) 20 & 21 Vict. c. 147 (Local), 28, in which it was held by the s. 96. Supreme Court of the United States (n) Conservators of the River that an American ship was not Thames v. Hall, 3 Mar. Law Cas. liable for a collision in British O. S. 73. waters caused by the fault of a com- (o) 10 & 11 Vict. c. 27, s. 74 ; see pulsory pilot. Hirer Wear Commhsioners v. Adam- {I) The mbernia?i, L. R. 4 P. C. son, 1 Q. B. D. 546 ; 2 Ap. Cas. 743. 511 ; The Peerless, Lush. 30 ; The 104 COMPULSORY PILOTAGE. pilot in owners, and in their regular employment, does not prevent owner's con- t- n ^ ^ • r stant employ- the application ot the rule exempting the owners for ^^^^- damage caused entirely by his negligence (p). Where, at the Xhe presence on board of a pilot whose employment, in time of the i /^ • i i i "i collision, the the hist iDstance, was compulsory, but whose duty as a pilot IS on pilot is at an end, and who is no longer in charge of the ship board and in ^ _ ° = ^ charge, but by Compulsion of law, or otherwise than by the owner's or pulgioQ^^fl^^ 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 29th she was in collision with another ship to Avhich she had given afoul 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 (q). Owners held Ownei's are exempt from liability in some cases where exempt where ,,. . . , , ,.^ . . at the place the collision IS caused by a qualified pilot m charge of the of collision ship although at the spot where the collision occurs there there was no •■■ ° _ ^ compulsion to is no Compulsion to take a pilot on board. A vessel bound a e a pi o . ^^ London took a London pilot off Dungeness, where his employment was compulsory. A collision occurred by the pilot's fault on the voyage up the river at a spot within the port of London but short of the ship's destination. It was held, assuming that the ship, which belonged to the port of London, could not have been compelled to take on board a pilot at the place where the collision occuiTed, that the owners were not liable for the collision. The engage- ment of the pilot having been, in the first instance, com- pulsory, and the right and duty of the pilot under that (p) The Batavier, 2 W. Rob. 407 ; case) that a pilot on board under The Hibernian, L. R. 4 P. C. 611. somewhat similar cii-cumstances re- (q) The Woburn Abbey, 3 Mar. mained in charge of the ship. See Law Cas. O. S. 240. This case was also the case next stated in the text, decided upon the words of the Local In America [The Lotty, Olcott. Adm. Act. In The Christiana, 7 Moo. 329) it was held that the owners P.C.C. 160 (under 6 Geo. IV. c. 125, were liable for improper moorings s. 55), it was said by the Privy twelve hours after the pilot had Council (though the dictum was not brought the ship up. necessary for the decision of the OWNERS EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY, 105 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 (r). A ship, being obliged by law to be navigated by a pilot Collision when "proceeding to sea," left the Liverpool docks in ^ip^islyfng charge of a pilot. Owing to unfavourable weather she was ^^ ^^^ "'^^'' ■L 1 ^ •!• X with pilot on brought-up m the river. It was held that the owners were board, not liable for a collision caused by the pilot's negligence whilst the ship was lying in 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 (s). In every case of collision it is the duty of the master of The defence each ship to " stand by " and assist the other ; and not the pHot^ri?"'^ less so because at the time of the collision his ship is in good notwith- charge of a compulsory pilot. The law is express that, if sj^victfc. 85, he fails to do so, his ship " shall be deemed to be in fault." ^- ^''• But, notwithstanding 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 (t). Where a collision occurred when the pilot was unavoid- Collision while ably 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 (r) General Steam Navigation Co. ibid. 5 P. C. 451 ; 77ie Princeton, V. British & Colonial Steam Nav. 3 P. D. 90. These decisions were Co., L. R. 3 Ex. 330 ; on app., ibid. under the Local (Liverpool) Act. 4 Ex. 238. In The Hnnlmv, 40 L. For other decisions under this Act, T. N. S. 335, the decision in the see below, p. 126. case in the text that pilotage is not (t) See The Queen, L. K. 2 A. & compulsory for a London ship in the E. 354. This case was decided port of London was not followed by under 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, s. 33. Sir R. Phillimore in the Admiralty The decision would, it is submitted, Division. be the same in a similar case under (s) The City of Cambridge, Wood the present Act, 36 & 37 Vict. c. V. Smith, L. R. 4 A. & E, 161 ; 85, s. 16 ; &eesupra,\). 12. 106 COMPULS(JRY PILOTAGE. was held that the owners were liable for a collision for which the ship was in fault (u). Proof reciuired To make the defence of " compulsory pilot " good, it must gence causing be proved that the negligence causing the collision was the the loss was negligence of the pilot (x). Where a collision was caused the negligence , .. of the pilot, by the helm being improperly put to starboard, it was held that, to relieve the oAvners from liability, it must be proved that the order to put the helm to starboard was given by the pilot (y). In The Carrier Dove [z), a ship in the jMersey was getting her anchor in heavy weather with the assistance of a tug a-head. She was struck by a squall, and driven on a ship at anchor. It was held by the Privy Council that the state of the weather, and other circumstances, made it im- prudent 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. 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 board of a licensed 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 (a). Owner.s not It is Only where the collision Avas caused entirely by the HabRi^y where fault of the pilot that owners are exempt from liability. there is con- jf ^nv fault or negligence on the part of the owaiers or tributory , . "^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ ^ negligence on their Servants or crew has contributed to the loss, they, as the part of the ^^jj ^^ ^^iq pilot, are responsible (b). And the owners are ship s crew. r ' r \ / (m) The Mobile, Swab. Adm. 69 ; 94. It is not clear whether the on app. ibid. 127 . As to the duty Court considered the pilotage com- of the master to be on deck, see The pulsory. From The Mana, L. 11. 1 Obey, L. R. 1 A. & E. 10-2. A. & E. 358, it seems that under the (x) Clyde Navigation Co. v. Bar- Local Act the employment of the clay, 1 App. Cas. 790. pilot was not compulsory. {y) The Schwalbe, Lush. 239. (b) The Mobile. Swab. Adm. 127 ; (2) Brown. & Lush. 113. The Diana, 1 W. Rob. 131 ; 4 Moo. (rt) Th^ Borussia, Swab. Adm. P. C. C. 11. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE OF OAVNERS. 107 responsible for the whole of the loss, though caused in part by the fault of the pilot (c). There has been some confusion as to the burden of proof B"™^^ ^f ^ proDi as to in such cases ; and until quite recently the law has been negligence, unsettled. It was at one time held that where a compul- soiy pilot was in charge, or even on board, the owners were prima facie exempted from liability (d). Then it was held that, in order to make good his claim to exemption, the owner 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 (e). It is now settled that the owners are not required to prove absence of con- tributory negligence, but that, under certain circumstances, it will be presumed. If the owners prove fault on the part of the pilot sufficient to cause, and in fact causing, the collision, in the absence of proof of contributory negligence on the part of the crew, it is held that they 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 the 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 (/). A qualified pilot is empowered by law, in pilotage waters, Qualified pilot to supersede an unqualified pilot in charge of a ship, unqualified whether she is subject to compulsory pilotage, or not (g). P^^"*- It has not been decided whether the owners are liable for a (c) See The Diana, Stuart v. Ire- P. C. 426, was dissented from ; The monger, 4 Moo. P. C. C. 11. Marathon, 48 L. J. Ad. 17. (d) TJie Vernon, 1 W. Eob. 316; (g) 17 & 16 Vict. c. 104, s. 360. Bennet v. Moita, 7 Taunt. 258 ; The It seems that the master of a tug Christiana, 2 Hag. Ad. 183. employed to tow only, and not to (e) The lona, L. R. 1 P. C. 426. pilot the ship, could ncU be super- (/ ) Clyde Nav. Co. v. Barclay, 1 seded by a qualified pilot under this App. Cas. 790, in which case the Act ; see Bcilhy v. Scott, 7 M. & W. rule laid down in The lona, L. R. 1 93, decided under 6 Geo. IV. c. 125. 108 COMPULSORY PILOTAGE. collision caused by the fault of a qualified pilot who has superseded an unqualified pilot, in the case of a ship for which pilotage is not compulsory. The statutory exemp- tion (17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, sect. 388) 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 autho- rity of the law, not by their choice, and not as their servant. Exemption of The rule that owners are not liable for damage done by orcompulsory t^^ir ship whou in charge of a compulsory pilot, and by his pilotage will fault, has been said to take away a remedy from the tended. Sufferer, and it will not be extended (h). Where the master of a French ship in the Thames, at the pilot's request, engaged a waterman to take the helm, and a col- lision occurred by the fault of the waterman in not carrying out the pilot's orders, it was held that the waterman was in the employment of the owners, and that they were liable (i). And in Admiralty it is held that a defendant who succeeds only upon the defence of compulsory pilotage must bear his own costs (k). Compulsory Where a ship in tow is in charge of a compulsory pilot, ofaVhip^'^^^ there is doubt whether the tug and her owners are free tow. from 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 (Z). In a case decided under 6 Geo. IV. 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 (h) In The Bailey, L. R. 2 A. & L. R. 2 P. C. 193. E. 3, 15, Sir R. PhiUimore said that {i) The General de Caen, Swab, the law,by which owners of a wrong- Ad. 9. doing ship are not liable for the {k) See supra, p. 72. fault of a compulsory pilot, is " fruit- (I) The Ocean Wave, L. R. 3 P. C. ful in injustice ;" but see the obser- 205. vations of the L.JJ., S. C. on app. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE OF OWNERS. 109 damage occasioned by such vessel. But if the pilot was to be deprived of his authority, 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 owners of that vessel would no longer be protected by the Act of Parliament " (m). 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 the 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 a recent case, however, it was considered by Sir R. Phillimore that in Admiralty the tug would be liable in such a case (n). If a ship is deficient in hull or equipment, and a colli- P^®" ^*^^® I- . lor deficiency sion occurs in consequence, her owners are liable although of ship or their ship is in charge of a compulsory pilot (o). Thus ®q"'P">®" • owners have been held liable for the insufficiency of ground tackle (2)). So if the vessel will not steer (q), or if the crew is insufficient or incapable (r), or if the tug employed by the master is not of sufficient power (s), " 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 (m) The Duke of Sussex, 1 W. Cas. 204 ; The Peru, 1 Pritch. Ad. Rob. 270, 273. Dig. 440. (n) The Man/, 5 P. D. 14; and (r) The General dc Caen, Swab. Bee supra, p. 81. And see generally Ad. 9 ; The Hope, 1 W. Rob. 154 ; as to Tug & Tow, Ch. III. and see below, p. 218. (0) The Christiana, Hammond v. (s) The Ocean Wave, Marshall v. Rogers, 7 Moo. P. C. C. 160. Moran, L. R. 3 P. C. 205 ; The (p) The Massachusetts, 1 W. Rob. Belgic, 2 P. D . 57, note ; and see 371. The Julia, Lush. 224. (q) The lAi'ia, 1 A.'jp. Mar. Law 110 COMPULSORY PILOTAGE. Pilot super- sedes the master in command. in charge of a compulsory pilot. It was held by Dr. Lushington that the owners were relieved from liability (t). He said : " If she was in ordinary safe trim, then, although she might be in handier trim, and although the trim of the ship in fact contributed to the collision, they (the owners) are not responsible." 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 in 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 comj)etency of the master and crew, and their obedience to the orders of the pilot in everything that concerns his duty ; and under ordinary circumstances we think that his commands are to be implicitly obeyed. To him belongs 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 " (u). (r) TJte Argo, Swab. Adm. 462. (m) Per Parke, B., in The Chris- tiana, Hammmul v. Rogers, 7 Moo. P. C. C. 160, 171 ; approved in The City of Cambridge, Wood v. Smith, L. E. 5 P. C. 45] , 457. The Queen's Regulations for the Navy of 1879, following the language of previous Regulations of 1808, 1833, and 1862, contain a description of the duties and responsibilities in Her Majesty's Service of the captain, navigating officer, and pilot. Art. 940 is a.s follows : " The captain is to order everything that relates to the navi- gation of the ship to be performed as the pilot shall require ; but never- theless he, and the navigating officer, are to attend particularly to his con- duct ; and if from his own or the navigating officer's observations he shall have reason to believe the pilot not qualified to conduct the ship, or that he is running her into danger, the captain is to remove him from charge, and take all necessary mea- sures for the safety of the ship, not- ing the time of the pilot being so removed in the ship's logbook ; and if the ship be at any time damaged through the ignorance or negligence of the pilot when a common degree of attention on the part of the cap- tain and navigating officer would have prevented the disaster, those officers will be deemed to have ne- glected their duty. This Article is equally applicable to the case of a DUTIES OF THE PILOT. Ill It is the exclusive duty of the pilot to give the orders Pilot's duties. to the helm (v); to decide upon the proper time and place of bringing up (x) ; and as to the proper mode of carrying the anchor, before letting go (y) ; to see that the ship rides with a pro^Der scope of cable out ; to tend her whilst swinging ; to let go a second anchor if necessary ; and to manoeuvre her if she parts from her anchor (z). He decides as to the rate of speed, and the canvas to carry (a) ; whether to run through a crowded roadstead at night, or to bring up (h). When brought up, he must keep an eye on the weather, and be read}'^ for a change without relying upon the look-out for a report (c). It is for the pilot to decide upon the time, place, and manner of turning a ship, when docking (d). 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 (e). It is the duty of the pilot to employ a tug, where the safety of the ship requires it (/). And it seems that the pilot is responsible if the ship is got ship in tlie charge of a Queen's The George, 4 Not. of Cas. 161 ; The Harbour Master or the Master At- Christiana, 7 Moo. P. C. C. 160, tfindantof a Dockyard." Under this 172; The Lochibo, ibid. 427 ; 3 W. Article it seems that if a ship gets Kob. 310. ashore in consequence of an ob- (//) The Gipsey King, 2 W. Eob. viously wrong course given by the 537 ; but see infra, p. 112, as to the pilot, the captain is held responsible. duty of the crew to .see that the The Spauish Commercial Code anchor is clear. (Art. 676, 691, and 693) places the [z) The City of Cambridge, Wood pilot in the position of adviser to v. Smith, L. R. 5 P. C. 451 ; The the captain, and the ultimate au- Northampton, 1 Sp. E. & A. 152 ; thority and responsibility of the The Princeton, 3 P. D. 90. latter is expressly preserved. In (a) The Calabar, L. R. 2 P. C. America, pilots of passenger ships 238 ; The Maria, 1 W. Rob. 95, have a special authority ; 10 Stat. 110 ; The Julia, Lush. 224 ; The at Large, Ch. 6(5, s. 28. In the Batavier, 1 Sp. E. & A. 378, 383 ; Suez Canal, where pilotage is com- 9 Moo. P. C. C. 286 ; The Lochibo, pulsory, the responsibility, as regards ubi supra. the management of the ship, de- (6) The Lochibo, ubi supra. volves solely on the cajitain ; see (o) The Princeton, 3 P. D. 90. Regulations of 1st July, 1878. The (d) The Ocean Wave, Marshall v. effect of this regulation on owners' Moran, L. R. 3 P. C. 205. liability is not clear. (e) The Ocean Ware, ubi supra, (v) The Schwalbe, Lush. 239. {/) The Julia, Lush. 224 ; and see (x) The Agricola, 2 W. Rob. 10 ; The Peerless, 13 Moo. P. C. C. 484. 112 COMPULSORY Pn.OTAGE. Duties of master and crew. under way in weathei- when it is imprudent to move (g). This however is not clear, for, in some cases, it has been said that the master is responsible for being under way in improper weather (Ji). Although the pilot's authority is paramount, the master is not free from responsibility. In The Batavier (i) Dr. Lushington said : " There are many cases in which I should hold that, notwithstanding the pilot has charge, it is the duty of the master to prevent accident, and not to abandon the vessel entirely to the pilot; but that there are certain duties he has to discharge, notwithstanding there is a pilot on board, for the benefit of the owners." 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. The master and crew must keep a good look-out, and keep the pilot in- formed of the position, movements of and possible danger to other ships (k) ; they must have the anchor clear, and ready to let go, when the pilot gives the order (I) ; the master is responsible for the sufficiency and power of a tug employed for ordinary towage service (w) ; and although not bound to be always on deck (n), he is generally responsible for the ordinary work of the ship being properly carried on, and usual precautions being taken without express order from the pilot (o). A ship was in collision with another coming out of dock. {g) The Carrier Dove, Br. and Lush. 113 ; The Lochibo, 7 Moo. P. C. C. 427. {h) See The Ocean Wave, vbi supra; TJie Girolamo, 3 Hag. Ad. 169, infra, p. 115 ; The Borussia, Swab. Ad. 94. ({) 1 Sp. E. & A. 378, 383 ; S. C. on App. Nona. Netherlands Steam- boat (Jo. V. Styleg, 9 Moo. P. C. C. 286. (k) The Batavier, vbi supra; The Diana, 1 W. Rob. 131 ; 4 Moo. P. C. C. 11 ; The Velasquez, L. R. 1 P. C. 494 ; The Julia, Lush. 224 ; The Atlas, 2 W. Rob. 502. (I) The General Parkhill and The Centurion, 1 Pritch. Ad. Dig. 172 ; and see The Peei-less, 13 Moo. P. C. C. 484. (m) The Ocean Wave, ubi supra; The Julia, ubi supra. {n) See The Obey, L. R. 1 A. & E. 102. (o) The Christiana, infra ; and see cases cited infra, p. 117. DUTIES OB' MASTER AND CREW. 113 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 (p). A ship in charge of a compulsory pilot, having been in collision with another, drove on board a third. It was held that the owners were liable in consequence of the negligence of the master and crew in the following par- ticulars : 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 {q). A ship in charge of a compulsory pilot was riding in the Downs in heavy weather, and drove from her anchors on board another ship. If some of her gear aloft had been sent 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 topmasts, &c., we do not say that the owners might not have been excused from responsibility for the consequences of that omission " (r). The OMrners are responsible for the pilot's orders being (p) The Calabar, L. R. 2 P. C. Light, 1 Mar. Law. Cas. O. S. 183. 238. (?•) The Christiana, Hammond v, (5) The Annapolis &nA. The Golden Rogers, 7 Moo. P. C. C. 160, 173. 114 COMPULSORY riLOTAGR. promptly and efficiently carried out. If the helm is not shifted (s), the anchor let go (t), or the engines stopped (u) 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 (a;), and to see that they are carried out. If, in carrying them out, ordinary prudence and seamanship require a particular precaution to be taken, it will be held to be negligence in the master if the precaution is omitted. Thus the omission to run out a warp or check line when docking (y), or to cut a lanyard which holds two ships together when in collision (z), is held negligence in the master or crew. Interference In case of the pilot's intoxicatiou, or manifest incapacity, ^it™the^ pilot, ^t is ^^® duty of the master to take charge of the ship (a). And if an emergency or sudden danger arises, when the pilot is not at hand, or which he does not foresee, the master would be justified in giving an order necessary for the ship's safety (b). But interference w^ith the pilot's duties is justified only by urgent necessity (c). 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. " It would be a most dangerous doctrine to hold, except under the most extraordinary circumstances, that the master could he justified in interfering with the pilot in his proper vocation. If the two authorities could so clash, the danger would be mateiially augmented, and the interests of the owner, which are now protected by the general principles of law, and (s) The Lockiho, 4 Moo. P. C. V. 371. 427 ; TheJuJia, Lush. 224. (a) The Christiana, Hammond v. (0 The Atlas, 2\V. Eob. 502 ; The Rogers, 7 Moo. P. C. C. 160, 172; Peerless, 1-3 Moo. P. C. C. 484. The Lochibo,Pollok v. McAlpin, ibid. (u) The Ripon, 6 Not. of Cas. 427; The Hiherma, 4 Jur. N. S. 245. 1244. (x) The A d7niralBoxer,Sv,-a.h. Ad. {b) The City of Cambndge, Wood 193; The Lochibo,'iW. Eob. £10, v. Smith, L. R. 5 P. C. 451, 459 ; 328. TkeArgo, Swab. Ad. 462. (y) The Cynthia, 2 F. J). 52. (c) The Argq, ubi svp. (?) The Massarhuscfts, 1 W. Eob. INTERFEREN'CE T',Y THF, MASTER. 115 specific enactments, from liability for the acts of the pilot, would be most severely prejudiced " ((?). In The Girolamo (e), a ship, with a pilot on board, was under way in the Thames in a fog so dense that she could not proceed without danger to other craft. Sir J. NichoU 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 subsequent 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 (/). 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 (g). In The Julia, Lord Kingsdo\vn 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 " misconduct in the master and disobe- dience to the orders of the pilot " (h). It is not improper interference on the part of the master to make suggestions to the pilot or to offer him advice (i). And, in case of a manifest danger, it is the duty of the master to interfere to this extent. In a salvage case, where a ship in charge of a pilot was in tow, and the course given to the tug by the pilot was clearly dangerous and wrong, Lord Campbell, in deliveriug the opinion of the Privy {d) Per Dr. Lushington in The Wild Hose, 2 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. Maria, 1 W. Rob. 95, 110. See also 319 ; The Lnchibo, 3 W. Rob. 310, The llihei-nia, 4 Jur. N. S. 1244; 320 ; 7 Moo. P. C. 427, and see si/^^ra, Tlie Duke of Sussex, supra, p. 109, p. 111. and the cases cited, svpra, p. 81, (g) The Argo, ^v;ah. AA. A. on app. ih. 387. 44« ; 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, s. 40. {in) Luccij V. Inyram, 6 M. & W. LOCAL PILOTAGE ACTS. 123 10 & 11 Vict. c. 52 (Local), ss. 98— lOG ; for bye-laws see Pari. Pap. No. 408 of 1867 (4 BJakeiipy or Clmj : Pilotage is compulsory for all vessels, except coasters of 50 tons and upwards, entering or leaving the harbour; 57 Geo. III. c. 70 (Local); for bye-laws see Pari. Paper, No. 268 of 1879. Boston: Pilotage is compulsory inwards and outwards for vessels over 30 tons; 16 Geo. IIL c. 23 (Local); for bye-laws see Pari. Paper, No. 268 of 1879; see also 32 Geo. IIL c. 79 (Local). Bridf/water : See London Tiiiuty Home. Bristol : Pilotage is compulsory for all vessels navigating the Bristol Channel eastward of Lundy Island, except coasters, Irish traders, and vessels bound to or from Carditf, Newport, or Gloucester : 47 Geo. IIL (Sess. 2) c. 33 (Local), ss. 9 — 27 ; 24 & 25 Vict. c. 236 (Local), s. 4 ; for bye-laws see Pari. Papers, No. 408 of 1867, and No. 268 of 1879; Order in Council of 19th July, 1862. Caernarvon, Carlisle : See London Trinity Llome. Chester: Pilotage is compulsory for inAvard bound vessels, except coasters and Irish traders; 16 Geo. III. c. 61 (Local)- for bye-laws see Pari. Papers, No. 276 of 1875, and No. 268 of 1879. Clyde : See Glasgow. ColcheMer, and Dartmouth : See London Trinity Home. Drogheda : Pilotage is compulsory inwards and outwards for all vessels except steam-ships ; 5 Vict. Sess. 2, c. 56 (Local), ss. 200—205 ; and vessels under 30 tons ; see bye-laws, Pari. Paper, No. 268 of 1879. 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 coasters laden with fish in bulk, or potatoes ; 32 & 33 Vict. c. 100 (Local), ss. 20, seq. ; for bye-laws see Pari. Paper, No. 292 of 1876. (o) The Dc Bras, It. 1\cy>. A. 1 Eq. 72 ; The Arbutus, 2 Mar. Law Cas. 0. S. 136. 124 COMPULSORY PILOTAGR. Dundalk : Pilotage is conipiilsory 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. HI gin : See Lossiemouth. Exeter, Falmouth, Fleetwood, and Foivey : See London Trinity House. Fraserburgh : Pilotage is compulsory for all vessels inward bound ; 2 & 3 Vict. c. 65 (Local), s. 82 ; for bye-laws see Pari. Paper, No. 232 of 1873. Gainsborough : See Kingston-itiJon-Hidl. Galway : Pilotage is compulsory inwards and outwards from the roadstead to the docks for all vessels of and over 50 tons, and vessels coming in from stress of weather or contrary winds ; 16 & 17 Vict. c. 207 (Local), ss. 62, seq. ; and see 23 & 24 Vict. c. 202 (Local). Glasgoio : Pilotage is regulated in the Clyde by 21 & 22 Vict. c. 149 (Local), s. 134, seq. It is compulsory for vessels over 60 tons navigating the Clyde between Hutchinsontown Bridge and a straight line drawn from the east end of J^ewark Castle to Cardross Burn, except vessels under 100 tons in tow of a tug whose master has a pilotage certificate ; see Order in Council of 12th September, 1863. The bye-laws are in ParL Papers, No. 408 of 1867, and No. 268 of 1879. Goole : See Ki^igston-^ipon^Hidl. G^'eenock : See Glasgot/K Grimsby: See Kingston-iqMn-HuU, and 12 & 13 Vict. c. 81 (Local). Harwich, and Hohjhmd : See Loudon Trinity House. Hull, and Humber : See K i ngston-upon-Hidl. Ipsicich, and Isle of Wight : See London Trinity House. King^s Lynn : Pilotage is compulsory in and out for all vessels, except vessels under 30 tons ; 13 Geo. III. c. 30 (Local); and except vessels arriving within the Marsh Cut banks without falling in with a pilot ; for bye-laws see Pari. Paper, No. 204 of 1874, and Orders in Council of 1st March, 1864; 14th April, 1869; 21st February, 1874; and 26th March, 1878. Kingston-iqoon-Hull, Trinity House of : The Trinity House of Hull was incorporated by charters of 23rd Elizabeth and 13th LOCAL PILOTAGE ACTS. 125 Charles II. (i?). Its jurisdiction {q) includes the river Ilumber, Hidl, Goole, Selby, Grimsby, Gainsborough, Spalding, and Wisbeach. It is now regulated by 2 & 3 Will. IV. c. 105 (Local). Under that Act pilotage, outwards and inwards, is compulsory for all vessels except British coasters, British vessels drawing less than 6 feet of watei-, vessels putting in for shelter or provisions, and vessels under 100 tons drawing 10 feet, or less than 1 feet, of water and navigating between Goole and Hull Eoads ; see bye-law approved by Order in Council of 20th November, 1873 ; Pari. Papers, No. 204 of 1874, and No. 408 of 1867. See also for other bye-laws Pari. Papers, No. 178 of 1869, and No. 232 of 1873; and Orders in Council of 31st July {Gazette, 13th August), 1858, Uth January, 1859, 12th September, 1863, 10th May, 1872, and (as to Spalding) 25th June, 1857. It has been held that under the Local Act (ss. 22, 89) pilot- age is not compulsory for a vessel beuig towed from one part of the port of Hull to another (r). In The KiUarney (s) 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 Geo. IV. c. 125, by which (s. 58) pilotage is compulsory in licensed waters, except (s. 59) (amongst other exceptions) where a ship is in her home port, being a port for which no " particular pro- vision " as to pilotage had been made by Act or charter. The exception of s. 59 does not include Hull, for which provision was made by 52 Geo. III. c. 39. Pilotage certificates are granted to the masters of foreign ships by the Trinity House of Hull (t). By the original charters the Hull Trinity House was enabled to grant licenses to pilot vessels outward bound only. It was doubted by Dr. Lushington, in The Killariieij, whether the {p) See The KiUarney, Lush. 427, 358. 436. (s) Lush. 427. It seems, how- (q) For the limits of the jurisdic- ever, doubtful whether 6 Geo. IV. tion, see The KiUarney, uhi supra; c. 125, ss. 58, 59, applies to Hull Beilby v. Raper, 3 B. & Ad. 284; pilotage; see s«^;?-rt, p. 119, note (w). Dock Company of HuU w. Browne, ^ (t) Keport of Pilotage Committee, B. & Ad. 43. 1870, p. 24. (r) The Maria, L. R . 1 A. & E. 126 COMPULSORY PILOTAGE. charters were valid to make pilotage compulsory under penalty, altliougli they purported to do so. But by 52 Geo. III. c. 39, s. 21, provision was made for granting licenses for piloting vessels bound inwards. Kirhcaldy : Pilotage is compulsory for vessels inward bound under 12 & 13 Vict. c. 30 (Local), s. 31. Lancaster : Pilotage is compulsory in and out, 47 Geo. III. sess. 2, c. 37 (Local) ; for bye-laws see Pari. Pap. Ko. 408, of 1867. LittJrliampton : See Anindel. Liverpool : Pilotage is compulsory inwards and outwards, ex- cept for coasting vessels in ballast, coasting vessels under 100 tons, and, perhaps, coasting steam-ships outward bound (?/), 21 & 22 Vict, c. 92 (Local); for bye-laws see Pari. Pap. Xo. 408, of 1867, and Orders in Council of 9th May, 1866, and 30th Jan. 1854 {i^. As to the meaning of "coasting vessels," see bye-law ISTo. 148. The effect of the Act appears to be that vessels under 100 tons, not being coasters, are not exempt; see ss. 130 — 141. London : The principal pilotage authority in the United Kingdom is the London Trinity House, or the Trinity House of Deptford Stroud. Its jurisdiction includes three districts, or classes of districts {x). They are — (1) The London District, ex- tending 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, ex- tending from Dungeness to the Isle of AVight ; (3) The Trinity Outport Districts, compri-ing any pilotage district for the ap- pointment of pilots within which no particular provision is made by any Act of Parliament or charter (,/■). At Bridgwater, Ipswich, and Neath, the London Trinity House (m) This exemption is not expressly StoU, Lush. 295; and under the repealed by the Local Act, and seems former Liverpool Act, Carruthers v. to be still in force under 17 & 18 SidebotJiam, 4 M & S. 77 ; Attorney- Vict. c. 104, s. 353. ' General v. Case, 3 Trice 302 ; Rod- (r) Kor decisions under the Ijiver- riguez\. Melhuish, 10 Ex. 110 ; The pool Act, see The Frmceton, 3 P. D. Northampton, 1 Sp. E. & A. 152; 90 ; The City of Cambridge, L. R. 4 The Agricola, 2 W. Rob. 10. A. & E. 161 ; on app. ih. 5 P. C. (.«) See 17 & 18 A'ict. c. 104, 451 ; The Ocean Wave, L. R. 3 P. 0. s. 370. 205 ; The Annapoli,fa,nd The Johanna LONDON TRINITY HOUSE. 127 is the pilotage authority, and compulsory pilotage is established by special Acts (//). Between Orfordness and the Xore the jurisdiction of the London Trinity House is exclusive. The Leith Trinity House, notwithstanding the terms of its charter, and of 1 Geo. IV. c. 37, has no authority to grant pilotage licenses for that district (z). The bye-laws of the London Trinity House are set out in Pari. Paper, No. 260 of 1872. The names of the Trinity Outport Districts are : Aberdovey, Beaumaris, Bridgwater (a), Bridport, Caernarvon, Carlisle, Col- chester, Dartmouth (&), Exeter (c), Falmouth (d), Fleetwood and Barrow, Fowey, Harwich, Holyhead, Ipswich (e). Isle of Wight, Maldon, Milford, ISTeath (/), Newhaven, Padstow, Penzance, Plymouth, Poole, Portmadoc, Kochester, Eye, St. Ives (Hayle), Scilly, Shorehain, Southampton, Teignmouth, Wells, Wey- mouth (g), Woodbridge, and Yarmouth. Their limits are defined in Parliamentary Paper, 'No. 516 of 1854 — 5. The production of evidence that the Trinity House was accustomed to license pilots for the district at and previous to the passing of 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104 is sufficient proof that the district is an outport district within s. 370 of the same Act (h). Orders in Council approving bye-laws of the London Trinity House, by which various classes of ships are exempt from compulsory pilotage, and providing for the granting of pilotage certificates to masters and mates, are of the follo\ving dates : 18th Feb. 1854 ; 1st May, 1855 ; 21st Nov. 1855 ; two of the 16th July, 1857; 25th July, 1861; 21st Dec. 1871; two of 6th Feb. 1873 ; and 20th Nov. 1873. In the London District and the Outport Districts, pilotage is expressly made compulsory by 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 376. In the English Channel District, it is free. There are, however, (y) These Acts are specifierl in Nov. 1857. connection with the places to which (d) See T7ie Juno, 1 P. D. 135. they belong. (e) 15 Vict. c. 116 (Local), under (2) i^ossaci' V. 6Va2/, 12 L. T. N.S. which coasters under 50 tons are 701. exempt ; and see Hadrjraft v. llewith, (a) See Ord. in Council of 17th L. K 10 Q. B. 350. May, 1867 ; 8 & 9 Vict. c. 89 (Local). (/) 6 & 7 Vict. c. 71 (Local). (b) See Ord. in Council of 12th (g) See Ord. in Council of 6th Aug. 1859. June, 185;). (r) See Ord. in Council of 4th (h) The Jvno, 1 P. D. 135. 128 COMPULSORY I'lLOTAGE. 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 all the London Trinity House Districts : — Foreign ships coming up the Thames by the south channels, on their inward voyage from the Cattegat or White Sea, or any place in or between them ; British ships on like voyages, inwards or outwards, and whether using the north or south channels of the Thames ; ships trading to or from ports between Boulogne (inclusive) and the Baltic, but, as to foreign ships inward bound, only if entering the Thames by the south channels ; ships passing through any pilotage district, except, it seems, when carrying passengers between places situated in the United Kingdom, Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney, Sark, or Man ; 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 jurisdiction 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 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 353, wliich continues 6 Geo. IV. c. 125, ss. 59, 62, and an Order in Council of the 18th of Feb., 1854 (k). The following ships are also exempt when not carrying pas- sengers (Z) between places in the United Kingdom or the islands mentioned above : (A) coasters, sliips of and under 60 tons, stone ships from the Channel Islands, ships navigating within their home ports; (B) sliips in ballast, on a voyage between places in the United Kingdom ; (C) ships trading between Great Britain, the Channel Islands, or the Isle of Man, and any place in Europe north of the Baltic, or between Brest (inclusive) and Boulogne ; (D) ships passing through the limits of any pilotage district, not being bound to any place in such district, or anchor- ing therein (m). (k) See Beg. v. Stanton, 8 E. &B. of ships mentioned- in the text, see 445 ; The Earl of Aukland, Lush. Williams v. Newton, 14 M. & W. 164 ; The Moselle, 2 Asp. Mar. Law 747 ; Peake v. Scrutch, 7 Q. B. 603. Cas. 586 ; The Wesley, Lush. 268; The Act 16 & 17 Vict. c. 129 does The Hanna, L. E-. 1 A. & E. 28.3. not appear to have repealed 6 Geo. The last case establishes the dis- IV. c. 125, s. 62. tinction, stated in the text, between (0 The Ternora, Lush. 17. British and foreign ships. As to (m) As to (.\), see 17 & 18 Vict. 24 & 25 Vict. c. 47, see infra, p. c. 104, s. 379. As to ousters, see 131, note (e). As to the last class The Sea Queen or The Lloyds, Lush, LOCAL PILOTAGE ACTS. 129 Londonderry : Pilotage is compulsory on all vessels, inwards and outwards, except vessels of and under 60 tons in ballast ; 48 Geo. III. c. 136 (Local), s. 23 ; 17 & 18 Vict. c. 177 (Local), ss. 68, seq. ; for bye-laws see Pari. Paper, IS'o. 408 of 1867. Lossiemouth : Pilotage is compulsory inwards and outwards for all vessels over 40 tons ; 19 & 20 Vict. c. 67 (Local), s. 57 ; 31 & 32 Vict. c. 47 (Local). Lowestoft, Maldon, Milford, Neath, Newhnven, Pudstork, and Penzance : See London Trinity Housp. Newcastle: See infra, p. 131, as to foreign ships. Peterhead : Pilotage is compulsory under 36 & 37 Vict. c. 157 (Local), ss. 77, seq., for all vessels of 30 tons and upwards, bound in and out, except steam-tugs for the use of vessels frequenting the harbour. Plymouth, and Poole : See London Trinity House. Port Talbot (formerly Aheravon) : Pilotage is compulsory under 4 Will. IV. c. 43 (Local), s. 73, on all vessels inwards and outwards (n). Portmadoc, Rye, SciUy, and Shoreham: See London Trinity Hoitse. Pidteney : Pilotage is compulsory for vessels over 40 tons in and out; 20 & 21 Vict. c. 93 (Local), s. 52, 54. See also Wicli. Sligo : 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). Spcdding : See Kingston-upon-Hidl. Swansea : Pilotage is compulsory for vessels of 1 00 tons and upwards bound in or out ; 17 & 18 Vict. c. 126 (Local); for bye-laws see Pari. Pap. Xo. 178 of 1871 ; and Orders in 197 ; The Agricola, 2 W. Eoh. 10. port,, The Killarnei/, Lush. 457. As As to ships within their home port, to the class (B), see Orders iu Coun- where the port is London, The cil of 21st Nov. 1855, and 25th July, Stettin, Br. & Lush. 199, and General 1861. As to (C), Order in Council of Steam Nav. Co. v. British ^ i- i ti_ii_t- • 2 \. j.\. meaniBg of Regulations become applicable has been recognised by the "risk of col- American Courts (a). 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 (x) J^e Cofcjiia, 3 Not. of Cas. 13, (z) General Steam Nav. Co. v. note. Mann, 14 C. B. 127, 132. (y) The Ericsson, Swab. Ad. 38. (a) The Nicholh, 7 Wall. 656. WHAT IS KISK OF COLLISION ? 139 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 "(6). In The Mihvaukee (c) 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. The distance, rate of sailing, and course of another vessel, and the direction of the wind, are never known exactly. There is often great difficulty in determining the moment at which, and the manner in which, the Regulations are to be applied. 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 Regulations (d). Where there is no risk of collision, a vessel that improperly alters her helm so as to bring about a collision will be held to be in fault (e). If a vessel is disabled, or slow in answering her helm, it is her duty to be prompt in taking the measures required by the Regulations (/). If a ship sees another in a position that may involve risk of collision, but is unable to make out what course the other is on, she should keep her course, and not alter her (6) The Wenona, 19 "Wall. 41, 52. altered, before any risk is incurred, The same or similar words occur in if the courses are such that, if con- the judgments in The NichoUs, 7 tinned, there would be risk ; see Wall. 656 ; The Johnson, 9 Wall. The Mihvaukee, Brown, Adm. 313, 146 ; and The Dexter, 23 Wall. 69, 331. In the same case, it was held (c) Brown Ad. 313. that the chance of the other vessel {(l) The Jesmoiid and The Earl of disobeying the Regulations must be Elgin, L. R. 4 P. C. 1 ; see also The taken into account. This seems Free State, 1 Otto, 200, for a decision clearly wrong. of the Supreme Coiu-t of the United (c) The Kezia and The Eliza, Holt, States to the same effect. An 67 ; The Dapper and The Lady erroneous view seems to have been Normanby, ibid. 79 ; The Esk and taken in some American cases, in Tfie Niord, L. R. 3 P. C. 436 ; The which it has been held that precau- Inflexible, Swab. Ad. 32. tions should be taken, and the helm (f) The Test, 5 Not. of Cas. 276. 140 THE REGULATIONS FOR PREVENTING COLLISIONS. helm, or take any decisive step until she has ascertained the other ship's course {g). " 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 " Qi). An alteration of the helm made for greater safety when 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 (i). Cases in which It has been held that the vessels were approaching " so "risk of col- as to involve risk of collision" in the following cases: — Two lision." steam-ships meeting on nearly opposite courses at a joint speed of eighteen or nineteen knots, and distant a mile and a half {k) ; a steam-ship 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 {I). 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 Supreme Court of the United States that there was risk of collision {im). {rj) The Rona and The Ava, 2 Eastern, 2 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 97. Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 182 ; The (i) The Sylph, Swab. Adm. 233. James Watt, 2 W. Rob. 270 ; The {k) The Jesmond and The Earl of Moderation, 1 Mar. Law Cas. 0. S. Elyin, L. R. 4 P. C. L 413 ; The Bongainville and The (I) The Bomjainville and The Jos. James C. Stevenson, L. R. 5 P. C. C. Stevenson, L. R. 5 P. C. 316. 316, 321. {m) The Nicholls, 7 Wall. 656 ; {k) Per'Dv. 'L\xs\nmgton,TheOreat and see The Cayuga, 14 Wall. 270. THEIR APPLICATION. l^l When two ships are approachinsr each other with risk Wlien the of collision, the Eule of the Koacl applies once and for all to or " crossing" take them clear. A ship is never required by the Regula- JolftinuS^^' ^* tions, after having sighted another, to alter her course first applicable to starboard and then to port ; or first to keep her course I" 'determined. and then to keep out of the way; or vice versa. In the case, for example, of steam-ships meeting end on or nearly so, each is required by Article 15 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 (Article 15) does not cease to operate, or give place to the "crossing" rule (Article 16). The manoeuvre of porting must be persisted in until the risk of collision is determined. If porting will not take the ships clear, Article 18 or Article 23 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 "meet- ing " 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 requii'ing her to adopt a different manoeuvre. The object of the Rule of the Road and of the Regulations would be entirely frustrated if it were possible for a ship to be thrown from one rule to another ; if, whilst in the act of obeying one article, she were suddenly to come within the operation of another article requiring her, perhaps, to take an exactly opposite course, and so making the previous manoeuvre of no effect. The precautions required by the law to be taken where The Regula- there is risk of collision must be taken in time to determine complied with that riskf^i). An alteration of the helm, or other step Promptly and ^ ' ^ effectually. [n] The Trident, 1 Rp. E. & A. 217, 222. 142 THE REGULATIONS FOR PREVENTING COLLISIONS. Practice of seamen, or alleged cus- totn, incon- sistent with the Regula- tions cannot be good. 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 Regulations, 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 preventing the accident" (o). 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 (p). 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 (q). 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 altered at that time, she must prove that she answered her helm (r) in time. No alleged practice of seamen of avoiding other ships by taking measures other than, and inconsistent with, those required by the Regulations is recognized by the law. A defendant cannot be heard to allege such a practice as an excuse for a violation of the Regulations (s). Where a (o) Per Dr. Lushington in The Stadacona, 5 Not. of Cas. 371, 374. The view taken by the Courts of the United States is the same : The Johnson, 9 Wall. 146 ; The Vander- hilt, 6 Wall. 225 ; The Syracuse, 12 Wall. 167 ; The Sunnyside, 1 Otto, 208 ; The America, 2 Otto, 432. {p) The John Brotherick, 8 Jur. 276; The Benefactor, 14 Blatchf. 254. (q) See above, p. 6. (r) The La Plata, Swab. Adm. 220. (s) The Sylph, 2 Sp. E. & A, 75 ; The Unity, Swab. Ad. 101 ; The Hand of Providence, ibid. 107 ; The Araxes and The Black Prince, 15 Moo. P. C. C. 122 ; The Velo-rity, L. C. 3 P. C. 44, 50. THE RULES OF 1863 AND 1880. 143 custom was set up that merchant ships should keep out of the way of Queen's ships coming out of Devonport har- bour by the deep water channel, it was held that it was not binding in law (t). So, 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 keeping out of the strength of the tide {ii). Wilful infringement of the Regulations by a master or Consequences owner is a misdemeanour punishable by fine or imprison- ^/ infringing raent. In case of damage arising from such infringement, tions. the person in charge of the deck is liable to these penalties, unless it is proved that departure from the Regulations was necessary (v). And although the master, or person in charge of the ship, is liable criminally, the owner is answer- able civilly for damage caused by his officer's negli- gence (x). The penalties attached to non-observance of the Regu- lations by the enactments which require the Court to hold a vessel infringing them in fault for the collision have been considered in a former chapter (y). THE KEGULATIONS. The Regula- tions of 1880. The following are the Regulations coming into force upon the 1st of September, 1880. They are, in substance, the same as those in force at the present date (January, 1 880) . There are, however, some differences which are noted in the text below. The Regulations of 1863, as well as (t) The Promise and H.M.S.Topaz, see The Lady Down shire, 4 P. D, 2 Mar. Law Cas. 0. S. 38. 26 ; The Swansea and The Condor, (u) See below, p. 195. 4 P. D. 115 ; supra, p. 19. [v) 25 & 26 Vict. c. 6-3, sa. 27 and [x] See Grill v. General Iron 28 ; 17 & 18Vict. c. 104, s. 518. As Screio Collier Co., L. R. 3 C. P. 476, to the meaning of " master " and where it was held that wilful in- " owner," .see s. 2 and s. 100 of the fringement of the Regulations was Act of 1854. As to whether an in- not barratry within the meaning of fringement of local regulations is a bill of lading, within the penalty of these Acts, (y) Supra, pp. 12 — -20. 144 THE REGULATIONS those of 1880, are set out at length in the Appendix (z). The cases cited below in illustration of the Regulations were, for the most part, decided under the Regulations of 1863, but will, it is submitted, be found to be equally applicable under the Regulations of 1880. Art. 1. Article 1. In the following rules, every steamship luhich is undo' sail and not under steam is to he considered a sailing- ship ; and every steam- ship which is under steam, tvhether Definitions " Sailing- ship " ; " steam-ship." under Sail or not, is to be considered a ship under steam " Under steam ' ' : Meaning of the term. This Article is identical with Article 1 of the Regulations of 1863. A steam-tug lying-to under sail, with her engines idle and her fires banked up, is " under steam " within the meaning of Article 1, and must keep out of the way of a sailing-ship (a). Art. 2. Lights. Article 2. The lights 7nentionedin the following Articles, numbered 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, and no others, shall he cai'ried in all weathers from sunset to sunrise. This Article corresponds with Article 2 of the Regulations Importance of observing the rviies as to of 1863. The observations of Dr. Lushington in The Hob '^ ^' Roy (b) with regard to the old Admiralty rules as to lights apply with equal force to the existing Regulations. He said : " If these regulations of the Admiralty are to be followed (z) Infra, pp. 247—258. (a) The Jennie S. Barker and The Spindrift, 3 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 42. The Sunnysich, 1 Otto, 208, is a similar decision by the Supreme Court of the U. S. (i) 3 W. Rob. 190, 198. By the maritime law there was no obliga- tion on a ship to carry a light at night. It depended upon the dark- ness of the night and other circum- stances, whether a light was neces- sary or not. The Victoria, 3 W. Rob. 49 ; The Iron Duhe, 4 Not. of Cas. 94 ; The Londonderry, ibid. Suppl. xxxi. ships' lights. 145 out, and vessels are to be guided by them, it is of the last ^t- 2. importance that those on board steamers should see that the three lights are burning. For it is perfectly clear that, unless this precaution is taken, and the three lights are kept burning, other misfortunes of this nature will most probably occur." In that case a collision which occurred in conse- quence of a steamer being misled by the improper lights of another was held to be caused by the fault of the latter. The effect of this Article, when read together Avitli A tug is a Article 4 and the following Articles, is to place a steam- ^ft^hrtile ship towing another vessel in the same category, generally meaniug of speaking, with other steam-ships ; that is to say, the fact tjons. ° that she is engaged in towing does not exempt her from the obligations otherwise imposed on her by the Regula- tions (c). Notwithstanding the express prohibition contained in Circumstances this Article against carrying lights other than the Regula- "^^/may^show tion lights, a ship may, and it is her duty to, exhibit such a lights other light under exceptional circumstances, when it is necessary laUon lights. to warn an approaching ship that does not see her danger. A ship ashore in a navigable channel (d), or casting off from her moorings (e), or being overtaken at night by a vessel that appears not to see her, so that there is risk of collision, must keep a good look-out astern, and warn the other ship of her danger. Showing a white or flare-up showing light light astern to an overtaking ship is expressly made lawful to overtakmy by a subsequent Article (Article 11) (/'). The Regulation lights should be exhibited in the Liohts must positions required by the law, although there are circum- l»e earned m ^ T ./ ' o the positions (<•) The American and Tlie Syria, & E. 500. L. R. 4 A. & E. 226 ; S. C. on app., (/) See infra, p. 160. Before that ibid. 6 P. C. 127 ; The Warrior, L. Article was promulgated, a ship was R. 3 A. & E. 553. held not to be in fault for showing (d) The Industrie, L. R. 3 A. & E. one of her side lights over her stern : 303; The Thomas Lea, 3 Asp. Mar. TheAnylo Indian, 3 Asp. Mar. Law Law. Cas. 260. Cas. 1. (e) The John Fcvwick, L. R. 3 A. L 146 THE REGULATIONS. Art. 2. required by the law. Jf lost must be replaced,. No excuse for absence of lii^hts that they were being trimmed. Misleading lights. Spare lights. stances which would make it appear desirable to exhibit them elsewhere. When there is a haze on the water which obscures the riding light at the elevation required by the Regulations, it seems to be doubtful whether a ship is, for that reason, required to exhibit the riding light elsewhere (/). It is the duty of a ship that has lost her lights by bad weather or other accident, to replace them as soon as pos- sible. A collision caused by their absence will be held to have been caused by her fault (g). It is no excuse for not carrying the Regulation lights that they Avere being trimmed, or that they went out by accident (h). A wrong and misleading light will almost certainly cause the ship carrying it to be held in fault if a collision occurs (i). NotAvithstanding 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 steam-ship at anchor, with her mast-head 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 (/,■). ( / ) TJie Mkhelimo and Tlie Dacca, Mitch. Mar. Reg., May 25,1877. In this case it was alleged that there existed at Rangoon a local rule as to riding lights inconsistent with the general Regulations. {cj) The Saxaiiia and The EcUpxe, Lush. 410,422 ; The Aurora and The Robert Inrjram, ibid. 327 ; The Gray Earjlc, 1 Bissel, 476 ; 2 Bissel, 25. [h) The 0. M. Palmer and The Larnax, 2 Asp. Mar. Law. Cas. 94; The Flm'a Macdonald and The Pales- tine, Holt, 52 ; The Eclipse and The Saxnnia, s'ipra ; The Victoria, Z W. Rob. 49 ; The Sylph, 2 Sp. E. & A. 75, 85. (;■) Th£ Scotia and The Bcrlshire, 7 Blatchf. 308 ; 14 WaU. 170; The Rob Roy, 3 W. Rob. 190 ; The Mary Bounsell, 40 L. T. N. S. 368. (k) The Kjobenhavn, 2 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 213. SHirs' LTGTTTS. l-i7 The Eegulation lights must not be obscured in any way. ^^^- ^- A flare-up must not be burnt so as to make them in- Obscuration distinct (l). If a steam-ship has the wind aft, so as to blow ° '^'^ ^' her smoke ahead and thereby obscure her lights, it is her duty to slacken and not go at full speed (m). Wliere a ship carried a bright light in her cabin, which showed on deck and obscured her side lights, and the other ship alleged that she mistook it for a riding light, the former was held in fault for the collision (n). The fact that it is only a short time after sunset, and Lights to he '' , . always carried. fine and clear weather, does not excuse an omission to carry lights (o). 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 " (|9). By the Regulations (Article 2) vessels are expressly required to carry them in all weathers. When, on account of bad weather, it is not possible to carry them fixed. Article 7 may apply, and proper lights must be exhibited from the deck (^). Special lights are required to be exhibited by dumb Special lights barges and dredgers in the river Thames, by ships at ioca"^ies."^ anchor in the Mersey and its approaches, and by flats and vessels without masts in the Mersey (r). Private signal and flash lights are authorised by 36 & 87 Vict. c. 85, ss. 18—21. In America coasting and inland steam-ships are required to carry lights other than those described in Article 2 (s). And in the Suez Canal ships not under way exhibit two lights it). (?) The Sea Nymph, Holt, 34. [q] See infra, Art. 7. ()rt) The Jiona a.nd TheAva, 2 Asp. (?•) For the Thames, Mersey, and Mar. Law Cas. 182. other local E-egulations as to lights, (n) 27te Ida and The Mary Ida, see the Appendix, ?»/?•«. Ad. Court, Feb. 5th, 1878. (s) Act of Congress of 28th Feb., (o) The Emperor &-nA The Zephyr, 1871, c. 100; The Continental, 14 Holt, 24. Wall. 345. (p) The City of London, Swab. (t) See App., p. 280, infra. Ad. 245, 249. L 2 148 THE RF.GULATIONS. Art. 2, A master or owner wilfully neglecting to carry lights in C^i^ue^s accordance with the Regulations is guilty of a mis- of not carrying jg^^gg^j^Q^j. ^^^ punishable with a fine of £100 or im- liffhts to sliip- ' .^ ,,v .1 1- T J. prisonment for six months (u). And a ship proceeding to sea may be stopped if she is not properly supplied with lights and screens, or if they are improperly placed (x). owner and master. Art. 8. Lights for steam-ships. Article 3. Seagoing steam-ships ivhen under tvay shall carry : — (a) On or in front of the fore-mast, at a height above the hull of not less than twenty feet, and if the breadth of the ship exceeds twenty feet, then at a height above the hull not less than such breadth (y), a bright white light so constructed as to show an uniform and unbroken light over an arc of the horizon of tiventy points of the compass, so fixed (z) as to throw the light ten points on each side of the ship, viz., from right ahead to tivo points abaft the beam on either side ; and of such a character as to be visible on a dark night, with a clear atmosphere, at a distance of at least five miles. (b) On the starboard side a green light so constructed as to show an uniform and, unbroken light over an arc of the liorizon of ten points of the compass, so fixed as to throiv the light from right ahead to two points abaft the beam on the starboard side, and of such a character as to he visible on a dark night, ivith a clear atmosphere, at a dista.nce of at least two miles. (c) On the port side a red light so constructed as to show an uniform unbroken light over an arc of the horizon (h) 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, s. 27. It is said that lights are often not carried at sea. (x) 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, s. 30. See also 39 & 40 Vict. c. SO, ss. 1—15. (y) The words from (a) were not in Art. 3 of the Rules of 1863, which began " at the fore-mast head." The alteration removes a difficulty in the case of vessels having no distinguish- able mast-head. (-) In the Rules of 1863 these words were " so constructed." steam-ships' lights. 149 of ten points of the compass, so fixed as to throiv the light ^^*- ^■ from right ahead to two points abaft the beam on the port side, and of such a character as to be visible on a dark night, with a clear atmosphere, at a distance of at least tivo miles. (d) The said green and red side lights shall be fitted ivith inboard screens projecting at least three feet forward from the light, so as to prevent these lights from being seen across the boiu. This Article corresponds with Article 3 of the Regulations of 1863. It differs, as noted above, from that Article merely verbally. Every ship not actually brought up is " under way "" Under way." within the meaning of this Article. She is under way though not making any way through the water (a) if her anchor is not down. A ship getting her anchor is " under way " so soon as she ceases to be holden by and under the control of her anchor (6). A steam-tug lying-to under canvas with her fires banked up has been held to be under way (c). It seems to have been held by Dr. Lushington that a ship dropping or dredging with her anchor stern foremost with the tide was not required to carry side lights (d). But such a vessel would seem to be " under way " within the meaning of Article 3, and, it is submitted, that Article requires her to carry side lights. Under a former Act it («) Cf. the concluding paragraph (note), where it seems to have been of Art. 5. held that the tug is not under way ; (6) The Esk and The Gltana, L. R. but the facts are not clear, and the 2 A. & E. 350. As to trawlers at case was not followed in The Jennie work, and ships hove-to, see Ai-t. S. Barker. 10. {d) See The Smyrna, mentioned (c) The Jennie S. Barker, 3 Asp. by Dr. Deane arguendo in The Mar. Law Cas. 42 ; and it has been George Ark!e, Lush. 382, 385, as to 60 held in America : The Sunnyside, the meaning of "under way;" see 1 Otto. 208. See, however, The also Art. 6. Helvetia, 3 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 43 150 THE EEGULATIONS. Alt. 3. ^vay iield that a vessel driving about the sea in an un- manageable state was " under way," and required to carry her side lights (e). Such a case is now provided for by Article 5. Lights of a The Regulations contain no special provision as to the to\v.'"^ ^^^ "^ lights to be carried by a steam-ship when in tow of an- other vessel. In a case where a steam-ship, with her engines broken down, while in tow carried her usual side lights, and no mast-head light, it does not appear to have been suggested that she was carrying improper lights (/). The Eegnia- It seems that a bright light carried elsewhere than in fitting of ships^ the position described in Article 3 is not in accordance lights must ^yith the law, although the light is visible in the required be exactly . ^ . . ^ , ^ . , ^ rrn. • i observed. directions, and IS m other respects suincient [g). ihe side lights must be so fixed that their range is such as is described in the Article. If they are liable to be obscured by the sails, rigging, or other part of the ship, it would be held that the Regulations are not complied with (A). With regard to the necessity of a strict observance of the Regulations as to lights. Lord Chelmsford, in The Emperor and The Lady of the Lake (i), said : " It is not advisable to allow these important Regulations to be satisfied by equivalents, or by anything else than a close and literal adherence to what they prescribe." BoardofTraJe Minute instructions are issued by the Board of Trade !2t™rhips'^ to their surveyors with regard to the fixing and construc- lights. tion of ships' lights. These instructions have not the force of law, so that a ship should be held in fault for a (e) The George Arkle, uhi supra, 353 of 1874. decided under 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104. (A) The Tirzah, 4 P. D. 33 ; The (f) The American 3iaA The Syria, Magnet; The Duke of Sutherland; L. R. 4 A. & E. 226 ; on app., L. E. 6 The Fanny M. Carvill, L. R. 4 A. & P. C. 127. E. 417 ; The Fanny M. Carvill (on {(j) Upon the Regulations of 1863 app.), 2 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 565. the law officers of the Crown advised {i) Holt, 37. to this effect : see Pai'L Pap. No. steam-ships' lights. 151 collision merely because her lights arc not fitted in accord- ^^^- 3- ance with them (i). 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 (j). Although the requirements of Article 3 are not exactly Slight in- ,.-,., 11- -1 ^1 ■ n • ^ -n J. fringemeiit of complied with, the ship guilty of the infringement will not ti^g iiegula- be held to be in fault for a collision that could not possibly jj^^^^'Jf^j''® have been caused by the infringement of the law. In The Fanny M. Carvill (k) it was held that, the lights of the other ship not having in fact been seen across her bow, she was not in fault for the collision. And in The Duke of Sutherland {I), one of two ships in collision was held not to be in fault, although her side lights were partially obscured, 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. Previous to 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 mizen rigging that they were not visible in the directions required by the Regulations, it being proved that the other vessel, a steam-ship, might, by slackening her speed and using proper care, have avoided her, notwithstanding the sug- gested insufficiency of her side lights {m). And in another case {n), where the screens of one ship were only a foot in length, and the side lights could be seen across the bow, it (i) The Magnet ; The Duke of Law Cas. 0. S. 91. Sutherland; the Fanny M. Carvill, (k) L. R. 4 A. & E. 417 ; on app., uhi supra. See also observations of 2 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 565. Dr. Lushington in The Samjyhire v. (I) L. R. 4 A. & E. 417. The Fanny Beck, Holt, 193, as to the (m) The Bougainville v. The Jas. value of the opinion of the Board of C. Stevenson, L. R. 5 P. C. 316. Trade upon ships' lights. (n) Tlw Emperor v. The Lady of {j) The City of Carlisle, 2 Mar. the Lake, Holt, 37. 152 THE EEGULATIONS. Art. 3, 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. Under the existing law, however, any infringement of the Eegulations as to lights which might by possibility have contributed to the collision would be held to be negligence contributing to the collision (o). 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 (j)). A ship having in tow a pilot boat, which carried a mast-head light and no side lights, was held in fault (q). So, where a steam-tug carried her mast-head and side lights in a line, lashed to a bar placed on the top of a cook-house on deck, four feet high and five wide, it was held (in Ireland) that they were improperly placed, and that the tug was in fault for a collision which occurred in consequence (r). "Seagoing" It is not clear why Article 3 applies, in terms, to sea- going ships only (s). The following Articles as to tugs and sailing-ships appear to be applicable to all ships, whether seagoing or not. It would probably be held that it is the duty of every vessel propelled by steam, whether seagoing or not, to carry lights in accordance with the Regulations. In an Irish case it was said by the Court that, the collision having occurred at sea, there could be no question as to the duty of one of the vessels (a tug) to carry the Regu- lation lights of 1S63 (t). It is not clear whether the distance at which the lights are to be visible is stated in statute or nautical miles. In (o) The Tivzah, 4 P. D. 33 ; see (»■) The corresjionding regulation supra, p. 14. in the American Act of Congress ip) The Nev) Ed v. The Gustav, 1 applies to " all steam-vessels : " see Mar. Law Cas. 0. S. 407. The V. S. Grant and The Tally Ho, {(/) ne Mary HounseU, 40 L. T. 7 Bened. 195. N. S. 368. («) The Louisa and The City of (?•) The Louisa and The City of Paris, tibi supra. Paris, Holt, 15. TUGS AND SHIPS NOT UNDER COMMAND. 153 the French regulations the distance is given as " deux Art. 3, milles." Article 4. A stecmi-ship vjhen tuiving another ship shall, in ad- Art. 4. dition to her side lights, cany two bright luhite lights in a Lights for vertical line one over the other, not less than three feet f^^^'^^J^^j. apart, so as to distinguish her from other steam-ships, ships. Each of these lights shall he of the same construction and character, and shall he carried in the same position as the ivhite light which other steam-ships are required to carry. This Article differs verbally only from Article 4 of the Regulations of ] 863, except in the provision as to the dis- tance between the lights, which is new. The distinguishing lights required to be carried by a tug object of tug's are " for the purpose of warning all approaching vessels yght^f ^^^ "^^ that she is not in all respects mistress of her move- ments " {u), and to show that she is encumbered. There is no provision in the Regulations as to distinguishing lights for a sailing-ship towing another ship, or for a steam-ship in tow. Article 5. A ship, whether a steamship or a sailing-ship, when Art. 5 . employed either in laying or in picking up a telegraph Day and night cahle, or which from any accident is not under command, signals for ' J 'J _ _ . . , ships not shall at night carry in the same position as the white light under com- which steam-ships are required to carry, and, if a steam- ™^^ ' ship, in place of that light, three red lights in globular lanterns, each not less than ten inches in diameter, in a vertical line one over the other, not less than three feet apart ; and shall by day carry in a vertical line, one over the other, not less than three feet apart, in front of but not (h) The American and The Syria, L. K. 6 P. C. 127, 131. 154 THE REGULATIONS. Art. 5. lower than her fore-mast head, three black halls or shades, each two feet in diameter. These shapes and lights are to he taken hy approaehing ships as signals that the ship using them is not under com- mand, and cannot, therefore, get out of the ivay. The ahove ships, luhen not making any way through the luater, shall not carry the side lights, hut when making tvay shall carry them. This is au entirely new Article (x). Under the new law it seems that it is necessary for a vessel to be always provided with these globular red lights and signal balls. If she fails to exhibit them when not under command through any accident, and a collision occurs, she will probably be held to have infringed the Regulations ; and, coming within the penalty of 36 & 87 Vict. c. 85, s. 17, she will probably be held in fault for the collision. It is not clear what the effect of the words " through any accident " may be. Whether a ship hove-to through stress of weather, or for any other reason, would be required to exhibit the lights or balls of Article 5 seems doubtful. A vessel in such a condition is seldom " under command," and yet it can scarcely have been the intention of the Legislature that every time a ship is hove-to she should shift her lights. Article 5 has no application to ships at anchor. Perhaps it would apply to a ship ashore in a fairway (y). Article 6. Art. 6. A sailing-ship under ivay, or heing towed, shall carry Lights for the same lights as are provided by Article 3 for a steam- saiiing-ships. ^^^^ under way, with the exception of the white light, which she shall never carry. (x) There has been in force for (y) Cf. The Elizabeth and The some years an Admiralty regulation Aclalia, 3 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 345 ; similar to Art. 5, binding on Queen's The Industrie, L. K. 3 A. & E. 303. ships engaged in telegraph work. SMALL vessels' LIGHTS. 155 This Article corresponds with Article 5 of the Eegula- ^^^- ^- tions of 1863. There seems to be no doubt that a ship hove-to is "Underway:" .,., • r K • ^ r> T i- meaning of under way withm the meaning ot Article 0. in a recent ^;^^^, t^rm. case it was so held under the Regulations of 18G3 {z). And under a former Act there were decisions to the same effect (a). There was some doubt whether trawlers at work were " under way " within the meaning of the Regu- lations of 18G3(&); but under the Regulations of 1879 no such question can arise as to lights. 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 does not appear to have been suggested that she was wrong in doing so (c). Article 7. Whenever, as in the case of small vessels during had Art. 7. weather, the green and red side lights cannot he fixed, these special lights lights shall he kept on deck [on their respective sides of tlie ^^^g^g vessel, ready for use ; and shall, on the approaeh of or to other vessels, he exhibited on their 7'espective sides in suffi- cient time to prevent collision, in such Tiianner as to make them most visible, and so that the green light shall not he seen on the port side, nor the red light on the starboard side. To make the use of these pm^table lights 7nore certain and easy, the lanterns containing them shall each he painted outside with the colour of the light they respectively con- tain, and shall he provided with proper screens. (z) The Pennsylvania, 3 Mar. Law " under sail." Cas. 0. S. 477 ; and the Supreme (b) See The Robert and Ann and Court of the U. S. came to the same The Lloi/ds, Holt, 55 ; The Edith, Ir. decision upon the same facts : The Eep. 10 Eq. 345; The Englishman, Pennsylvania, 19 Wall. 125. 3 P. D. 18. (a) The City of London, Swab. (c) The Adriatic, 3 Asi?. Mar. Ad. 245 ; The James, ibid. 55. The Law Cas. 16. words in the Act of 1854 are 15(3 THE REGULATIONS. ■^^t- '^- This Article is almost identical with Article 6 of the Regulations of 1863. What vessels It is not easy to see to what vessels the Article has any ^eir'stde^ application. Article 10 provides for boats, and there are lights on deck, few craft other than boats in which side lights " cannot be fixed " 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 {d). This can scarcely have been the intention of the framers of Article 7. If a vessel seeks to excuse herself for not having her side lights fixed in their proper place and to bring herself within Article 7, 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, it was left by Dr. Lushington to the assessors to say whether it was practicable under the cir- cumstances of the case to carry them fixed (e). In The Tirzah, Sir R. Phillimore appears to have considered that it was justifiable for a vessel of 239 register tons to shift her lights from their usual place in consequence of bad weather; although it was not contended that she came within the Article as to small vessels' lights (/). Article 8. Art. 8. A shif, whether a steam-ship or a sailing -shi'p, when at Eiding lights. c<''>^c^o'>', shall Carry, luhere it can best he seen, hut at a height not exceeding tiventy feet above the hull, a white light in a globular lantern of not less than eight inches in diameter, and so constructed as to show a clear uniform {(l) The Margaret and The Tuscar, 519 ; see also The CaJla, ih. 465. Holt, 44. (/) The Tirzah, 4 P. D. 33. (e) The Livingstone, Swab. Adm. RIDING LIGHTS. IT)? and unhrolxn light visible all round the horizon, at a Art.^8^ distance of at least one mile. This Article corresponds with Article 7 of the Regulations of 1863. The wording is slightly different, but the only alteration of consequence is that the present Article 8 applies to ships at anchor anywhere, while the corre- sponding Article of the former rules applied only to ships brought up in a roadstead or fairway. A riding light should not be placed where it is obscured Riding light in any direction by masts, spars, sails, or rigging. It ^J^^^^^^^]''® is assumed that vessels at anchor are stationery (/i), or nearly so; ships, therefore, when at anchor, must not be allowed to sheer about more than can be avoided. A vessel ashore in a situation where other ships may run into her, although probably she does not come within the terms of Article 8, is required to exhibit a light to warn other ships of her position (i). In America it has been held that a ship moored to a ship moored wharf out of the regular track of ships is not required to ^"^ ^ '^^'*'■^• exhibit a light (A'). But a tug moored to a boom anchored in a fairway was held in fault for having no riding light up (/). As to special riding lights for ships m the Mersey, Special riding dredgers in the Thames, and ships moored in the Suez Canal, see the Appendix. British drift net fishing boats at anchor exhibit two horizontal lights : infra, p. 259. Article 9. A pilot vessel, when engaged on her station on -pilotage Art. 9 . duty, shall not carry the lights required for other vessels. Lights for pilot vessels. (h) The Esk and The Gitana, (^) Culbertson v. Shcm; 18 How. L II 2 A. & E. 350. 584 ; The Granite State, 3 Wall. 310. '{{)' The 'Industrie, L. R. 3 A. & E. (I) The Wizard Saidsbury, cited 303; Kidson v. McArthur, 5 Sess. 1 Pars, on Ship., ed. 1869, 564. Cas., 4th series, 936. 158 THE REGULATIONS. Art. 9. J)iii shall carry a white light at the mast-head, visible all round the horizon, and shall also exhibit a flare-up light, or flare-up lights, at short intervals, %vhich shall never exceed fifteen minutes. A pilot vessel, when not engaged on her station on pilotage duty, shall carry lights similar to those of other ships. There are considerable differences between this Article and the corresponding Article (No. 8) of the Regulations of 1863. Under the latter questions frequently arose as to the proper lights to be carried by pilot boats, when not serving vessels (m). The present Regulation will apply to steam, as well as sailing, pilot boats, should steam pilot boats be introduced. It has been held that a pilot boat in tow of another ship must not carry her mast-head light (n). A boat with pilots on board, and serving ships, would seem to be a pilot vessel within the scope of Article 9, whether the pilots were licensed pilots or not (n). It has been held in America that a vessel running down a pilot boat from which she was taking a pilot was equally in fault, although the pilot boat was not carrying the Regulation light (o). Article 10, Art. 10. (a) 02^en fishing boats and other open boats when Lights for Under way shall not be obliged to carry the side lights open boats required for other vessels, but every such boat shall in and hsliing , vessels. Ueu thereof have ready at hand a lantern with a green glass on the one side and a red glass on the other side; and on the approach of or to other vessels such lantern shall be exhibited in sufficient time to prevent collision, (m) Tlie Wanata. 4 Bened. 310; [n) The Mary Hovnsell, 4 P. D, 5 Otto. 600 ; The Edinhurrjh, before 204 ; 40 L. T. N. S. 368. the Wreck Commissioner, March, (o) The City of Washinyton, 2 1879. Otto. 31. boats' lights. 159 so that the green light shall not he seen on the i^ort side, nor the red light on the starboard side. (b) A fishing vessel and an open boat when at anchor shall exhibit a bright white light. (c) A fishing vessel, when employed in drift net fishing, shall carry on one of her masts ttvo red lights in a verti- ccd line one over the other, not less than three feet apart. (d) A traivler at work shall carry on one of her masts two lights in a vertical line one over the other, not less than three feet ap)art — the upper light red and the lower green — and shall also either carry the side lights required for other vessels, or, if the side lights cannot he carried, have ready at hand the coloured lights as provided in Article 7, or a lantern luith a red and a green glass as described in paragraph (a) of this Article. (e) Fishing vessels and open boats shall not he pre- vented from using a fiare-up in addition if they desire to do so. (f) The lights mentioned in this Article are substituted for those mentioned in the IWi, ISth and l^th Articles of the Convention betrveen France and England scheduled to the British Sea Fisheries Act, 1868 Qj). (g) All lights required by this Article, except side lights, shall be in globular lanterns so constructed as to shovj all round the horizon. This Article corresponds with Article 9 of the Regulations of 1863, with some additions and alterations. It puts an end to a conflict which previously existed between the Sea Fisheries Act, 1868, and the International Regulations ; and to many difficulties which arose under the former Regulations as to lights for trawlers and fishing boats (q). (p) See Appendix for this Act ; and Ann v. The Lloyds, Holt, 55 ; and see also 38 &39 Vict. c. 15, s. 3. Tlie Englishman, 3 P. D. 18; The (q) Such as arose in The Robert Edith, Ir. Rep. 10 Eq. 315. Art. 10. IDO THE REGULAXrONS. Article 11. Art. 11. A ship which is being overtaken by another shall shoiv Light for from her stern to such last-mentioned ship a white light, overtaken ^y a flave-up light. This Article is new. It is the duty of a ship being over- taken by another at night in such a direction that her side lights are not visible to the latter, and so that there is risk of collision, to keep the other ship in view, and, if necessary, warn her of her danger by showing a light over her stern (/'). But under ordinary circumstances a ship is not bound to keep a look-out astern, and it is not her duty to, nor should she, carry a light permanently showing over her stern. If run down by an overtaking ship she will not be held in fault for not warning the latter, or for not showing her a light, unless it is proved that she saw the other in time, and deliberately neglected to warn her (s). Under the Regulations of 1863, when there was no Regulation in force corresponding to Article 11, a ship not having a bright light available was held not to be in fault for showing over her stern one of her side lights {t). Article 12. Art. 12. A steam-ship shall be provided with a sfeam-tuhistle or Sound sio-nals Other efficient steam sound signal, so placed that the sound for thick tiiay not be intercepted by any obstructions, and ivith an efficient fog-horn to be sounded by a bellows or other mechanical means, and also with an efficient bell. A (r) The City of BrooUyn, 3 Asp. under the Regulations of 1863. Mar. Law Cas. 230 ; The Anglo- (s) The Hannah Parle v. The Indian, ibid. 1 ; The Hannah Park Lena, ubi supra. V. The Lena, 2 Mar. Law Cas. 345 ; {t) The Anglo Indian, 3 Asp. Mar. The Earl Spencer, L. R. 4 A. & E. Law Cas. 1. 431. These cases were decided FOG SIGNALS. 101 saili7ig-shij) shall be provichd with a similar foy-horn A.rt. 12. and hell. In fog, mist, or falling snoiv, whether hy day or night, the signals described in this Article shall be used as follotus — that is to say, — (a) A steam-ship under tvay shall make tvith her steam- luhistle, or other steam sound signal, at intervals of not more than two minutes, a prolonged blast. (b) A sailing-ship under way shall malce ivitlt her fog- horn, at intervals of not more than tiuo minutes, ivhen on the starboard tack one bhtst, xvhen on the port tack tvjo blasts in succession, and, ivhen with the ivind, abaft the beam three blasts in succession. (c) A steam-ship and a sailing-ship ivhen not tinder tvay shall, at intervals of not more than two minutes, ring the bell. This Article goes into more detail, and is in some respects different from the corresponding Regulation (Article 9) of 1863. It contemplates sirens taking the place of steam-whistles ; it makes the blasts of the whistle and horn more frequent; and the indication of the sailing- ship's course by sound is entirely new (u). The fog- signal required of steam-ships appears to be modified by Article 19 when another ship is in sight to which a vessel wishes to indicate by whistling an alteration of her own helm. As to the meaning of " under way," see Article 3, supra, p. 149. In a case under the Rules of 18G3, Sir R. Phillimore decided that a sailing-ship hove-to in a fog should sound a fog-horn and not a bell (x). It would appear that every ship not actually at anchor should sound her whistle or horn. By the maritime law it was the duty of a sailing-ship under way in a fog to sound a horn (y). By local rales in force in different waters ships (u) In America these signals have (x) The Pennsylvania, 3 Mar. Law been enforced by law for many Gas. 477 ; and see 19 WalL 125. years. (y) The Carron, 1 Sp. E. & A. PL M 102 THE REGULATIONS. Art. 12, What is "fog' within the meaning of Art. 12. are required to sound their horns at various intervals. In America it has been held gross negligence in a steam-ship not to be fitted with a whistle (z). What amount, or density, of fog must exist so as to make the use of the fog signals necessary has not, so far as the writer is aware, been decided by 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 enough to shut out the view of the sails, or hull, by day, or of the lights by night, until the vessels are so close that there would be risk of collision (a). Article 13. Art. 13. Every shif, whether a sailing -shirp or steam-ship, shall Speed in thick ^^ tt foQ. Tfiist, or falling snow go at a moderate speed. weather to be moderate. rpj^^^ Article is entirely new, so far as it relates to sailing- ships, and to snow ; as to steam-ships it corresponds (nearly) with part of Article 16 of the Regulations of 1868. It makes no alteration in the law, which, apart from the Re- gulations, has always required moderate speed in a fog (h). As to what is " moderate" speed, see Article 18, infra, p. 185. Seven knots an hour was held by the Privy Council to be too high a rate of speed for an ocean steam- ship when in a fog in the track of ships 200 miles to the eastward of Sandy Hook (c). (2) The Electra, 1 Bened. 282. (a) The MmticeUo, Dist. Ct. of Mass., LT. S. ; 1 Parsons on Ship., 566 (ed. 1869). (b) See The Jnlict Erdinc, 6 Not. of Cas. 633 ; The Lord Saumarez, 6 Not. of Cas. 600. {<■) The Pennsylvania, 3 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 477 ; see also The City of Brooklyn, infra, p. 166. runnins: in a SPEED IN A FOG. 1G3 Where the fog was so dense that a steam-ship heard the Art. 13. whistle and hailing from another without being able to see her, it was held that her duty was to stop at once and hail the other vessel (d). In a fog so dense that it is not possible for a shijD to see others in time to avoid them, she is not justified in being under way at all, except from necessity. Neither Article 13 nor Article 18 justifies her in being under way under such circumstances (e). In America it was said by the Supreme Court of the United States that a steam-ship must lie to if she is in a fog in a crowded part of the sea and cannot go ahead so as to have steerage way on her without danger to other vessels (/). The Lancashire was a Liverpool and Birkenhead ferry Ferry boats steamer. She left her landing stage to cross the Mersey fog. in a dense fog, and ran into The Levant, a vessel brought up in her track. It was contended for The Lancashire 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 Lancashire was held in fault for the collision on the ground that she had no right to be under way at all in such weather ([/). In delivering judgment the learned Judge of the Admiralty Court (Sir R. Phillimore) said {h) : " The question arises in this case, whether it was proper and right in this ferry boat to go deliberately across the river in a fog of such a dense nature as here described, and with the knowledge of these vessels lying in her track, or one of them in her track and the others nearly so, and also with the knowledge that one of them had, as she contends, an insufiicient (d) The Frankland and The 5 P. C. SOS ; The Orion, 2 Mar. Law Kestrel, L. R. 4 P. C. 529 ; and see Cas. O. S. Diy. 822 ; The Victoria, The Teutonia, 23 Wall. 77. 3 W. Rob. 49 ; and see cases cited (e) The Lancashire, L. R. 4 A. & E. sujn-a, p. 162. 198 ; The Otter, ibid. 203 ; The (/) The Pennsylvania, 19 Wall. Girolamo, 3 Hag. Ad. 169 ; The 125. North American and The Wild Rose, (g) The Lancashire, li. R. 4 2 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 319 ; Smith A. & E. 198. V. St. Lawrence Tow Boat Co., L. R. (h) L. R. 4 A. & E. 201. M 2 164 THE REGULATIONS. Art. 13. watch ? It has been urged very strongly on the Court that, if this were not to be so, if the steam ferry boat was to be delayed on account of the fog, the greatest possible inconvenience would ensue to the public. I have no doubt that it is very much for the convenience of the public that the ferry boat should go in all weathers, and at all times, but at the same time, I cannot myself think it right to set the convenience of the public in competition with the possibility, or rather the probability, of injuring human life and greatly damaging property. At the same time, the custom appears to have been for this vessel to have gone across in foggy weather, as at other times, and regula- tions appear to have been made with a view to preventing accidents, surrounding her with every precaution that was possible But one thing appears to me quite clear, that if this ferry steamer thinks herself justified in going across the river in such a dense fog as this, she takes upon herself all the responsibility incident to such a course. She has the advantage if she goes over safely, and she must have the disadvantage if she injures life or property in the course of the passage." Law in Xhe law in America as to ferry steamers being under ferryboats Way in a fog seems to be more favourable to the ferry running in a ^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^j^^^ ^^ ^j^-^ country, as laid down in The Lan- cashire. In The Exchavgc (y) the U. S. Circuit Court held that while owners of ferry boats have not any exclusive privileges of navigation over owners of other vessels, never- theless, while the 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 ordinary diligence on the part of other vessels to avoid her. {D 10 Blatchf. 68. See also 68 N . York Rep. 385. Hoffman v. Union Ferry of Brooklyn, SPEED IN A FOG. 165 In another case (k) 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 precau- tions accordingly, and particularly not to anchor in their track (/). The duty of a steam-ship under way in a fog has been Duty of thus stated by the Supreme Court of the United States : ^ f^^'^ ^^ ^^ " The best precautions are bright signal lights ; very low speed — just sufficient to subject the vessel to the com- mand 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" (tu). A vessel going at too great a rate of speed on a dark Inevitable night, or in thick weather, cannot be heard to say that a eannot^L collision was the result of inevitable accident (n). Under plt^aded where such circumstances it is her duty to go at such a rate of excessive, speed as will enable her after discovering another vessel to avoid her by stopping and reversing her engines (o). If her speed is higher than this she will, almost certainly, be held in fault for any collision that may occur, although she does her best to avoid it when the other ship is seen (p). Undue speed in a fog or thick weather is not more Speed of justifiable for sailing-ships than for steam-ships. Where a ?^'l"'g^^l'ips 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 {k) The Lydia, 11 Blatchf. 415. Cas. 633. (I) The Hudson, 5 Bened. 206; (o) 7% e /Smyrna, 2 Mar. Law Cas. Tlie Relief, Olcott, 104. 0. S. 93. (m) The Colorado, 1 Otto. 692 ; (p) The Samphire v. The Fanny and see The Franconia, 4 Bened. 181, Beck, Holt, 193. (n) The Juliet Erskine, 6 Not. of 166 THE REGULATIONS. Art. 13. fog iq exercise the utmost vigilance, and to put his vessel under command, so as to secure the best chance of avoid- ing all accidents, even though such precautions may occa- sion some delay in the prosecution of the voyage" (q). But in this, and in another case (>•), the sailing-ship, though under a press of sail in a fog, was not therefore held in fault for the collision. In TJte City of Brooklyn (s) Lush, J., said as to speed : " 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." In very thick weather, or great darkness, a vessel is not justified in running through a crowded roadstead, but should, if possible, bring up {t). A sailing-ship going six and a-half knots over a fishing ground on a dark night, where vessels were visible only 1 00 or 200 yards off, was held in fault for a collision with a trawler (u). American xhc necessity of moderate speed in thick weather has cases as to . . . . . -r moderate been msistcd upon m numerous American cases, in a speed in a fog. j^^^jgu^ent of the District Court of New York it was said that in a dense fog a ship is bound to go as slow as possible, consistent with steerage way {x). Though not bound to lie to {y), ships are required to use extra caution, and to put themselves under moderate sail in a fog {z). A schooner carrying on at night, and racing with another vessel, w^as held in fault for a collision (a). The common (q) The Itinerant, 2 W. Rob. 236. (x) The Westphalia, 4 Bened. 404. (V) The Ehenezer, ibid. 206. [y) The Mominrj Light, 2 Wall. (s) 3 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 230. 550 ; The Colorado, 1 Otto. 692. (0 The Victoi-ia, 3 W. Rob. 49 ; (z) The Cohmido, ubi supra. The Georfje, 4 Not. of Cas. 161; (a) The Thomas MaHin,Z'B,\&tc\d. The Lnchibo, 7 Moo. P. C. C. 427. 517. (u) The Pepperell, Swab. Ad. 12. SAILING-SHIPS MEETING OR CROSSING. 167 excuse that a rate of speed greater than is consistent with ^^^- ^^- safety to other ships is necessary for steerage way, is seldom listened to by the Courts ; nor the suggestion that the ship was run at considerable speed in order to get out of the fog (b). It was said by a Circuit Court of the United States Pressure of that the meaning of the rule that a steam-ship shall in a goj^g gj^^^ fog go at a moderate speed 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 stand still as soon as possible (c). If a steam-ship has the wind aft, so that her own smoke Steam-ship's is blown ahead obscuring her lights or the view from her j^^ lights and deck, it is her duty to go at a moderate speed, and so that view, she may see and be seen by other vessels in time to avoid collision (d). Article 14. When two sailing-ships are approaching one another Art. 14. so as to involve risk of collision, one of them shall keep out xwo sailing- of the way of the other as follows, viz. : — '^^^P^- (a) A ship which is running free shall keep out of the tvay of a ship which is close-hauled. (b) A ship which is close-hauled on the port tack shall kee}) out of the way of a ship which is close-hauled on the starboard tack. (c) When both are running free with the wind on different sides, the ship ivhich has the wind on the port side shall keep out of the way of the other. (6) nc//am«, 5 Bened. 501,521; (d) The Eo7ia and The Ava, 2 Asp. The Chancellor, 4 Bened. 153, 164. Mar. Law Cas. 182 ; The Vivid, (c) The JIama, 5 Bened. 501. 7 Not. of Cas. 127. 168 THE REGULATlUiyS. Art. 14. (d) When both are running free with the vnnd on the same side, the ship which is to windward shall keep out of the way of the ship which is to leeward. (e) A ship which has the vAiul aft shall keep out of the way of the other ship. This Article is new in form (e). Its effect is the same as that of the meeting and crossing rules (Articles 11 and 12) of the Regulations of 1S63, except in one case — that of two sailing-ships meeting end on — that is to say, with their keels in a line, or nearly so. Such vessels were required by Article 11 of the Regulations of 1863 to put their helms to port, a manoeuvre obviously dangerous for a vessel close- hauled on the starboard tack. The effect of putting the helm of a ship close-hauled on the starboard tack to port being, in many cases, to throw the ship out of command, and to cause imminent risk of collision, it was, under the port helm rule of former Acts, often a question of difficulty whether a ship close-hauled on the starboard tack broke the law by not porting (/). As to what constitutes " risk of collision," see above, p. 136. (e) Except, perhaps, as to para- graph (a), the rules of Article 14 embody the ancient practice of sea- men, irrespective of legislation. I3ut the })ractice seems to have been loose. Whether the ship on the port tack was always required to bear up and go under the stern of the other, or whether she was at liberty to keep out of the way by taking other steps, was uncertain : see Tfie Rose, 2 W. Rob. 1 ; The Dumfries, Swab. Ad. 125 ; The Gazelle, 5 Not. of Cas. 101. The rule that the ship on the port tack must give way was applied to a ship with the wind a point or two free : The Stranger, 6 Not. of Cas. 36 ; and also where the course of the other ship was doubtful : The Traveller, 2 W. Rob. 197 ; The Anne and Mary, ibid. 189; The George, 5 Not. of Cas. 368. (/) See The Norge and The Wol- verine, Holt's Rule of the Road, 89 ; The Amalia and The Maria, ibid. 87 ; The Princessan Louisa and The Artemas, ibid. 72. Under the former Acts see The Betsy, 1 Sp. E. & A. 34, note ; The aarence, ibid. 206 ; The Halcyon, Lush. 100 ; Chadwick V. Citt/ of Dublin Steam Packet Co., 6 EU." & Bl. 771 ; The Dumfries, S«-ab. Ad. 125. American cases on the same point are The Tracy J. Branson , 3 Bened. 341 ; The Helen J. Holmty and The Moore, 6 Bened. 536 ; The Annie Lindsay jhid. 290 ; The Sylvester Hale, ibid. 523. SAILIXG-SHIPS MEETING OK CROSSING. 1G9 A ship required by the Regulations to keep out of the ^^^- ^^- way of another may do so in any way she thinks proper. A ship re- •' "^ p 1 1 1 t, quired to keep She may go ahead or astern ot the other, and she may ^^^ „f the way put her hehn to port or starboard, as she thinks best (g). "ay^do so m But she has no right to embarrass the other, or to put her thinks proper, into a difficulty. Thus it lias been held in America (h) that where two courses 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. Article 14 is supplemented by, and must be read with. Art. 14 is ^ ^ suriplemented Articles 20 and 22. The difficulty which arose under the ^nd modified Rules of 18(33 of drawing the line between "crossing " and ^j^/j^t_^22. " overtaking " ships is removed by the opening words of Article 20. It seems that under the Rules of 1880 every ship, whether steam-ship or sailing-ship, which is travelhng faster than another ahead, or anywhere forward of her own beam, and coming up with her, must keep out of the way. The duty of the ship close-hauled on the starboard tack Duty of ship under Article 14 is strictly to obey the rule requiring her keep'h^er*^ to keep her course. She can excuse a departure from that course to , ■. 1 ■ T • i • ^ • stand on. rule only by shownig that it was necessary to avoid imme- diate danger. " Keeping her course " under Article 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 Article 22 (i). But a vessel would not be justified by Article 14 in standing on obstinately where it is clear that a collision may be avoided if she alters her helm, and in no other way (k). The rule requiring a ship close-hauled on the starboard tack to stand on appears formerly not to have been so {g) Tlie Nor, 2 Asp. Mar. Law (i) The Marmion, 1 Asp. Mar. Cas. 264 ; The Carroll, 8 Wall. 302 ; Law Cas. 412 ; The Aimo and The The Great Eastern, 2 Mar. Law Cas. Amelia, 2 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 96. O. s. 97. (A-) The Lake St. Clair and The (h) The Empire State, 1 Bened. Underwriter, 3 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 57. 361. 170 THE REGULATIONS. A hard case Art. 14. 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 (Z). 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 step taken by a ship in ignorance of the other's course will cause her to be held in fault if a collision ensues. Hence arise cases of great perplexity to seamen. A ship, A., close-hauled on the port tack, sees a red light of another, f,/^— I B., ahead, and a point or two on his starboard bow. He ^M3annot make out on which side B. has the wind, or what is his course. Not knowing which Article of the Regulations applies to his case, A. stands on, and at the last moment l^ars up, thinking, erroneously, that B. is close-hauled on f 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. to take steps which he thinks will ensiire his keeping out of B.'s way on first seeing him, without regard to the Regulations, is strong. A vessel may be close-hauled within the meaning of Ai'ticle 14, although she is not lying so close to the wind that she cannot luff a trifle without throwing herself in stays {m). A ship with the wind free must keep out of the way of a ship hove-to (n), but whether by virtue of Article 14 or not, is uncertain. It has been stated above that Article 14, relating to sailing- 3in"A^ri4 ships not under command, probably does not apply to a and required gj^^p hove-to in the ordinary course of navigation. If that Meaning of " close- hauled." Whether a ship hove-to is (Z) The Seringapatam, 5 Not. of Cas. 61, 65. (m) The Singapore v. The Hehe, Holt, 124 ; see also Chadivick v. The City of Dublin Steam Packet Co., 6 Ell. & Bl. 771. (n) The Eleanor v. The Alma, 2 Mar. Law Cas. 0. S. 240. SAILING-SHIPS MEETING OR CROSSING. 171 be the law Article 14 would be held to apply to a ship ^*- ^^- lying to, so as to require her to keep out of the way, not- to keep out of withstanding the fact that she was lying to and nearly ^ ^^^' stationary. In a case(o) 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 Avere engaged in reefing her topsail. The helm of The 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 Ihe London was solely in fault. 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 forofino- ahead at the rate of about a knot an hour, as she kept coming to and falling off. Both vessels were (in 1866) held (p) 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. The following cases, decided under the Regulations of 1863, illustrate the application of Article 14, and the circumstances under which it may be departed from : — Two shins were turning to windward in a narrow chan- Cases illus- . . tratini'' Art nel, both on the starboard tack, and one following in the 14. ° wake of the other. The leading ship, having stood as far towards the side of the channel as 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 (0) The London, 6 Not. of Cas. 29 ; case. The Blenheim, 1 Sp. E. & A. 285 {fj The Transit, 3 Bencd. 192. (decided in 1854), is a very similar 172 THE REGULATIONS. Art. 14. ou the starboard tack, to go about when the leading ship did so (g). 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 (r). 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 the latter stood on, it was held that it was the duty of the latter to port and let go her head sheets (s). 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 (t). The wind being somewhere from S. to S.S.E., the sloop Constantine, heading N.N.E., fell in with the cutter Spring, heading W. by S., and to leeward. It was held that it was the duty of The Constantine to keep out of the way, and that the duty of The Spring was to keep her course {u). 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 approaching them so close that, upon the schooner going about, a collision with the brig was inevitable {v). 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 {x). [q) The Priscilla,!,. R. 3 A. & E. 125 ; and see The Lake St. Clair a,nd The Underii>riter, 3 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 361. (r) The Constitution, 2 Moo. P. C. C. 453. (s) The Lady Anne, 15 Jur. 18. \t) The Aimo and The Amelia, 2 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 96. (m) The Sp-ing, L. E. 1 A. & E. 99. (f) The Mobile, Swab. Adin. 67 ; on app., ibid. 127 ; this case was under a former Act. (x) The Charlotte Raab, Brown Ad. 453. STEAM-SHIPS MEETIXr, 173 Two ships close-hauled on opposite tacks were crossing Art. 14. each other. The ship on the starboard tack was held in fault for not keeping out of the way when the other, being a-head and to windward, could not bear up without risk of collision, and could not go about because of a shoal (y). A sloop, with the wind free, was running through a narrow channel against a strong tide close to the shore. Two schooners, the combined length of Avhich was equal to half the breadth of the channel, were beating to windward in the opposite direction. It was held that the sternmost 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 (z). AUTICLE 15. If two ships under steain are meeting end on, or nearly Art. 15. end on, so as to involve risk of collision, each shall alter Two ships her course to starhoard, so that each may pass on the port under steam • 7 ^ ^i J 7. meeting. Side of the other. This Article only applies to cases where shij^s are meet- it} g end on, or nearly end on, in such a manner as to involve risk of collision, and does not apply to two ships ivhich must, if both keep on their respective courses, p)ass clear of each other. T/ie only cases to ivh ich it does apply are tuhen each oj the ttvo ships is end on, or nearly end on, to the other; in other ^':ords, to cases in ivhich, hy day, each ship sees the masts of the other in a line with her oivn ; and by night to cases in ivhich each ship is in such a position as to see both the side lights of the other. (y) The Ann Caroline, 2 Mar. Jja.-w (2) T/ie Mark Eveline, 16 Wall, Cas. O. S. 208 (, American case). b-iS. 174 THE REGULATIONS, Art. 15. It does not apply by day to cases in vJhich a ship sees another aJiead crossing her own course; or by night to cases where the red light of one ship is opposed to the red, light of the other, or u-herc the green light of one ship is opposed to the green light of the other, or ichere a red light without a. green light, or a green light icithcnd a red light, is seen ahead, or ivhere both green and red lights are seen anywhere but oAead. This Article contains the substance of Article 13 of the Reo-ulations of 18G3, and of the Order in Council of the 30th of July, 1868, explaining the meaning of " end on"(«). The words " each shall alter her course to starboard " are exactly equivalent to " the helms of both shall be put to port " of the Regulations of 1863 (6). The words " so that each may pass on the port side of the other " appear to be merely explanatory. The vessels described in this Article as " ships under steam " are probably the same as those described elsewhere in the Regulations as " seagoing steam- ships," or " steam-ships ;" and it is not clear v/hy the same (a) It is not clear that 25 & 26 Vict. c. 6-3 authorises an interpreta- tion of the Regulations by Order in C'onnciL But any difficulty on this point is removed by the enactment of the Regulations in text in the place of those of 1863. (h) The alteration in the wording of the new Regulations was probably made -sWth a ^iew to a possible uni- formity of system amongst the sea- men of aU nations as regards orders to the helm. In English ships the order which sends the ship's head to starboard is " port I" In France the equivalent order is "babord !" — the literal translation of which is " star- board." Some nations, including America, adopt the English system, others the French. Since pilots of one nation are frequently in charge of ships of another nation, it is manifest that a unifoi-m sj'stem is very desirable. The apparent para- dox involved in the English system originated with the use of the tiller, the movements of which are opposite to those of the ship's head. Most vessels of any tonnage being now steered by a wheel, and the tiller being frequently aft of the rudder- head, the orders to the helm are altogether anomalous. AVith a wheel, and a tiller aft of the rudder- head, the order to send the ship's head to starboard is still " port I" whilst the wheel, the tiller, and the ship's head all move together in the same direction, to starboard. It must be remembered that when going astern the action of the rudder is reversed, and that the order "port I" and corresponding move- ment of the rudder to starboard sends the ship's head to port. STEAM-SHIPS MEETIXG, 175 term is not used throughout. As to the meaning of " so ^t- 15. as to involve risk of collision/' see above, p. 136. In the Regulations of 1880 vessels approaching each Classification ,1 1-11 ' }} / \ • ,) 1 of ships into other are aescribed as meetmg (c), "crossmg, and meeting, " overtaking," or being overtaken. It appears that this crossing, and , . . . . . overtaking classification is intended to include all cases of shijDS ships, approaching or being approached by others. It is a cross classification, for although no ship that is a " crossing " ship 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 Article 20 (d). The rule contained in Article 15 is not identical with Abolition of the " port helm " rule of former Acts, and of the old mari- "port helm" time law, with which seamen were familiar. The existing ^''^^P* ^^ °°® Regulations limit the application of the " port helm " to one case only, namely, where both the ships are steam- ships, and they are proceeding in directly opposite directions on the same line, or nearly so. In every other case the " port helm " rule is inapplicable, and the two ships must act as required by the particular Article applicable to the case. There is reason to think that the important alteration of the law effected by the Regulations of 1 863, and continued by those of 1880, has not produced a corresponding change in the practice of seamen. 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 Article 15 that Caseof steam- the application of that Article is determined, not by the ove^^e °° (c) "Meets "in 17 & 18 Vict. c. see The Franconia, 2 P. D. 8 ; The 104, s. 296,hadawider meaning than Princessan Louisa and The Artemas, "meeting" in the existing Eegnla- Holt, 75; The Eliza and The Orinoco, tions : see The Cleopatra, Swab. Ad. ibid. 98 ; The Superb and The Plor- 135. enee Braf/inr/ton, 2 Mar. Law Cas. id) See Articles 14, 16, and 20. O. S. 237 ; The Peckforton Castle, 3 As to the distinction between P. I). 11 ; The Columbia, 10 Wall, "meeting" and "crossing" ships 246. 176 THR RKriULATTONS. Art. 15. ground a course dif- ferent from the direction of her head. How much the course must be altered; both ships must port ; neither need slacken after risk is determined. directions 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 steam-ship crossing a tideway, or of a tug with a heavy sliip in tow making considerable leeway, 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. Such a case would probably be held to come within Article 23. "Altering her course to starboard" under Article 15 means altering sufficiently to take her clear, if the other ship does not starboard (e). The law is that both ships are to alter their helms, and the neglect by one to obey the rule will be no excuse to the other, although there would have been no collision if both had ported (/). Where a ship is in a position to which Article 15 applies, and she alters her course sufficiently to determine the risk of col- lision, she is not required at the same time to slacken under Article 18 ((/). If two steam-ships 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 star- board, and that appears to be the safer and more con- venient course, " It is essential that the law should be universally observed. If one obeys and* the other does not, the utmost confusion and danger will be introduced. A vessel which obeys the law has a right to trust that the vessel which she meets . . . • . will obey it too, and she acts accordingly" (A). (e) The Jesmond and The Earl of Elgin, L. R. 4 P. C. 1. (/) See The America, 2 Otto. 432 ; The Araxes and The Black Prince, infra. (g) The Jesmond and The Earl of Elgin, .iiipi-a. (h) Per Lord Kingsdown in The Araxes and The Black Prince, 15 Moo. P. C. C. 122 ; and see The Cleopatra, Swab. Ad. 135. These cases were under 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 296. STEAM-SHIPS CROSSING. 177 The meaning of " nearly end on " has not been exactly ^^^- 15. defined. Vessels upon parallel courses, each with the other What is nearly right ahead, and vessels upon courses making with ^^^^^^ ^ '^^ each other an angle of two, or even three, points have been held to be meeting " nearly end on " (i). These cases were, however, decided before the interpretation of the term by Order in Council of 30th Julv, 1868. Article 16. If two ships under steam are crossing so as to involve Art. 16. risk of collision, the ship which has the other on her own Two sbips starboard side shcdl keep out of the ivay of the other. imder steam -^ ^ <^ .' crossing. This Article is identical in terms with Article 14 of the Regulations of 1863. As to the meaning of " risk of col- lision," see above, p. 136 ; as to the distinction between "meeting," "crossing," and " overtaking " ships, see p. l7o ; as to how a ship is to " keep out of the way," see p. 198 ; and as to tlie duty of the ship which has the other on her port side, see Article 22, below. There have been some important decisions as to the Application of application of the " crossing " rule in winding rivers. The windim^ river, steam-ship Carbon,commg 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 steam-ship 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 (i) The Fruiter and The Fingal, mas, Holt, 1^ ; The Thnmat and 2 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 29]; The The Stork, Holt, 151; The St. Cyran Kezia and The Victoria, Holt, 70 ; and The Henri/, Holt, 72. But see The Princessan Lovisa and llieArte- supra, p. 172, note (»•). N ITS THE REGULATIONS. ^^^- ^^ that The Carbon was wrong in porting and attempting to pass to the north of The Velocity. 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 the}' would have passed clear (I). The Velociti) was decided upon the general Regulations of 1863, and before any special bye-laws 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" shijDs. 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 a recent case decided under the Thames Rules, which contained an Article identical in terms with Article 16 of the general Regulations, a steam-ship proceeding up the river was crossing the channel obliquely in order to clear a ship in her path. Whilst so doing, there was, on her starboard side, and in the reach above her, which turned to starboard, another steam-ship 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 {m). A steam-ship, The Cayuga, after coming out of her dock in New York harbour, and straightening herself down the river, was heading S.S.W. At the same time The James Watt, another steam-ship, Avas coming up on a S. by E. course abaft the beam of The Cayuga on her starboard (I) ne Velocity, L. R. .3 P. C. 44. Virgo, 3 P. D. 60. ^eenho The Cologne liud The Baiir/er, {m) The Oceano and The Virgo, 3 li. K. 4 P. C. 519 ; The Esk and The P. 1). 60. See also as to the duty of Niord, L. R. 3 P. C". 436 ; and the two ships rounding a bend in a river, ohservation.s of James, L.J. , on The one outside the other, The Bywell Velocity in The Oceano and The Castle, 4 P. D. 219. STEAM-SHIP APPROACHING SAILING-SHIP. 179 quarter, and overtaking her. It was held by the Supreme Art. 16. Court of the United States that they were crossing ships, and that Tlie Cayuga was in fault for not keeping out of the way of Tlie James Watt under Article 14 of the Regulations of 1863 (??). Article 17. If two shijjs, one of which is a sailing-ship and the Art. 17. other a steam-ship, are proceeding in such directmis as to Sailing-ship involve risk of collision, the steam-ship shall keep out 0/ g "elm"^ ""^^^'" the way of the sailing-ship. This Article is identical with Article 15 of the Regula- tions of 1863. As to "risk of collision," see above, p. 136 ; as to how to " keep out of the way," see p. 198 ; and as to the duty of the sailing-ship, see Article 23. The reason of the rule of Article 1 7 is said to be that Reason of the a steam-ship is more completely under command than a ^"^® *^** * ... T • c^^ 11-1 in-, steam-ship saiimg-ship. She can go ahead m the teeth of the wind, and mu.st keep out she can stop or go astern, as she pleases (0). This, how- The^rur'*'^" ever, is true only to a limited extent in the case of a tug plies to a tug. wifh a ship in tow ; and in approaching her, the other ship must take her encumbered 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 (q). But the tug is a steam-ship within the mean- ing of Article 17, anfl must comply with that Article, so far as she can (r). (n) T/ie Cayuga, 14 Wall. 270. waters it is frequently dangerous According to the definition proposed for a long and heavy steam-ship to by Brett, li.-I., in Tlie Franconia, 2 keep out of the way, where the P. I). 8, The James Watt was an sailing-sbip can do so without difB- " overtaking" ship, and bound to culty. But if it is possible, the keep out of the way of The Cayuya. steam-ship must obey the law. (o) The Arthur Gordon and The (q) The W. C. Redfiekl, 4 Bened. Iv dependence, Lush. 270. 227. ip) S. C. ; The Gala and The (r) See .'!)/;pr«, pp. 79, 14.'). Zenohia, Holt, 112. In narrow n2 180 THE REGULATIONS. ^*- ^"^^ The duty of the steam-ship under Article 17 is the Duty of a same whether the sailing-ship is close-hauled or free, and meeting, cross- whether she is on the port or starboard tack. If the ing, and over- stoam-shlp is crossing the course of the sailing-ship, and at sailing-ship, the Same time overtaking her, she is required to keep out of the way by Article 20 as well as by Article 17. 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 Article 17, as she thinks best. If she is being overtaken by the sailing-ship, it appears that by the operation of Article 20 and Article 22 she is required to keep her course (s). Difference The difference between the rule contained in Article 17 between Art. 17 and the and the old rule of "port helm" should be observed. "^OTthel'm" ^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^ ^ sailing-ship with the wind free meeting a steam-ship end on, her duty is to keep her course, and not, as lias been supposed, to put her helm to port (t). Heavy obliga^ The obligation which Article 17 throws upon a steam-ship on steam- ^^ every case where there is risk of collision with a sailing- ships, gj^ip js 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 " (it). 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 prevented collision ; («) UndertheRegulationsof 1863, Jas. C. Stevensmi, L. E. 5 P. C. there was a doubt as to the duty of 316. a steam-ship being overtaken by a (u) Per Westburj", C, in Inman sailing-ship ; see The Fhilotaxc, 3 v. Beck, The City of Antuerp and Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 512. The Friedrich, L. R. 2 P. C. 25, 30, (0 The Bonrjiinville and The 34. STEAM-SHIP APPROACHING SAILING-SHIP. 181 and, thirdly, that it was an act whicli would have occurred ^^^- ^'^- to any officer of competent skill and experience in com- mand of the steamer " (x). The duty of the steam-ship has been thus defined by the Duty of steam- Supreme Court of the United States : " The Rules require, can case, when a steam-ship and sailing vessel are approaching from opposite directions or on intersecting lines, that tlie steam- ship, from the moment the sailing vessel is seen, shall watch with the highest diligence her course and move- ments, so as to be able to adopt such timely measures of precaution as will necessarily prevent the two boats coming in contact " (y). And in 7%e Falcon (z), the same Court said : " It was the duty of the steamer to see the schooner as soon as she could be seen, to watch her progress and direction, to take into account all the circumstances of the situation, and so to govern herself as to guard against peril to either vessel." Under Article 17 it is the duty of a steam-tug lying-to, Duty of steam- ier drifting about waiting for employment, to keep out of k" ^p ."if of the way of a sailing vessel (a). ^^^ '■''^y- The fact of a tug having a heavy ship in tow, and a And of a tug strong head wind against her, does not justify the tug in ship in tow. departing from Article 17, and neglecting to keep out of the way of a sailing-ship (6). And a steam-ship of 1356 tons was held in fault for not keeping out of the way, although she had in tow a disabled vessel of 1495 tons, with a long scope of tow rope, so that the towage was a service of difficulty (c). The duty of the saiHng vessel is to keep her course, as if ^"*y °^}}^^ - .-. . sauing-ship no other vessel were in sight; but where a sainng-ship, under Art. 17. when a considerable distance (two miles) off the steam-ship, (x) Ibid. 44 ; see also The Sunnyside, 1 Otto, (y) The Carroll, 8 Wall. SQ2,Z06; 208. The LucUe, 15 Wall. 676. (h) The Warrior, L. R. 3 A. & {z) The Falcon, 19 Wall. 75. E. 553. (a) The Jennie S. Barker and The (c) The American and The Syria, Spindrift, 3 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. L. R. 6 P. C. 127. 182 THE REGULATIONS. Art. 17. altered her helm slightly, it was held that she was not therefore in fault for the collision (d). Cases illus- A sailing-sliip, turning to windward in the Thames, went trating Art. g^j^^^^^ when she got to the edge of the tide, without giving any notice to a steam-ship astern of her. The steam-ship was held solely in fault for a collision which followed (e). A barque, rounding to before coming to an anchor, was held not to be in fault for a collision with a steam-ship, although the steam-ship 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 re- quiring her to keep her course (/). But a sailing-ship must not go about at an improper time or place, so as to embarrass the steam-ship (g). Where a steam-ship was crossing the English Channel at twelve knots an hour, and ran down a sailing-ship with her lights burning and obeying the regulations, it was said by the court that she must be in fault. If it was thick, she was in fault for going so fast ; and if it was fine, she was bound to see and avoid the other ship (h). Article 18. Art. 18. Every steam-ship, ivhen approaching another ship, so as steam-ship to ^^ involve risk of collision, shall slacken Jier speed, or stop slow or reverse Q^^g reverse, if necessary. engines if necessary. This Article is almost identical with Article 16 of the Eegulations of 1863. The direction in the latter as to speed in a fog is omitted, and now forms part of Article 13. {d) The Noi-ma, 3 Asp. Mar. Law [y) The General Lee, 3 Mar. Law Cas. 272. Cas. O. S. 204 (Irish case) ; The (f) The Palatine, 1 Asp. Mar. Potomac, 8 Wall. 590 ; and see infra. Law Cas. 468. p. 227, as to the duty of a sailing- (/) Tlie Monsoon v. The Nep- ship to beat out her tack. tune, 9. Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 289 ; (A) The Samphire and The Fanny Holt, 186. Beck, Holt, 193. ENGINES TO BE STOPPED. 183 Apart from the Regulations, it would be held to be ^^- ^»- negligence if a steam-ship failed to stop and reverse, "if necessary" (i) ; and Article 18 appears to be little more than a declaration of the law in this respect. Article 18 applies only " where there is a continuous Jg^^''''^jA''*- approaching of two ships." It does not apply in every case where Article 15, or Article 16, is applicable. To make it the duty of a steam-ship to slacken, or stop and reverse, under Article 18, it appears that the risk of collision must be more imminent than that mentioned in Articles 15 and 16 (k). Perhaps this is the meaning of the words " if necessary," which are peculiar to Article 18. Where two steam-ships were approaching each other I* '5°^^5J^^ with risk of colUsion, and one of them ported so as to risk is deter- bring port light to port light, it was held by the Privy "^"^^*^- Council that risk of collision was then determined, and that the vessel that had ported was not required by the law to slacken, or to stop and reverse (l). But unless the alteration of the helm will determine the risk, the duty of the steam-ship is at once to stop and reverse (m). lu America, it has been held by the Supreme Court that the rule requiring a steam-ship 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 (n) . A steam-ship being overtaken by another vessel is not " approaching " the overtaking ship within the meaning of Article 18. Her duty, therefore, is to keep her course under Article 22, and not to slacken under Article 18, for that Article does not apply to her (o). (i) See The Birkenhead, 3 W. (I) The Jesmond and The Earl of Rob. 75 ; The James Watt, 2 W. Elgin, ubi supra. Rob. 270 ; The Vivid, 7 Not. of (m) The Joseph Straker v. The Cas. 127. Karla, Holt, 203. (ic) The Jesmond and The Earl of (n) The Free State, 1 Otto, 200 ; Elgin, L. R. 4 P. C. 1 ; and see Brown Adm. 251. The Milwaukee, Brown Acl 313. (o) The Franconia, 2 P. D. 8. 184 THE EEGULATIONS. Art. 18. Engines not to be set on ahead until risk is over. Stopping and re^'ersing not always a jirudent mea- sure. Duty to stop or ease the engines where the other ship's lights or course cannot be made out. Speed of a steam-ship approaching other craft. To comply with Article 18, a vessel must not only slacken or stop, but she must not set her engines ahead again until the risk of collision is past (p). In applying Article 18, it must be borne in mind that re- versing the screw whilst the ship has headway through the water always diminishes the turning power of the helm. In the case, therefore, of a screw steam- ship, stopping and reversing her engines is not always a necessary, or even a prudent, step for her to take when at close quarters with another ship. If a steam-ship sights another ship or her lights, and cannot clearly make out what course she is upon, it is her duty at once to slacken until she can ascertain what the stranger's course is, so that she may be able to take the measures required by the Regulations (q) ; and she must do so before altering her helm, or taking any decisive step, 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 (r). Steamers navigating at a high rate of speed are required to slacken their speed when approaching other ships, when there is difficulty or danger in passing them. It was held by the Supreme Court in the United States that a large steamer approaching a tug with a number of barges in tow, and 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 (s). 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 (p) In Doivell v. General Steam Nav. Co., 5. Ell. & B. 195, under the old law, it was held that a ship was in fault if she did not continue to exhibit a light so long as danger of collision existed. (7) The Rona and The Ava, 2 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 182; The General Lee, 3 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 204. (r) The Bougainville and The Jos. C. Stevenson, L. R. 5 P. C. 316. (s) The Syracuse, 9 Wall. 672. SPEED OF STEAM-SHIPS. 185 such speed as was consistent with the safety of other ^^- ^^' vessels (t). " Moderate " speed is a relative terra. It cannot be «^odg^^a^<.g" defined so as to apply to all cases ; what it should be in speed 'i each case depends on the circumstances of the particular case. Four to five knots, or slow half-speed of a vessel whose full speed was from seven to nine knots, seems to have been held too great speed in a fog so dense that a ship could not be seen more than seventy yards oJBf (u). In any case, speed such that another vessel cannot be seen in time to avoid her is unlawful (x). Speed which is justifiable in an unfrequented part of the ocean is un- lawful, and even criminal, in a crowded roadstead or high- way (?/). In the case of The Europa (0), 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." In The Batavier (a), it was said by Dr. Lushington : " At whatever rate she (the steam-ship) was going, if going at such a rate as made it dangerous to any craft which she ought to have seen, and might have seen, she had no right to go at that rate." It has been held in America that it is not enough to slacken until t\ e speed is such as would enable the steam- ship to avoid another vessel which is sounding her fog- horn (b). And from the English decisions it appears that (t) The City of Paris, 9 Wall. Mar. Law C!as. 230 ; 1 P. D. 276. 634 ; and see 2'he Corsica, 9 Wall. (y) The Europa, 14 Jur. 627. 630. (z) Cited in The Pennsylvania, 19 («) The Magna Charta, 1 Awp. Wall. 12 5, 134. Mar. Law Cas. 153. [a] 1 Sp. E. & A. 378. (x) The City of Brooklyn, 3 Asp. (6j The Hansa, 5 Bened. 501. 186 THE REGULATIONS. ^^^- ^^- the rate must be regulated by the thickness of the fog, rather than by the supposed distance at which a horn or bell would be audible. Carrying It is no excuso for excessive speed that the ship is mails no ex- . -i i i i t i i cuse for exces- Carrying mails, and under contract to deliver them by a sive speed. certain date (d). Excessive But when a ship is shown to have been going at too speed, if it i • i f. n i i • could not great a rate oi speed, it does , not loUow, though it may possibly have j^ave been an act of imprudence, that the ship is in fault contributed to . the collision, for the collision. If the rate of speed could not by possi- vent a°ship^' bility have contributed to the collision, but was simply an from recover- act of imprudence, not connected with the collision, it must be left entirely out of the case (e). Article 19. Art. 19. In taking any course authorised or required by these Optional regulations, a steavi-ship under way may indicate that toTndicatTthe ^^urse to any oilier ship ivklch she has in sight by the course of shi]^s following signals on her steam whistle, viz. : — One short blast to mean " / a'}n directing my course to starboard." Two short blasts to Tnean " I am directing my course to port." Three short blasts to mean "I am going full speed astern." The use of these signals is optional; but if they are used, the course of the ship must be in accordance with the signal made. This article is entirely new. It applies only where a ship intends to comply with the Regulations, and is de- sirous to call the attention of the other ship to her intended (d) The Vivid, Swab. Ad. 88; 10 (e) The Lord Saumarez, 6 Not. of Moo. P. C. C. 472 ; The Northern Cas. 600 ; but see 36 & 37 Vict. Indiana, 3 Blatchf. 92. c. 85, s. 17, supra, pp. 14, seq. SOUND SIGNALS — OVERTAKING SHIPS. 187 course. Such signals have been in use in America for ^^^- ^^- many years. It has been there held that a vessel cannot, by means of these signals, dictate to the other ship a departure from the Regulations (/). Care must be taken that the " short " blasts of Article 19 are not confounded with the "prolonged" fog-signal blasts of Article 12. Article 20. Notwithstanding anything contained in any preceding Art. 20. Article, every ship, luliether a sailing-ship or a steam-ship. Ships over- overtaking any other, shall keep out of the ivay of the ^:^^f ° ove7iaken ship. This Article corresponds with Article 17 of the Regula- tions of 1863, but its operation is larger. The opening words, "Notwithstanding, &c.," are intended to meet a diffi- culty, which existed under the Regulations of 1863, as to the duty of a sailing-ship overtaking a steam-ship, and as to the duty of a sailing-ship or a steam-ship overtaking another sailing- or steam-ship from abaft the beam of the latter, and crossing her course. In these cases there was an apparent conflict between Article 15 and Article 17 (g), and between Article 12 and Article 17 (h), of the Regulations of 1863. Article 20 is express as to the duty of an overtaking sailing-ship to keep out of the way. And under the Regulations of 1880 it seems clear that a ship may be an "overtaking" ship within Article 20, when, if her speed were not greater than that of the other vessel, she would be a " crossing " ship coming under Article 14 or Article 16. As to how the other ship is to keep out of the way, see above, p. 180. (/) The Milwaukee, Brown Ad. O. S. 292. 313. (A) Bee The Peckforton Castle, 2 ig) SeeThe Philotaxe, 3 Asp. Mar. P. D. 222 ; 3 P. D. II ; The Fran- Law Cas. 512 ; The Wheatsheaf and conia, 2 P. D. 8. The hitrepide, 2 Mar. Law Cas. ship 188 THE KEGULATIONS. ■^t. 20. There is nothing in the Regulations to indicate how What is an one ship must bear from another in order to be an " over- shioT*^^ ^°^ taking " ship. A ship dead astern of another, or on her quarter, is no doubt an " overtaking " ship if coming up with the other ahead. Whether a ship a point or two on the beam of another is " overtaking" the latter, if going at a greater speed, is not clear. Under the Eegulations of 1863 a rule was suggested by Brett, L.J., in The Franconia (i), to the effect that a vessel approaching another from a direction in which, if it were night, the side lights of the ship ahead would not be visible to her, should be con- sidered as an " overtaking " ship ; and that a vessel ap- proaching another from any other direction except directly ahead should be " crossing." In a subsequent case (k), however, doubts were expressed in the Court of Appeal as to the correctness of the rule suggested by Brett, L.J. A ship coming up with another on a course differing from that of the latter by half a point was held to be " overtaking " her (l). One of the Tyne bye-laws provides that, "when steam vessels are preceding in the same direction, but with unequal speed, the vessel which steams 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 (nc). In The Cayuga {n) the Supreme Court of the United States expressed an opinion that a vessel was "overtaking" another within the meaning of Article 17 of the Eegulations 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.) (r) The Franconia, 2 P. D. 8, 12. Law Cas. 569. {l) The Pecl-forton Castle, 3 P. D. (m) The Henry MoHon, 2 Asp, 11. Mar. Law Cas. 466. (/) The Chaiionry. 1 Asp. Mar. (n) 14 Wall. 270, 277. OVERTAKING SHIPS. 189 were " crossing " ships, although one was abaft the beam of, ^^^- ^^- and goinir faster than, the other. It was said by the Court that in such a case the relative speed of the two ships did not affect the question as to what measures they are required by the Regulations to take to avoid collision. But in another American case it was held that a steam- ship coming up on the quarter of another ahead is not a " crossing " but an " overtaking " ship (o). The rule, that an overtaking ship must keep out of the The rule, that ' toll an overtaking way of a ship ahead, was a rule of the maritime law, and ship must was merely formulated by the Regulations of 18(j3 (p). It t^e^^Jay, L a clashed, however, with the other equally well established r"!*^ «f the . . i" f. 1 maritime law. rule, that a ship with the wind free must keep out of the way of another close-hauled. In an American case, where a brig and a schooner were upon converging courses, the schooner overtaking the brig, it Avas 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 to keep out of the way (q). 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. The Court of Appeal has said that a ship cannot be an "overtaking" ship within the meaning of Article 20 unless she is going faster than the ship ahead (r). The duty of the ship ahead, under ordinary circum- Duty of over- 1 1 1 A J • 1 n 1 1 taken ship. stances, is to keep her course under Article 22, and not to slacken or stop. Article 18 does not apply to her, as she cannot be said to be approaching the overtaking ship within the meaning of that Article (.s). (o) The Oceanus, 5 Bened. 545 ; (q) The Clement, 1 Sprague, 257 ; Bee also The Governor, AMiot Ad. 2 Curtis, 363. The Supreme Court 108 ; The Rhode Island, Olcott, 505 ; was equally divided. 1 Blatchf. 363. (r) The Franconia, 2 P. D. 8. (p) Whitrid'/e v. Dill, 23 How. (s) The Franconia, uhi supra.- 448. 190 THE REGULATIONS. ^^^- ^Q- As to the duty of a ship which is being overtaken to show a light astern, see Article 11, supra, p. 160. It is the duty of a steam-ship overtaking a sailing-ship to keep out of the way of the latter, both by virtue of Article 17 and Article 20. Cases illus- A stoam-ship attempted to pass a sailing-ship turning am)iication of ^^P ^^^ Thames against a head wind. Owing to the Art. 20. 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 (t). Where a sailing-ship. A., with the wind free, was approach- ing 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 (^('). 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 the 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 dut}^ of the latter to keep out of the way of the ship ahead by going about (cc). If two ships are turning to windward, and the one ahead, instead of going about, wears, it seems that, while 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 (y). (<) ThePalatine, I Asp. Msir.ljaw 125; The Eclipse v. The Boyal Cas. 468. Consort, Holt, 220. (m) The Eleanw v. The Alma, {y) The Falkland and The 2 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 240. Navigator, Br. & Lush. 204. (x) The FrisciUa, L. E. 3 A. & E. STARBOARD SIDE RULE. 191 It was held in America that a vessel was in fault for ^^^- ^- attempting to pass another ahead in a channel so narrow that there was risk in making the attempt (z) ; and that the rule requiring the overtaking ship to keep out of the way does not cease to operate the moment the overtaking ship gets her nose in front of the other (a). Article 21 Art. 21. In narrow channels every steam-ship shall, when it is safe and practicable, keep to that side of the fairway or Ships under midchannel which lies on the starboard side of such ship, ^ow channels. This Article is entirely new. It is substantially the re- History of the enactment of a rule which existed from 1846 to 1862. side" rule. During those years there were in force various Acts requir- ing ships to navigate on the starboard side of rivers and narrow channels. By 9 & 10 Vict. c. 100, s. 9, steam-ships were required to keep on the starboard side of midchannel, "due regard being had to the tide and the position of each vessel in such tide." In The Leith (b) this was interpreted to mean that a ship was to keep on the star- board side "provided it may be done with convenience and safety " to the other vessel. By subsequent Acts (14 & 15 Vict. c. 79, s. 27, and 17 & 18 Vict. 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 (c) 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 convenience, would justify a (2) The C:tv of Paris, 1 Bened. The Panther, 1 Sp. E. & A. 31 ; The \'ti;^\^A\\ ^'6\: The Narragansett, Malvina, 1 Moo. P. C. C. N. S. {■ifra. S.')? ; Tlie Mcvnnder and The Florence (a) The Narraqansett,'\(^VA:\.tc\\i. Nlghtinriale, ibid. 63; The Seine, 475. ' Swab. Ad. 411 ; The Hand of Pro- \h) 7 Not. of Cas. 137. ridcncc, H'id. 107; The Unit//, ihid. {c) The Buke of Sussex, I \Y.lloh. 101 ; are decisions under tlie star- 274 ; The Sylph, 2 Sp. E. & A. 75; hoard side rule of former Acts. 192 THE RECxULATrONS. Art. 21. Consequence of navigating on the ■wrong side of a narrow channel. Meaning of terms "narrow channel," "midchannel," and " when it is safe and practicable." Rules in American rivers. deviation from the express enactment as to keeping on the starboard side. By 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63 the " starboard side " rule was repealed, and from 1862 to the 1st of September, 1880, vessels have been free to navigate on either side of rivers, except in the Clyde and some other waters where the starboard side rule has been in force under local Acts. The re-enactment of the starboard side rule and its insertion in the Regulations are of the utmost consequence to seamen. Any person in charge of a ship who navigates her on the wrong side of a narrow channel, besides being guilty of a misdemeanour, will almost inevitably subject himself and his owners to liability for any collision occur- ring when he is on his wrong side, unless it is proved that his being on the wrong side was unavoidable (d). In The Mmander and The Florence Nightingale (e), it was held that the sea-channels at the entrance of the river Mersey were not within the provisions of a former Act relating to the navigation of " narrow channels " There has also been considerable discussion as to the meaning of "midchannel" under a former Act (/). The w^ords, " when it is safe and practicable," appear to qualify the general operation of the rule ; but it is doubtful whether they have any further effect than the general saving clause of Article 23 (g). In America some of the States have passed laws as to the side on which vessels are to navigate ; and in some rivers there is a customary track. Sometimes an ascending ship must keep on one side or the other of midchannel, leaving the middle of the river to descending ships. In the East River, at New York, it is the law that vessels going up or down shall keep in midchannel. Where a ship is (d) See 36 & 37 Vict. c. 85, s. 17 ; supra, pp. 14, seq. {e) 1 Moo. P. 0. C. N. S. 63. (/) Smith V. Voss, 2 H. & N. 97. (g) As to the meaning of these words in former Acts, see The Z'nity, Swab. Ad. 101 ; The Hand of Pro- fidence, ibid. 107. NAVIGATION OF WINDING RIVERS. 1!)3 required by law or usage to keep on one side or the other, ^^^- ^l- 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 (h). There is great difficulty in determining the application Difficulty of of some of the Articles of the general Regulations to ships "crossing" navigating a narrow and tortuous river. It appears to f'^^" ^^^^: ° ° . _ _ ^ '^ ing rules in have been held by the Privy Council (i) in the case of a winding two ships bound up and down a river, and first sighting "^^"^^ each other on opposite sides of a point of land round which the river winds, that the ships are not " crossing " ships within the meaning of the 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 midchannel, or equi- distant from the same shore, it is not clear how, and on which side, the law requires them to pass each other (k). 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 in one way, and in one way only. In most tidal rivers there is a customary track for vessels Customary going with the tide, and another for those going against it. Its course depends mainly on the practise 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 offset of the tide from (h) 1 Parsons on Shipping (ed. (Sept. 1879) that two ships proceed- 1869), 582 ; The Ivanhoe and The ing, the one down and the otlier up Martha M. Heath, 7 Bened. 213; the Thames, each about midchannel, The VanderbiU, Q Wall. 225; The were "meeting" ships, though, owing Bay State, 3 Blatchf. 48. to the winding of the river, they (t) See The Velociti/, and cases were not "end on." As to the duty cited below. of two ships rounding a bend in a (k) In The City of London and river in opposite directions, one ont- The Vesta it apiiears to have been side the other, see The fiywrfl held by the Wreck Commissioner Citstle, 4 P. D. 219, prr Rrett, tj.J. Q cour.se in rivers 194 THE RF.GULAT10NS. Art. 21 , tlie 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 (l). 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 Kegula- tions 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, nuist 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 contiaue her course in the usual track and as if the other were not in sight {m). It appears, however, from a recent decision of the Court of Appeal, that the cases above cited as to the application of the general Eegulations in a winding river do not ne- cessarily apply in a river where there are in force special rules made under a local Act for the express pui-pose of regulating its navigation. Although the rules for the Thames are identical, as regards crossing ships, with the general Regulations, there seems some doubt whether the decision of the Privy Council in The Velocity and other cages 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 (n). The true prin- (l) The Esk and The Niord, L. R. den Pledge, Holt, 136; but see the 3 P. C. 436, 442. observations of James, L. J., on these (m) The Veloriti/, L. E. 3 P. C. cases in The Omnio, 3 P. D. 60 ; see 44 ; The Cologve and The Rnnqer, also The Milwaukee, Brown Ad. 313. I.. R. 4 P. C. 519; The Esk imd The (n) The Oceano, 3 P. D. The Niord, L. E. 3 P. C. 436; The (iol- principle adopted in the above cases NAVIGATION OF WINDINTJ RIVERS. 195 ciple seems to be, that when two ships in a river first sight _ ^^^- bl- each other the "crossing" rule, or such other rule as may for the moment be literally applicable, should be applied, if it is possible to apply it safely and effectually, so as certainly to take the ships clear of each other ; and further, that the Regulations should be so applied without regard to any practice of navigation in the particular river which is founded only on convenience. The following cases illustrate the view taken by the American c( n f 1 TT • 1 n 1 1- • cases as to the Supreme Court ot the United States as to the application application of of the Regulations of 1863 in a winding river. H^*^ Kegula- ... . . ° tions in a A sailing-ship descending a river on a southerly course winding river, sighted a steam-ship ascending it. In accordance with the practice of the river, the sailing-ship was on the west, and the steam-ship on tlie east, side of the channel. At a by the Privy Council, that in de- termining the api^lication of the Regulations in a winding river the customary track of ships is to be considered, does not appear to have been followed by Dr. Lushington under former Acts and Rules. In The Friends, 1 W. Rob. 478, and The Gazelle, ibid. 471, he expressed a strong opinion that where, except for the practice of the river as to keeping in or out of the strengih of the tide, the Rule of the Road (the Trinity Rule of 1840) would apply, the case was not taken out of the rule by the practice. In The Friends a steam-ship, going up the Thames against the ebb, sought to justify her not porting in compliance with the Trinity Rule upon the giouud that the practice of the river re- quired the other ship, which was going down witli the eVib, to keep in the strength of the tide, and her- self {'The Friends) to keep out of it. Dr. Lushington refused to recognise the practice of the river in such a case. In addressing the Trinity masters, he said : " All I can say is this, if you are about to make an exception from your own rules, an exception not to be extracted from anything to be found in the Rules themselves, but to be foimded upon reasons which have been alleged for the sake of ^afe navigation of the river Thames, and the great inte- rests which are daily and hourly there at stake, let your exception be clear and intelligi}3le, in order that it may at the first glance be known to the mercantile and maritime world. If, instead of a clear and direct rule, there is to be any excep- tion, let it be as distinct and definite as the ride itself. Unless it be so, it is obvious that persons in all cases will endeavour to form exceptions for themselves, and instead of se- curity we shall have danger." And in The Duke of Sussex, 1 W. Rob. 274, it was held that the custom of the river as to vessels availing them- selves of the strength of the tide was superseded by the Trinity Rule. The observations of L)r. J>usiiiugton as to the necessity of holding Regu- lations for preventing colli-^ion to be of almost universal application have lost none of their force, but there is some difficulty in reconciling them with the recent decisions of the Privy ( 'ouncil in the ca es stated in the text. U 2 190 THE REGULATIONS. Art, 21. point between the two vessels the river took a bend in a south-easterly direction. On reaching this point, the sail- ing-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 steam-ship, 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 shore; that her duty under the rule (identical with Article 18 of the Regulations of 1863) requiring her to keep her course was to keep her course along the west shore, devi- ating from a straight course only so far as the winding of the river required (o). 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, nevertheless, 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 will pass clear if each adheres to the customary track, the Regulations have no application; and a vessel deviating from the customary track in supposed obedience to the Regulations is in fault. In the following case, where a sailing-ship was crossing a river diagonally, for a temporary purpose, when she sighted a steam-ship approaching with risk of collision, the same Court held that the duty of the sailing-ship was to keep on her course across the river. The sailing-ship (o) The John L. Hashroncl; 3 Otto, 405. ONE SHIP TO KEEP HER COURSE. 1*J7 ascending a river on a northerly course and being over- ^^^- ^^- taken by a steam-ship, starboarded until her head was N.W. by N., in order to give the steam-ship more room to pass on her starboard hand. While crossing the river on the N.W. by N. course, she sighted another steam-ship descending the river and preparing to pass the ascending steam-ship port side to port side. After being passed by the ascending steam-ship, the sailing vessel ported and attempted to follow in her wake, so as to pass the descend- ing steam-ship port side to port side. In doing so, she came into collision with the latter, and it was held by the Supreme Coui't that she was in fault for not keeping her N.W. by N. course Q:*). When two steam-ships 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 (q). In The Milwaukee (r) it was held that the question whether two ships were meeting " end on " in a river 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. Article 22. Where hy the above rules one of tivo shij^s is to keep out ^^^- ^^- of the ivay the other shall keep her course. Ship not required to keep out of This Article corresponds with Article 18 of the Regula- the way must tions of 1863. It supplements, and must be read with, courge.^'^ (p) The Free State, 1 Otto, 200. (r) Brown Adm. 313. (5) The Oceanus, 12 Blatchf. 430. 198 THE REGULATIONS. Art. 22. Art. 22 must be strictly observed. Articles 14, IG, 17, and 20. The concluding words of the old Article 18 were superfluous, and are omitted in the present Article 22. The scope and application of the two Articles appears to be identical. Since a vessel. A., required by the Regulations to keep out of the way of another, B., may go ahead, or astern, or on either side of B., it is B.'s duty to do nothing that may embarrass A. or interfere with her right to keep clear of B. in any way she thinks fit. The rule, therefore, requiring B. to keep her course must be observed strictly. So long as B. can do so without immediate danger, and there is a possibility of A. clearing her, she must stand on. With reference to the same rule under a previous Act, Dr. Lush- ington 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, on 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 by so doing it would lead to the chance of infinitely more collisions than at present" (s). 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 vigi- lance 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 " (t). It has been held by the Privy Council that " if a ship bound to keep her course undertakes to justify her depar- ture 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 calcu- (s) The Vind, 7 Not. of Cas. 127 ; Tlie Imnutganda Saiicta Olarissima, ibid. 582 ; The Teat, 5 Not. of Cas. 276. (t) Neiv York and Liverpool U. S, Mail Co. V. RinnhM, 21 How. 372, 384. ONE SHIP TO KEEP HER COURSE. 199 lated to avoid that danger " (tt). Tliere are decisions of ^^^- ^^- the Supreme Court of the United States to the same effect {x). This rule is perhaps the most difficult of all the Regula- tions 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 deter- mined by directing her course away from the other ship. In the case of a sailing-ship, A., close-hauled on the port tack, approaching another, B., having the wind free on the starboard tack within the "crossing" rule (Article 14), 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 {y). The direction to " keep her course " does not mean that l^^i^g""""}!;^"^ the ship is to continue going ahead in the direction in course." which her head happens for the moment to be pointing, without regard to other circumstances. It means that she is to continue the course she would pursue if the other vessel were not in sight (2). Thus, a vessel rounding a point in a river, and approaching another under circumstances which require her to keep her course under Article 22, must continue her course round the point in the usual track (a). Whether a ship required to keep her course is at liberty Whether an to alter her rate of speed, while risk of collision exists, seems speed i.s au doubtful. If by doing so she increases the risk, or embar- jj^^^.^ 2T"* rasses the other ship, she would probably be held in fault. (w) Tke Aeiug applied , -f^ -r , . • 1 1 • , 1 • so as to cause law JJr. Lushmgton said that it was not a directory enact- collision. (rt) The John Buddie, 5 Not. of whether she had the wind free or Cas. 387 ; cf. The Oreat Eastern, 3 was close-hauled. In either case her Moo. P. C. C. N. S. 31. duty as to passing to the northward (b) 6 Not. of Cas. 607. of the other ship was the same. (o) Tt does not clearly appear 20G THE REGT'LATIOXS. Art. 23. ment, telling persons to do this or that, but that it released them from the severe obligation of complying with the previous Articles under circumstances which would render obedience to them dangerous when by deviation they might escape danger (d). But its application is strictly limited to cases where the circumstances are such that " there is immediate danger perfectly clear to the apprehension of those present " (e). It " does not prescribe any particular measures that should be adopted in departing from the strict terms of any of the previous Regulations 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 other authority, that could never be departed from in certain states of circumstances, such a rule would necessarily involve, on many occasions, the de- struction of ships which it was intended to preserve" (/). Duty to avoid Not Only is departure from the Rule of the Road ex- for that 'pur- cused by Article 23 where the rule cannot be obeyed pose to depart -without Collision, but a literal observance of the Regula- from the Rule ^ of the Road if tions cannot be set up as a defence where the collision necessary. jnigj^t have been avoided by ordinary care. " You may depart and you must depart from a rule if you see with perfect clearness, almost amounting to certainty, that ad- hering to the rule will bring about a collision, and violating a rule will avoid it ; and indeed this is provided for by the 1 9th Article " (of the Regulations of 1 863) (g). (d) The Eliza and The Orinoco, Regulations of 1863 in The Cayuga, Holt, 98. 14 Wall. 270; The Sunnyside, 1 (e) The Allen v. The Flora, Holt, Otto, 208. 114 ; 2 Mar. Law Ca-. O. S. 386. (y) Per Dr. Lushington, in The (f) Per Dr. Lushington in The Boancrrjes and The Anglo-Indian, 2 Allan and The Flm-a, ubi supra; and Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 239. See also see The Superior, uhi svpra. The The Ida and T'he Wasa, infra ; Supreme Court of the L^ni ted States Handayside v. Wilson, 3 Car. & P. used similar language with regard 528. to the operation of Article 19 of the DEPARTURE FROM THEM. 207 A barque close-hauled on the starboard tack was held to ^^t. 23. 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. The Court (in Ireland) said that if a ship insists on her right, under a rule of navigation, of not giving Avay, and makes no effort 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 (h). So a ship on 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 (i). The same principle has been recognised in the Common Law Courts. In Handayside v. Wilson (k), Best, C.J., said : — "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 the vessel of another, where he could avoid the injury by pursuing a different course." As to the duty of a ship, under special circumstances, to Reckless depart from the Eegulations, Dr. Lushington said : " You the Regula- 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 But in common justice, when charging a vessel with inactivity and not adopting measures to avoid a collision, we must be perfectly satisfied that the master of the vessel so charged was perfectly convinced of the imminent danger of a colli- sion taking place, and had it in his power to adopt a safe measure to avoid the collision " (l). Again, in The Lady Anne (m) : "If two vessels are approaching each other, it is the duty of both to prevent a collision, if possible. No (h) The Ida v. The W>isa, 2 Mar. (/) The LegatMH v. The Emih/, Law Gas. O. S 414. Holt, 217. (?) The Commerce, 3 W. Eob. 287. (»(.) 15 .Tur. 18, 19 ; this case was (k) 3 Car. & P. 528; and sec under the Trinity Rules of 1840. Mnyh^v v. Boj/ce, 1 Stark. 423. 208 THK KEOxULATIONS. Art. 23. doubt there are certain rules as to wliat they ought to do under particular circumstances, but the first and primary rule is to avoid a collision and the loss of property and life if it can be effected with safety." In that case The Lady Anne, close-hauled on the starboard tack, was meeting another ship, close-hauled on the port tack. It was held that The Lady Anne might have avoided the collision by putting her helm down at the last moment and easing off her head sheets, and she was held in fault for not doing so. In Tlie Siinnyside (n) the Supreme Court of the United States said : " Rules of navigation are adopted to save life and property; and they are required to be observed and are enforced to accomplish the same beneficent end, and not to promote collisions. Consequently, they have excep- tions ; and no party ought ever to be pennitted to defend or excuse a plain error by invoking a general rule of navi- gation, when it is clear that the case falls within an admitted exception." Even a sailing-ship will be held in fault for a collision with a steam-ship if she makes no attempt to avoid a colli- sion, where it is clearly in her power to do so. In such a case a mere adherence to Article 22 is no justification. In The Sunnyside a sailing-ship, with the wind free, saw the mast-head and green lights of a steam-ship 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 (o). But great caution must be used in applying the principle (n) 1 Otto, 208, 210; and see James C. Stevenson, L. R. 5 P. C. Bentley v. Coyne, 4 Wall. 509. 316, for a case of premature altera- (o) The Sunnyside, 1 Otto, 208 ; tion of her course by the sailing- but see The Bougainville v. The ship. DEPARTURK FROM THKM. 209 recognised in these cases, that under some circumstances ^^^- ^^ it is the duty of a ship to disobey the Regulations. It may be appHed only where the circumstances are very exceptional. A ship, A., close-hauled on the port tack, and another, B., on the starboard tack with the wind free, were crossing within Article 12 of the Regulations of 18G3. A. stood on until immediately before the collision, when she luffed. B. neglected to keep out of the way, as required by the Regulations (p). It was held by the Gibraltar Court that A. was in fault as well as B., because she pertinaciously kept her course under Article ] 8 when she ought to have seen that B. was not going to keep out of the way in com- pliance with the law ; and in so deciding the learned judge relied on The Commerce (q). The Privy Council reversed the decision of the Court below, and held that A. was not in fault. Sir J. W. Col vile, in dehvering the judgment of the Privy Council, said : " Their Lordships remark that, though the principle involved in that case (The 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 vei-y clear case of necessity, is hard upon the masters themselves, inasmuch as the slightest departure from these rules is almost invariably relied on as con- tributory negligence." Article 23 is not intended to apply to a case where the If the Regula- Regulations cannot be cumplied with, nor to a case where b^ complied non-compliance could not by possibility have caused the with, or can- collision. In such a case non-compliance with the Kegu- pHed witli, lations is immaterial upon the question which ship is in l'^,"'"'^ ^^^ collision. (p) The Byfoqed Christiansen and N. S. 53.5; 4 App. Cas. 669. The WiUia.ii Frederick, 41 L. T. (q) 3 W. Rob. 287. 210 THE REGULATIONS. Art. 23 does not apply. " Dangers of navigation." " Special circum- Art. 23. fault, but that is so by virtue of the general law, and not under Article 23 (r). Nothing in the Regulations requires a ship to take a measure which is dangerous to her safety (.s). A vessel is not bound to obey the rule requiring her to port if, by porting, she will go ashore {t). In such a case Article 23 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 shoal ; and if, in order to avoid a collision, it is necessary for the other vessel to depart from the Kegulations, it is her duty to do so, and Article 23 excuses her departure. So, where a ship required by the Regulations to keep stances." out of the way is unable to do so, it is the duty of the Disabled ship. Q^i^ej-, not to keep her course, but herself to keep out of the way. Two vessels, close-hauled on opposite tacks, were crossing, and the ship 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 (u). If a vessel is partially disabled, or in a condition which prevents her answering her helm readily, she must take precautions in time, and do all she can to comply with the Regulations effectually {x). A brig hove-to, reefing topsails, was held in fault for not porting {y). Where a ship had no head sail on her, and the Regulations required her to bear up, 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 [z). (»•) See Tnman v. Beck, The C'dy of Antwerp and The Friedrich, L. R. 2 P. O. 25, 34 ; and supra, pp. 14-18. (s) The St. Cyran v. The Henry, Holt, 72. (t) The Lucia Janthm v. The Mexican, Holt, 130. [n) The Ann Caroline, 2 Wall. 538. (x) The Test, 5 Not. of Cas. 276. \y) The Blenheim, 1 Sp. E. & A. 285. {z) The Calcutta, 3 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 336. DEPARTURE FROM THEM. 211 If it appears that a vessel is unable to comply with the ^^t. 28. 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 (a). 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 (5). To justify a departure from the Regulations which is Necessity of alleged to have been necessary to avoid immediate danger, f^^^l^'tHe^ there must be clear proof that an adherence to them would Regulations have caused such danger, and also that the step taken was proved, the right step (c). Where it is possible to comply with the Regulations Article 23 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 (d). Where two steam-ships 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 with the other steam-ship (e). 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 departure was necessary in order to avoid imme- (a) The Priscilki, L. R. 4 A. & E. infra ; The Planet v. The Aura, Holt, 125; The Edipsc SM.A The Royal Coyi- 255; The Emperor v. The Zephyr, sort. Holt, 220 ; see also The Ch. Holt, 24 ; and see The Corsica, 9 Raab, Brown Adm. 453. Wall. 630. (6) The H. P. Baldwin, lirown {d) The Flint, 6 Not. of ('as. 271. Ad. 300. (f) The Concordia and The Esther, {(•) The Concordia v. The Esther, I.. R. 1 A. & E. 93. P 2 212 THE RKGULATIONS. Art. 23. Cases where departure from the Kegulations held not justifiable. Convenience no excuse for departing from the Kegulations. diate clanger, and also that the course adopted b}' 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 {g). And where a large steam-ship of 135G tons had a disabled steam- ship of 1405 tons in tow, and was made fast to the latter by a tow rope and chain cables of such length that from 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 them in departing from the rule requiring steam-ships to keep out of the way of a sailing-ship (It). Two steam-ships on crossing courses (within Article 16), both making for a pilot cutter, must keep clear of each other by observing the Regulations. The mere fact that they are both making for the cutter does not justify the steam-ship with the other on her starboard hand in neglecting to keep out of her way (i). Where a collision may be avoided by obeying the Regu- lations, it is not a sufficient excuse for departing from them that the collision might with equal safety and more con- veniently have been avoided by one or both ships departing from the Regulations. Thus, where a steam-ship sighted another at a considerable distance, approaching her nearly end on and a little on her starboard bow, it was held that the law required her to port, and that she was in fault for starboarding, although by porting she would have had to cross the bows of the other ship {k). {/) The Agra and The Elizabeth Jenkins, L. E. 1 P. C. 501. (ff) The Warrior, L. R. 3 A. & E. 553. (h) The American and TJie Syria, L. R. 4 A. & E. 226 ; on appeal, L. R. 6 P. C. 127. (i) The Ada y. The Sappho, 1 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 475 ; on app. 2 Asp, Mar. Law Cas. 4. (A) The A raxes and TJie Black Prince, 15 Moo. P. C. C. 122 This case was decided under the Act of 1854 ; but it is submitted that the decision would have been the same under the existing Regulations. DEPARTURE FROM THEM. 2ir> In a case (/) which was decided under 17 & 18 Vict. ^^^- 23. c. 104, s. 296, where a collision with a sailing-ship close- hauled could have been avoided by a tug with a ship in tow, it was held that tl)e sailing-ship was in fault for keep- ing her course, and for not keeping out of the way, on the ground that she had no right to depend on the tug being able to avoid her. It was said that it might be much less inconvenient for the sailing vessel to change her course than for the tug to do so. It is submitted that, under the existing law, a vessel would not be justified in departing from the Regulations in the belief that a collision could inure conveniently be avoided by her so doing. If a ship close-hauled must, in order to avoid a collision, either luff or bear up, 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 col- lision should take place" {m). Although the stejDS which the Regulations require two Neither siiip vessels approaching with risk of collision to take are not ^^^ "lepart necessary, in the sense that a collision would certainly be Regulations avoided by only one of the vessels obeying the Regulations, of'the^o'theT^ the law must be obeyed hy both. A vessel departing from obeying them, the Regulations Avill not be excused on the ground that the collision would have been avoided if the other vessel had not disobeyed the law. Li such a case Article 23 is no justi- fication for either ship in departing from the Regulations, Thus, where two steam-ships 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 Court of the United States {ii). It remains to be decided what etfect the new Article If) Combinod has upon the application of Article 23. In America, where Art^1>'and Art. 23. (1) The Arthur Gordon and The Jenkins, L. K. 1 P. C. .501. Independenre, Lush. "270. («) The America, 2 Otto. 432. (m) The Af/ra and The Elizabeth 214 THE REGULATIONS. Art. 23. a " whistling " rule similar to that of Article 19 has been in force for many years, it has been held that a steam-ship signalling to another that she intends to depart 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 (o). It would probably be held that where a ship is hailed by the other to take a particular course, if she does so and a collision occurs the other could not be heard to say that she was wrong for departing from the Regulations {p). Art. 24. Besides observing the Regulations proper pre- cautions are to be taken in all cases. Article 24. Nothing in these rules shall exonerate any ship, or the owner, or master, or ereiv thereof , from the consequences of any neglect to carry lights or signals, or of any neglect to keep a proper look-out, or of the neglect of any precaution ivhich may he required by the ordinal^ practice of seamen, or by the special circum^stances of the case. This Article is identical with Article 20 of the Regula- tions of 1863. It seems difficult to attribute to it any legal effect. It was inserted in the Regulations, probably, ex abundante cauteld, and as a declaration, not to be over- looked by seamen, of the legal consequences of negligence. The neglect of a vessel preparing to anchor to warn a ship astern of her position and intention was held neglect of a " precaution required by the special circumstances of the case " (q). The duty of those in charge of a ship to navigate her with due regard to the ordinary rules of seamanship, and (o) The Milwaukee, 1 Brown Adm. 313. ip) See above, p. 7, and cases there cited. (5) The Philotaxe, 3 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 512. As to the duty of a ship in such a case, see infra, p. 221 ORDINA.RY PRECAUTIONS— LOOK-OUT. 21 under special circumstances to depart from the Regulations, ^^^- ^ ^- has been already referred to (r). What is required of seamen is ordinary skill and ordinary intelligence. Neither Article 24, nor any other part of the Regulations, makes it their duty to foresee and provide against every accident. Rut where 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 (s). Where, for example, an alteration of the helm is not enough, the helm must be assisted by lowering the peak or letting go the fore-sheets (t). So, a vessel has been held in fault for not backing her yards (u). The law as to what is proper care and skill in naviga- Precautions tion, and what are precautions required by the ordinary ^^e „r)iinary practice of seamen, is illustrated by numerous decisions in Practice of ^ _ "^ . geamen which the Coiu'ts, some of which are here collected. have been First, as to look-out : If a ship is proved to have been J^eTaw!^'^ ^^ negligent in not keeping a proper look-out she will be held Look-out. answerable for all the reasonable consequences of her negli- gence. In an American case, where the look-out on board a schooner failed to report a steamer's light which could not be seen by the man at the wheel, the schooner was held partly in fault for the collision (v). 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 cannot 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 The Mellona {x) Dr. Lushington said : " It is no excuse to urge that from (}•) See pp. 203-214, above. The Marpesia, L. R. 4 P. C. 212 ; {s) The Jcgmmid and The Earl of The Ulster, 1 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. El') '^'^'^ Northern Indiana, .3 (i) 1 Otto. 208. Ijlatchf. 92 ; The Comet, 9 Blatchf. 218 TIIK REGULATIONS. Art. 24. In The A riadne (o) the Supreme Court said that the rigour of the requirement as to an efficient look-out rises according to the speed and power of tlie vessel, and the chance of meeting other ships. So that a vessel entering a harbour at night should have all the crew on deck, and keep as sharp a look-out as is possible (^J). 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 (q) ; or that they were repairing damage caused by an accident (r). 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 (.s-). Sufficiency of ^ vessel under way must have on board a sufficient crew to work her for the voyage on which she is engaged. When in dock or harbour she should be provided with suf- ficient hands to tend her, having regard to her position, the character of the dock or harbour, and to ordinary changes of the weather (f). 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 (u). It is negligence for the captain of a ship at moorings in a river to be ashore when the weather is bad and threatening (v). The officer in charge should be always on deck (.»). In a fog there should be strength at 323; The Parkershurrj, 5 Blatchf. (s) TOe ^wmra, 10 Blatchf. 155; 247; The Douglass, Brown Ad. 105; Inte v. East Boston Ferry Co., 106 The Nabob, ibid. 115 ; The B/ossom, Massach. Rep. 149; and see supra, Olcott, 188. p. 164. (o) 18 Wall. 475. {t) The Excclsm; L. R. 2 A. & E. Ip) Tlie Scioto, Davie.s, 359. 268 ; The Patriotto and The Rival, 2 (q) The Catharine v. Dickinson, L. T. N. S. 301. 17 How. 170 ; Thor2^ v. Hammond, (u) The Clyde Navigation Co. v. 12 Wall. 408 ; see also The H. P. Barclay, 1 Ap. Cas. 790. Baldwin, Brown Adtn. 300. (v) The Kepler, 2 P. D. 40. (»•) Whitridge v. Dill, 23 How. (x) The Arthur Gordon and The 448. Independence, Lush. 270. BRINGING UP — FOUL BERTH. 219 the helm to alter the ship's course as quickly as possible ^^^- ^^- on the order being given {y). A vessel under way is bound to keep clear of another at Keeping clear 11 • n 1 of ship at anchor. The rule seems to be the same m ail cases where 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 wa}^; as where she is fishing and fast to her nets, in stays, hove-to, or disabled {z). And it applies though the ship at anchor is brought up in the fair-way, 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, any collision whatever " (a). If one ship is fast to the shore, or lying at established moorings, it can scarcely happen that the other would not be held in fault for a collision (6). Where a steam-ship in the daytime ran into a sailing-ship brought up in a river 500 yards wide, it was held by an American Court that the steam-ship was solely in fault, although the sailing-ship was riding with her sails up, sheering about, and with no anchor watch (c). The following cases illustrate the requirements of the Precautions , 1 p 1 . , • , 1 to be taken law as to the duty of a ship when commg to an anchor, ^vhen at when brought up, and when getting under way: — anchor, bnng- . J, , ing up, or A ship in bringing up must not give another a foul getting under berth. " If one vessel anchors there, and another here, ^'^^• ,111 ^ f f ■ • i^ XT 1 'Povl berth, there should be that space left tor swmgmg 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 " {d). In an American case it was held that a (y) Tlie Europa, 14 Jur. 627. The Bella Donna, Newb. Adm. 510 ; (2) See above, p. 211. The Bridgeport, 7 Blatchf. 361 ; 14 {a) Per Dr. Lushington in The Wall. 116; The Granite State, 3 Batavier, 2 W. Rob. 407; and see Wall. 310 ; The Helen Cooper and The Dura, 1 Pritch. Adm. Dig. 174 ; The R. L. Mahey, 7 Blatchf. 378. The Marcia Tribou, 2 Sprague, 17. (c) The Planet, Brown Adm. 124. (b) See The Secret, 26 L. T. N. S. {d) Per Dr. Lushington^ in T/ic 670; and (American cases) C«Wcrteo/i Northampton, 1 Spinks, E. & A. V. Shaw, 18 How. 584; Portevaut v. 152, 160. 220 THE RlifUTLATIONS. Art. 24. 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 (e). If a ship gives another a foul berth she cannot require the latter to take extraordinary precautions to avoid a collision (/). 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 cun'ent and also to prevailing winds. If she brings up directly in the hawse of another ship, or elsewhere in the neighbour- hood of another ship, there should be such a distance be- tween them that if either of them drives or parts from her anchors she may have the opportunity to keep clear ((/). Where a ship, in bad weather, took up a berth two cables' length 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 (h). Where a vessel gave another a foul berth, and subsequently drove against her in a hurricane, it was held to be an inevitable accident (/'). 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 (Jc). A vessel voluntarily taking up such a berth in a dock does so at her own risk (/). (e) The Queen of the East and The Bell, 2 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 318. Cnli/pso, 4 Bened. 103. ((') 2'he Innisfail and The Secret, (/) The Vivid, 1 Asp. Mar. Law 35 L. T. N. S. 819. Cas. 601. (^) The Indian and The Jessie, 2 ((/) The Cumberland (Vice -Ad. Mar. Law Cas. 0. S. 217; The Court, Lower Canada), Stuart's Kep. George and The Lidskjalf, Swab. (1858), p. 75 ; The E(jyptiaii, 1 Mar. Adm. 117. Law Cas. O. S. 358. (/) The Patriotto and The Rival, {h) The Volcano. 2 W. Rob. 337 ; 2 L. T. N. S. 301. The Maggie Armstrong and The Blue COMING TO AN ANCIIOI'.. 221 So in coining to an anchor caution must be used not to ^^^- ^^- injure or embarrass other ships. A vessel rounding to, so Coming to an 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). 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 Stangate Creek, in the Medway, was held in fault for a collision caused by her running in under too great a press of sail ('?;), 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 (o). After coming to an anchor those on board must show Precautions proper skill and seamanship in keeping their vessel from ^|,j^g^^ .^^'^^^ driving and endangering other craft. If a ship parts from andior. 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 collision 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 (p). Where it is customary and prudent to moor, a vessel neglecting to do so will be held in fault (q). The duty to keep an anchor watch has been already referred to (r). (m) The Ceres, Swab. Adm. 250 ; Cas. 0. S. 56 ; 1 ]\Ioo. P. C. C. N. The Shannon, 1 W. Rob. 4H3 ; The S. 373. Philohtze, 37 L. T. N. S. 540. {p) The Excelsior, L. E. 2 A. & E. (n) The Neptune the Second, 1 Dod. 268 ; The Christiana, 7 Moo. P. C. 467 ; The Secret, 26 L. T. N. S. 670 ; C. 160. The Earl Spencer, L. R. 4 A. & E. (q) The Gipsey King, 2 W. Rol>. 431 ; The Hasten, Brown Ad. 436. 537. (o) The Egyptian, 2 Mar. Law. ()■) Supra, y. 216. 222 THE RKUUIATIONS. Art. 24. 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 {q). Insufficient ground tackle, or riding by a single anchor when there should have been two down, will make a shij) liable for a collision so caused {r). The ship must be duly tended while at anchor. A ship which goes foul of another tlirough improperly breaking her sheer, will be held in fault (s). 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 {t). If a ship in a dock or harbour, subject to the Harbours, Dock, and Piers Clauses Act, 1847, is insufficiently moored, after notice from the harbour-master to provide proper fasts, she incurs a penalty of £10 (u). It has been held negligence not to increase moorings where the state of the weather required it {v). It was held by the Supreme Court of the United States 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 {w). In another American case (x) 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 (q) The Maqgie Ai-mstrong v. The Lush. 266 ; The Excelsior, L. E. 2 Blue Bell, 2 Mar. Law. Cas. O. S. A. & E. 268. 318, 319. (m) 10 & 11 Vict. c. 27, s. 61. (»•) The Massachussetts, 1 W. Rob. (?•) The John Hurley and Tfte 371 ; The Despatch, 3 L. T. N. S. WiUiam TeU, 2 Mar. Law Cas. 0. S. 219 ; The Volcano, 2 W. Rob. 337. 290 ; The Louisiana, 3 Wall. 164. (s) See The Peerless, Lush. 30. (w) The Sapphire, 11 Wall. 164. (t) The Christiana, 7 Moo. P. C. (:»•) The Dutchess, 6 Bened. 48. C. 160 ; and see The Ruhy Queen, PRECAUTIONS BY SHIP AT ANCHOR. 223 took proper measures to prevent it, and that her ground tackle was sufficient. If a ship is brought up by her own people, or by a com- pulsory 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 (?/). 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 (z). It was held negligence in a ship in threatening weather to ride to a buoy in a river 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 threatening or there is cause for special precautions, an anchor watch must be kept and hands enough must remain on board to tend the ship (a). A ship cannot take up or keep a berth by mooring a buoy at a particular spot ; although it seems that in particular localities there may be a custom enabling her to do so (6). 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 (c). Making fast to another vessel in harbour instead of to the shore has been held to be negligence (c?). Where a ship, A., was made fast to another, B., and B., in getting under way, injured A., it was held in America (.V) The Wohimi Abbey, 3 Mar. {a) The Pladda, 2 P. D. 34 ; The Law. Cas. (). S. 240. As to the Kepler, 2 P. D. 40. duty of the master to shift, although (6) The Vivid, 1 Asp. Mar. Law the pilot is on board, if he is no Cas. 601. longer in charge, see S. C. Ch. V. (c) See supra, p. 23. (3) The Despatch, 3 I>. T. N. S. (d) The Atlas, 2 Mar. Law Cas. 219. O. S. Dig. 1480. Art. 24. 224 , THE RKCJri.ATIONS. Art. 24. 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 (e). Bringing up j^^ harbours and waters where there are local rules, or in a fair- way i , • i t ^ i i or improper an established custom, as to the proper anchorage gTouncl, place. ^ vessel would be held in fciult for a collision caused by her bringing" up elsewhere. But if she were compelled to bring- up in tlie fair- way it would be otherwise (/). If there is no rule or custom requiring her to bring up out of the fair- way 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 (g). 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 (A). The obligation on a ship under way to keep clear of another at anchor, as before stated (i), applies although the ship at anchor is in an improper berth. And a vessel brought up in a berth which is im])roper only in the sense that it is an exposed and dangerous position, does not thereby contribute to a collision caused by another ship negligently driving into her (k). 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 steam-ship was dismissed (/). (e) The Thornton, 2 Bened. 429. 7'hc Exchange, 10 Blatchf. 168 ; and (/) The Kjobenhavn, 2 Asp. Mar. see supra, pp. 164, 218. Law Cas. 213 ; and see The CUtrita (t) Supra, p. 219. and The Clara, 23 Wall. 1. (A) The Despatch, 3 L. T. N. S. (g) The Lancashire. L. R. 4 A. & 219. E. 198. (I) The Duke of Cornivall, 1 Pr. (h) The D. S. Gregory, 6 Blatchf. Adm. Dig. p. 135. 528 ; The Hudson, 5 Bened. 206 ; GETT[NG UNDER WAY. 225 It seems that a vessel at anchor is not justified under all ^^t. 24. circumstances in holding on when by slipping she could Slipping to avoid a collision. A vessel in Falmouth harbour was driv- Hsl^jn.^ inor in a gale of wind towards the breakwater. She could have avoided the breakwater 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 {ni). A vessel getting under way unnecessarily in bad weather (iettinyf nndt r 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 (?i). The duty of a large ship to exer- cise 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 anchor. It was held she had no right to be under way at all at night under such circumstances (p). In an American case it was held that a ferry steamer getting under way when there was another vessel in her way which she ought to have seen, and which it was im- possible to clear, was solely in fault for the collision. But it was said that she was not required to wait for the arrival of another boat running on the same ferry, and which was due (q). If a vessel rides by, or makes fai^t to, or runs foul of, any Riding- by a light-ship or buoy, in addition to the obligation to make ^l^^-ship. good all damage she incurs a penalty of fifty pounds (r). (m) The Villa, 3 Mar. Law C^as. decisions. O. S. 148 ; Cf. The Sapphire, 11 Wall. (o) The City of Paris, 14 Blatchf. 164. 531. (n) The Carrier Dove, Br. & Lush. (p) The Borussia, Swab. Adm. 04. 113 ; The Julia M. Ilallock; 1 ('/) The Columbus, Abbot Adni. Sprague, 539 ; ff Neil v. Sears, 2 384. Sprague, 52 ; The Thornton, 2 Bened. ()•) Merchant Shipping Act, 1 854 429. The last three are American (17 & 18 Vict, c 104), s. 41-1. Ci t 226 THE REGULATIONS. Art. 24. A vessel in stays — " in irons " — is almost as helpless for Ship in stays; the purpose of keeping out of the way of another as a ship before gdng at anchor. It is the duty of other ships to keep clear of about. her. Before going about it is the duty of those on board " to take a due look round beforehand to ascertain that no ship is in the neighbourhood likely to come upon them" (s). If weather permits a ship must have such canvas on her that she can be kept under command, and be able to stay (t). 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 a ship astern when she wore unnecessarily (u). In America a schooner wearing so close ahead of another ship that the latter could not clear her was held in fault (x). Missing stays. jf a vessel misses stays the duty of those on board is to get her under command again as quickly as possible (y). Ships working Where it is the duty of a ship under the Regulations to keep out of the way, she should not stand so close to the 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 (z). 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 (ft). (s) The Sea Nymph, Lush. 23 ; tor, ubi supra. see also The Ida and The Wasa, 2 (ac) The Saxonia, 2 Mar. Law Cas. Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 41-t ; The O. S. 417. AUan and The Flora, ibid. 386 ; The iy) The Kingston hy-Sea, 3 W. Eleanor and The Alma, ibid, 240 ; Rob. 152 ; The Lake St. Clair and The Bolderaa, Holt, 205 ; The Nev;- The Underivriter, 3 Asp. Mar. Law burgh and The Oscar, Holt, 231. Cas. 361. . {t) The Stirlingshire a,nd The Africa, {z) The Kingston-by-Sea, ubi supra; 2 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. Dig. 672; The Plato and The Persevera7ice,'H.o\t, The Falkland and The Navigator, Br. 262. & Lush. 204. (a) The Mobile, Swab. Adm. 69 ; (m) TheJPalkland and The Naiiga- ibid. 127. to windward in company SHIP IN STAYS. 227 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 stays, or has not gathered way on the other tack (6). 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 (c). But a sailing-ship turning up the Thames was held not to blame for giving no notice to a steam-ship astern of her in- tention to go about {(l). The rule in America as to ships working to windward in R"le in . . 1 ■ i. 1 )' America aw to narrow channels is that tiiey must beat out their tacks, beating out and not go about before the depth of water or exigencies **''^'^**- of the navigation require it (e). Vessels are expected to know the channel and the point at which other ships will be compelled to go about (/). A ship going about before she gets to the edge of the channel, and thereby causing a collision with a passing steam-ship, was held in fault (g). 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 (/t). The rule does not appear to have been expressly recognised in any Court in this country. In The Palatine (i), where there seems to have been room for its application, it was not referred to. {b) The Priscilla, L. R. 4 A. & E. (e) Thorp v. Hammond, 12 Wall. 12.5; The Eclipse and The Royal 408; The Empire State, I Bened.. hi ; Consort, Holt, 220. The Bridgeport, 6 Blatclif. 3 ; The (c) The Lake St. Clair and The Charlotte Raah, Brown Adm. 453. Underwriter, 3 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. (/) The Nellie V., 5 Blatd.f. 245. 361 ; and see The Leonidas, Stuart's {(j) The Nereus, 3 Bened. 238. Vice Ad. Rep., Lower Canada (h) The Vieksburg, 7 Blatchf. (18.'>8), p. 226. 216 ; The Empire State, supra. (d) The Palatine, 1 Asp. Mar. Law (t) 1 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 468. Cas. 468. 228 THE REGULATIONS. Art. 24. Whether a ship should hold henself in stays for another. Extra care required in jiassing over fishing grounds. Vessels navi- gating in an unusual manner or course do so at their own risk. Whether a ship, being in stays, is required to hold herself in stays to allow another vessel to pass, is not clear. Two American cases are contradictory on the point. In The Empire State (j) the Court said that it is the duty of a ship 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. G. Bedfield (k), 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 in going about (l) ; and that she is not wrong in fore-reaching or shooting ahead in the wind's eye whilst going about (in). Fishing boats have a right to fish on the high sea, and to be fast to their nets, whether their fishing ground is in the track of ships or not. It is the duty of other ships to take greater precautions when passing over a fishing ground, so as to keep clear of the fishing boats, and not make them cast off from their nets (n). Vessels navigating in an unusual manner or by an improper course do so at their own risk. By the bye-laws in force in the Tyne (clause 17), all vessels proceeding to sea are required to keep on the south side of midchannel ; and (clause 20) vessels crossing the river take upon them- selves the responsibility of doing so with safety to the passing traffic. A vessel outward bound, coming out of the Tyne dock on the south side of the river, and either inten- tionally, or under the influence of the tide, crossing over to ( / ) 1 Bened. 57. {ic) 4 Bened. 227 ; see also The Arthur Gordon and The Indepen- dence, Lush. 270 ; TIlb Lake St. Clair and The Underwriter, ubi supra. (?) The Charlotte Raab, Brown Adm. 4.53. (?;i) 1 Parsons on Shipping {2nd ed.), 578, note. («) T/ie Columbus, 2 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. Dig. 730; Murphy v. Palgrave, 3 Mar. I^aw Cas. O. S. 284 (Irish case) ; The Margaret and The Tuscar, Holt, 44. SEAMANSHIP — SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS. 229 the north side of the river, came into collision on the north ^^h^l_ side with two steam-ships 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 (o). It was held in The Smyrna {p) 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. But the rule would seem to be different under the present law of " starboard side " in narrow channels {q). 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 midchannel, or if they go along the shore to go very slowly (r). Where two steam-ships 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 (s). A vessel warping down the Thames against the flood tide was held in fault for a collision thereby occasioned {t) ; and in America it was held that a vessel with a warj) across a river fair-way is bound to slack it to allow another vessel to cross (ic). A steam-ship proceeding down the Thames at night against a flood tide is required to exercise the greatest caution {x). (o) The Henry Morton, 2 Asp. (r) The FavorUa, 18 Wall. 59S. Mar. Law Cas. 466. As to the duty (s) The Galatea, 2 Otto. 4.39; as of ships to keep on their proper side to the Thames, see infra, p. 278. and in the usual track in rivers, see (t) The Hope, 2 W. Kob. 8. xupra, pp. 193^197; smd T lie Java, (u) The Mareriek, 1 Spraijue, 23. 14 Wall. 189. (:x)-The Trident,! Sp. E. & A. (p) 2 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 93. 217. (q) See Article 21. 230 THE REGULATIONS. Art. 24. Eddy tide. Being under way in thick weather ; stress of weather. Standing too close to other craft. If a vessel enters an eddy tide and is thereby prevented from ansv^ering her helm and goes into collision with another ship, it is no excuse that the eddy prevented her from answering her helm {y) ; and the effect of the tide on other ships must be known and allowed for {z), If the weather is such that an object cannot be seen in time to avoid it, a vessel has no right to be under way at all. In such weather she should bring up on the first opportunity, and not get under way miless obliged to do so (a). 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 (6). " Stress of weather " is an excuse frequently put forward for omitting to exercise ordinary care, but it is one which the Court is very unwilling to accept (c). In squally weather it is the duty of a ship not to approach another so near that if a squall strikes her she will go in collision with the other, A vessel will be held in fault if she navigates so close to another that her view is obstructed and she cannot see a third ship in time to avoid her (d) ; or that she is affected by the wash or suction of the ship ahead, and will not answer her helm {e). 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 split 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 shoiild have given the other vessel a wider berth (/). (y) The La Phtta, Swab. Adm. 220, 223 ; The Russia, 3 Bened. 471. (2) The Frantz Sigel, 14 Blatchf. 480, («) Tlie Lancashire, L. R. 4 A. & E. 19S ; The Otter, L. R. 4 A. & E. 203. And see supra, p. 163. (h) The Flint, 6 Not. of Cas. 271 ; The John Harley and The William, Tell, 2 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 290. (c) The Uhla, 3 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 148 ; The Flint, uhi supra. (d) The Zollrerein, Swab. Adm. 96 ; and see Mayhev} v. Boyce, 1 Stark. 423, supra, p. 4. (e) The (reneral McCandlass, 6 Bened. 223, 226. (/) The Globe, 6 Not. of Cas. 275. SEAMANSHIP — SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS. 231 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 (g). In America, a steam-ship 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 (h). And where a steam-ship 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 Circuit 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" (i). Where a ship, which had been ashore, came off un- expectedly 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 (k). 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 (l). 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 (m). The Supreme Court of the United States held a steam-ship solely in fault for a collision with (g) The Plato and The Perserer- (k) The Coxon, 2 Mar. Law Cas. ance, Holt, 262. O. S. Di,;?. 549. (h) The Georqe Laiv, 3 Bened. (I) The Thornley, 7 Jur. 659. 39^/ (m) The TJiames, 5 C. Rob. 345. " (i) The Benefactor, 14 Blatchf. See The Bellerophon, 3 Asp. Mar. 254. Law Cas. .58. 232 THE REGULATIONS. Art. 24. a pilot boat from which she was taking a pilot and which was plainly \dsible to her, although the pilot boat had no mast-head light and crossed the bows of the steam- ship (n). In another case (o) before the same Court two tugs making for the same vessel in order to get the 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 (p). The Supreme Court in America has held that a vessel undertaking to pass another in a narrow channel (q), or navigating such a channel in weather that makes it dangerous (r), 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 own negligence or not, another vessel attempting to pass her was in fault for running into her (s). Where the leading vessel of two steamers proceeding- down a river with the stream, and bound to the same place on its bands, 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 (t). (n) The Citijof Washington,'! Otto. (r) The Mohhr, 21 Wall. 231. 31. (.s) The Ellen S. Terry, 7 Bened. (o) Sturrjis V. Clouyh, 21 How. 401. 451. (t) The Crescent v. The Rnvland (p) The Effort, 5 Not. of Cas. /////, Stuart's Kep. (1858) (Vice- 279. Adm. Ct., Lower Canada), 289. (q) The Mcrrimac, 14 Wall. 199. SEAMANSHIP — SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS. 233 If a vessel is of a construction or is in a condition which ^^- ^- is specially dangerous to other vessels, it is her duty to Vessel, owiug warn approaching vessels of the fact. Where a ship of construction war carried on her stem under water a projecting ram or «/ otherwise, . dangerous to spur, it was held that it was her duty to apprise a vessel others, coming alongside of the danger she ran in approaching her (u). 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 dis- abled vessel (x) ; 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 per- formance of the towage (y). 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 (z). Where a vessel is coming out of dock, or executing a Coming out of 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 obviously 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 her. She put her helm hard-a-port and scandalized her mainsail in order to get her head to point down the river. Owing to the flood tide catching her under the starboard bow she did not answer her helm readily, and came into collision with the tug. If she had (u) The Bellei-ophon, 3 Asp. Mar. siq/ra, p. 210. Law Cas. 58 ; and see The Batavier. (y) See supra, p. 82, seq. 1 Sp. E. & A. 378. (2) The Lake St. Clair and The (x) The Arthur Gordon and The Underwriter, 3 Asp, Mar. Law Cas. Independence, Lush. 270 ; and see 361. 234 THE REGULATIONS. Art. 24. 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 expecta- tion that the schooner would set her jib and straighten herself m the river, as she was intending to do. It was held that the schooner was solely in fault for the coUision, 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 (a). Dumb barges. A dumb barge, or lighter, that drives with the tide has little or no control over her own movements, and cannot keep out of the way of other craft. It is therefore the duty of other vessels, and particularly of steam-ships, to keep out of her way. In order to do this they must know the set of the tide and probable course of the lighter (b). In a river or narrow channel steam-ships must go at such a rate of speed as will not raise a swell to endanger 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 (c). But to recover against another ship for sinkino- her by her swell it must be clearly proved that the sunken craft was not mismanaged or overladen (d). In the Suez Canal the local rules specify five and a-half knots as the maximum speed. Special pre- When a vessel is launched, the law casts upon the Speed in narrow channels. (ft) The Ulster, 1 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 234. (b) The SimUmv, 3 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 371 ; The Oven Wallis, L. R. 4 A. & E. 175. For American decisions to the same effect, see Fretz V. Bull, 12 How. 466 ; Pearce V. Paffe, 24 How. 228 ; Butterfield V. Boyd, 4 Blatchf. 356. [c) The Batavier, 1 Sp. E. & A. 378 ; 9 Moo. P. C. C. 286 ; see The Duke of Cornwall, 1 Pr. Adm. Dig. 135; iiinith v. Dohson, 3 M. & G. 59. (d) Luocford v. Large, 5 C & P. 421. The rule of equal di\'ision of loss only applies in case of collision, 36 & 37 Vict. c. 66, s. 25, sub-s. 9. SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS — LAUNCH. 235 persons in charge of the launch the obligation of conduct- ^^^- ^^- ing it with the utmost precaution, and of giving such cautions re- ^ . . . quii'ed at notice as is reasonable and suincient to prevent injury to launch, passing vessels. In the case of The Audalusian (e), 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 was not warned, and those in charge of the launch were held responsible for a collision with her. In The Blenheim (/) Dr. Lushington said with regard to the duty of those in charge of the launch : — " Such reasonable 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 that 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." Similar language was used by Sir R. Phillimore as to the duty of those launching a vessel in The Glengarry (g) ; in which case it was held that the burden of showing that proper precautions were taken lies on those launching the ship. In The Glengarry it 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 (e) 2 P. D. 231 ; see also The (/) 4 Not. of Cas. 393. Vianm, Swab. Adm. 405. (g) 2 P. D. 235. 236 THE REGLfLATIONS. Art. 24. 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 super- intend or be present, it should not take place in his absence {h). As to the duty of a vessel coming out of dock into the fair-way of a river, see above, p. 233. SmaU craft There is no rule in law requiring small vessels to keep byMTtif*"*^ out of the way of larger ones, though it may be much keep out of easier for them to do so than for the larger ship to take helvT'ships. the steps required by the Regulations. A large ship going at a slow speed in a narrow channel may be unable to alter her course rapidly, but, so far as she can do so, she must comply with the Regulations, 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 (i). Article 25. Art. 25. Nothing in these rules shall interfere with the opera- Locai rules ~ tio7i of a Sjjecial rule, duly ruade by local authority, not affected r^^elntive to the navigation of any harbour, river, or inland by the general i/ ./ ^ rules. navigation. This Article is new. It does not appear to make any alteration in the law, the effect of local rules being saved by 25 & 26 Vict. c. G3, s. 31. Local rules have not, in all cases, been recognised by the Courts as of equally binding effect with the general Eegu- (h) The United States, 2 :Mar. Law Adm. 220 ; on app., ibid. 298 ; and Cas. O. S. 166. see The Arthur Gonhm and The (?) See TItc La Plata, Swab. Independence, Lush. 270. LOCAL RULES. 237 lations; but there is no doubt that a material infringe- Art. 25. ment of them will, unless excused by special circumstances, be held to be negligence contributing to a collision. A bye -law made under a local Act required ships coming into the Tyne to keep on the north side of the river. The Raithvxtite 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, Tlie Raitlnvaite Hall was held to be in fault for the collision (/,•). In this case Sir R. Phillimore said, with regard to the effect of local rules : " There should, however, be no misunderstanding 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 disobeying them is therefore to be licld 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 evidence, 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 the ship had been guilty of a breach of duty and was to blame for the colli- sion " {I). The words of Article 25 are very wide, and appear to Effect of local negative the operation of the general Regulations in all JJaterr^"'^^'"" waters at home or abroad where they conflict with rules " dijly made by local authority." But it seems that, under the Regulations of 1803, local rules as to ships' lights in foreign waters were not binding on British ships {m). (A-) TJie Raithimite Hall, 2 Asp. 30; 13 Moo. P. C. C. 484: The Mar. Law Ca.s. 210. .Smyrna, 2 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 93. (/) As to the obligation to obey {in) The William Butt, cited in local niles, see The Hmry Aforton, 2 Lowndes on Collision, 187 ; The Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 466 ; The Iron Mirhelimo ami The Dacca, P. C 7'»Ar, Holt, 227 ; y^e Pm-Zcfs, Lush. Mav, 1S77. 288 THE REGULATIONS. Art. 25. Local rules are in force in the Thames, the Mersey, the Local rules. Clyde, the Tees, the Tyne, and at Belfast, Dublin, and Cork. In the case of the Thames and some other waters the local rules are nearly identical with the general Regu- lations. The rules will be found in the Appendix, infra. Difficulties arise in some cases where the local rules are not consistent with the general Regulations ; but it appears that in the waters in which they are in force the local rules must be obeyed without regard to the general Regulations, if the latter conflict with them. Previous to enactment of the existing bye-laws there was no bye-law in force in the Thames requiring sailing-ships to carry lights. A Trinity sailing ballast lighter having been 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 general Regula- tions to carry lights, and that she was not required to carry them under the local rules, there being no bye-law on the subject {n). Sir R. Phillimore expressed an opinion that the power of the Conservators did not enable them to make bye-laws for seagoing ships, and their powers applied to river craft only. It seems, however, that the existing bye- laws are binding on all ships in the Thames. Vessels navigating the sea channels at the mouth of the Mersey are required to keep on the starboard side of the channel ; and vessels at anchor in those channels are re- quired to exhibit a second riding light at the mizen-peak(o). By 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, s. 32, Her Majesty has power to make regulations for rivers and inland waters where they cannot be made under any local Act. Under this power rules have been made for the Mersey {p) and for some of the Lancashire inland navigations {q). (w) The a S. Butler, L. E. 4 A. (o) 37 & 38 Vict. c. 52. See Ap- & E. 238. In America there are in pendix. force special rules as to steam-ships' {p) See Order in Council of 27th lights, some of which appear to be June, 1866. inconsistent with the international (q) See two Orders in Council of Eegulations. 18th May, 1870. LIGHTS FOR MEN-OF-WAR AND CONVOYS. 239 By 10 & 11 Vict. c. 27, dock and harbour authorities Art. 25. have power to make .such regulations ; and by 28 & 29 Vict. c. 12o, in dockyard ports the Queen's harbour-master has a similar power. Under the last -mentioned Act regu- lations have been made for Queenstown, Deptford, Wool- wich, Portsmouth, Plymouth, Pembroke, and Portland (?•), There are special rules for the navigation of the Danube (s) and for the Suez Canal {t). It appears that Avhere the local rules do not conflict with the general rules the latter are supplementary to the local rules. Local rules, though not made by any competent authority, may, by long usage and well-recognised practice, obtain the force of law. The obligation to obey such a custom of the river was upheld by the Privy Council in TJte Fyenoord. That case was decided under s. 297 of 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, by which it was enacted, in eflfect, that vessels going up the Thames should keep on the north or starboard side. The Fyenoord, a foreign ship, was navi- gating 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 trans- gressing the custom {ii). Artfcle 26. Nothing in these rules shall interfere with the operation Art. 26. of any special rules rands by the Government of any nation Special lights with respect to additional station and signal lights for ^o'" ^q"^'^»°s (r) See Orders in Council of 29th March, 1863. Feb. 1868, and 29th June, 1878. (<) The sub.stance of these rules (.?) See Pari. Pap., No. 29, of will be found in the Appendix. 1878 (Turkey); as to former rules {u) The Fyenoord, Swab. Adm. for the Danube, see The Smyrna, 2 374 ; see also, as to local cu.stom Mar. Law. Cas. O. S. 93 ; Orders in The Smyrna, 2 INIar. Law Cas. Council of 6th January, 1862 ; 21st O. S. 93. 240 THE REGULATIONS. Art. 26. two or more ships of tear, or for ships sailing tinrler convoy. Thi.s Article is entirely new. Her Majesty's ships were not technically bound by the Regulations of 1863, nor, probably, are they by those of 1880. But Regulations exactly in accordance with them being issued by the Lords of the Admiralty, Her Majesty's ships are practically, in case of collision, before the laAv, in the same position as other ships (x). (x) H.M.S. Tapnze, 2 Mar. Law Qiireii's Regulations for the Navy, Cas. O. S. 38 ; H.M.S. Suppli/, of 1879. ibid. 2(32. And see Art. 1001 of the 241 APPENDIX. 25 4- 26 Viet c. 63, ss. 25—33, and 54—60. S. 25. On and after the 1st day of June, 1863 (a), or such later day as may be fixed for the puqiose by Order in Council, the Eegulations cgntained in the Table marked (C) in the Schedule hereto shall come into operation and be of the same force as if they were enacted in the body of this Act ; but Her (a) The following were the Eegu- lations and Acts of Parliament re- lating to the Rule of the Road which were successively in force previous to the year 1862. The London Trinity House issued the following order on the 30th of Oct. 1840 :— " \Vhereas the recognised rule for sailing-vessels is that those having the wind fair shall give way to those on a wind ; that when both are going by the wind the vessel on the starboard tack shall keep her wind, and the one on the larboard tack bear up, thereby passing each other on the larboard hand ; that when both vessels have the wind large or abeam and meet, they shaU pass each other in the same way <.)n the larboard hand ; to effect which two last-mentioned objects, the helm must be put to port ; and as steam- vessels may be considered in the light of vessels navigating with a fair wind, and should give way to sailing-vessels on a wind on either side, it becomes only necessary to provide a rule for their observance when meeting other steamers or sailing-vessels going large. When steam-vessels on different courses must unavoidably or necessarily cross so near that by continuing their courses there would be a risk of coming in collision, each vessel shall put her helm to port so as always to pass on the larboard side of each other." By 9 & 10 Vict. c. 100, s. 9, it was enacted that : — " Every steam-vessel, when meet- ing or passing any other steam- vessel, shall pass as far as may be safe on the port side of such other vessel, and every steam-vessel navi- gating any river or narrow chamiel shall keej), as far as practicable, to that side of the fairway or mid- channel of such river or channel which lies on the starboard side of such vessel, due regard being had to the tide, as to the position of each vessel in such tide ; and the master or other person having charge of such vessel and neglecting to ob- serve these Reg-ulations, or either of them, shall for each and every in- stance of neglect forfeit and pay a sum not exceeding fifty pounds." The next Act, 14 & 15 Vict. c. 79, s. 27, was as follows : — " Whenever any vessel proceeding in one direction meets a vessel pro- R Enactment of Regulations concerning Lights, Fog- Signals, and Sailing Rules in Schedule, Table (C). Legislation as to the Rule of the Road pre- vious to 1862. 24.2 APPENDIX. 25 & 26 Vict, c. 63. Regulations to be published. Owners and masters bound Majesty may from time to time, on the joint recommendation of the Admiralty and the Board of Trade, by Order in Council, annual or modify any of the said Regulations, or make new Eegidations in addition thereto or in substitution therefor ; and any alterations in or additions to such Regulations made in manner aforesaid shall be of the same force as the Regulations in the said Schedule. S. 26. The Board of Trade shall cause the said Regulations, and any alterations therein or additions thereto hereafter to be made, to be printed, and shall furnish a copy thereof to any owner or master of a ship who appHes for the same ; and pro- duction of the Gazette in which any Order in Council contain- ing such Regulations, or any alterations therein, or additions thereto is published, or of a copy of such Regulations, alterations, or additions signed, or purporting to be signed by one of the Secretaries or Assistant-Secretaries of the Board of Trade, or sealed, or purporting to be sealed with the Seal of the Board of Trade, shall be sufficient evidence of the due making and purport of such Regidations, alterations, or additions. S. 27. All owmers and masters of ships shall be bound to take to obey them ^o^i^e of all such Regulations as aforesaid, and shall, so long as ceeding in another direction, and the master or other person having charge of either such vessel perceives that if both vessels contmue their respec- tive courses they will pass so near as to involve any risk of a collision, he shall put the helm of his vessel to port, so as to pass on the port side of the other vessel, due regard being had to the tide and to the position of each vessel with respect to the dangers of the channel, and, as regards sailing-vessels, to the keep- ing of each vessel under command ; and the master of any steam-vessel navigating any river or narrow channel shall keep as far as is prac- ticable to that side of the fairway or mid-channel thereof which lies on the starboard side of such vessel ; and if the master or other person having charge of any steam -vessel neglect to observe these Regulations or either of them, he shall for every such offence be liable to a penalty not exceeding fifty pounds " The next Act, 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, contained the foUomng enact- ments : — S. 296. Whenever any shijj, whether a steam or sailing-ship, proceeding in one direction, meets another shiji, whether a steam or sailing-ship, pro- ceeding in another direction, so that if both ships were to continue their respective courses they would pass so near as to involve any risk of a collision, the helms of both ships shall be put to port so as to pass on the port side of each other, and this rule shall be obeyed by all steam-ships and by all sailing-ships, whether on the port or starboard tack, and whether close hauled or not, unless the circumstances of the case are such as to render a departure from the rule necessary in order to avoid immediate danger, and subject also to proviso that due regard shall be had to the dangers of navigation, and, as regards sailing-ships on the starboard tack, close hauled, to the keeping of ships under command. S. 297. Every steam-ship when navigating any narrow channel shall, whenever it is safe and practicable, keep to that side of the fairway or mid-channel which lies on the star- board side of such steam-shifj. APPENDIX. 243 the same continue in force, be bound to obey tliem, and to 25 & 26 Vict, carry and exlaibit no other lights, and to use no other fog signals ^- ^■^• than such as are required by the said Eegulations ; and in case of wilful default the master or the owner of the ship, if it appear that he was in such fault, shall, for each occasion upon which such Regulations are infringed, be deemed to be guilty of a mis- demeanour. S. 28. In case any damage to person or property arises from Breaches of the non-observance by any ship of any Eegulation made by or Regulations in pursuance of this Act, such damage shall be deemed to have fl'j/jyfa^ji^tVf been occasioned by the wilful default of the person in charge of person hi the deck of such ship at the time, unless it is shown to the charge, satisfaction of the Court that the circumstances of the case made a departure from the Eegulation necessary. S. 29. If in any ca-^ie of collision it appears to the Court before If collision which the case is tried, that such collision was occasioned by the ensues from noivobservance of any Regulation made by or in jmrsuance of ^l^^^jfj^^^ this Act, the ship by which such Regtdation has been infringed ^j^^^^ ^^ j^ shall be deemed to be infaidt, unless it is shown to the satisfaction deemed in of the Court, that the circumstances of the case made a departure fault, from the Regtdation necessary. (Eepealed 36 & 37 Yict. c. 85, s. 33. The same Act containing (s. 17) a corresponding proviso. See infra, p. 260.) S. 30. The following steps may be taken to enforce compliance Inspection for with the said Eegulations ; that is to say, enforcing (1.) Tlie surveyors appointed under the third part of the •^'^'^g'^''*'''"^ Principal Act ifS), or such other persons as the Board of Trade may appoint for the purpose, may inspect any ships for the pur- pose of seeing that such ships are properly provided with lights and Avith the means of making fog signals in pursuance of the said Eegulations, and shall for that purpose have the powers given to inspectors by the lith section of the Principal Act. (2.) If any such surveyor or person iinds that any ship is not so provided he shall give to the master or owner notice in Avrit- ing, pointing out the deficiency, and also what is, in his opinion, requisite in order to remedy the same. (3.) Every notice so given shall be communicated in such mamrer as the Board of Trade may direct to the collector or collectors of customs at any port or ports from which such ship may seek to clear, or at which her transire is to be obtained ; and no collector to whom such communication is made shall clear such ship outwards, or grant her a transire, or allow her to proceed to sea without a certificate under the hand of one of the said surveyors, or other persons appointed by the Board of 0) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104. r2 244, APPENDIX. 25 & 26 Vict, c. 63. Rules for harbours under local Acts to con- tinue in force. In harbours and rivers where no such rules exist they niay be made. In case of col- lision one ship shall assist the other. Ship-owTiers' lialiility limited. Trade as aforesaid, to the effect tliat the said ship is properly- provided with lights, and with the means of making fog signals in pursuance of the said Regulations {<;). S. 31. Any rules concerning the lights or signals to he carried by vessels navigating the waters of any harboiu', river, or other inland navigation, or concerning the steps for avoiding colhsions to be taken by such vessels, which have been or are hereafter made by or under the authority of any Local Act, shall continue and be of full force and effect, notwithstanding anything in this Act or in the Schedule thereto contained. S. 32. In case of any harbour, river, or other inland navi- gation, for which such Acts are not and cannot be made under the authority of any Local Act, it shall be lawful for Her Majesty in Council, upon application from the harbour, trust, or body corporate, if any, owning or exercising jurisdiction upon the waters of such harbour, river, or inland navigation, or, if there is no such harbour, trust, or body corporate, upon applica- tion from persons interested in the navigation of such Avaters, to make rules concerning the lights or signals to be carried, and concerning the steps for avoiding collision to be taken by vessels navigating such waters, and such rules wben so made shall, so far as regards vessels navigatuig such waters, have the same effect as if they were Pegulations contained in Table (C) in the Schedule to this Act, notwithstandhig anything in this Act or in the Schedule thereto contained. 8. 33. In every case of collision between two ships it shall he the duty of the person in charge of each ship, if and so far as he can do so without danger to his oicn ship and creiv, to render to the other ship, her master, creii), and passengers {if any) such assistance as may he practicaUe, and as may he necessary in order to save them from any danger caused hy the collision ; In case he fails so to do, and no reasonahle excuse for such failure is shown, the collision shall, in ahsence of prroof to the contrary, he deemed to have heen caused hy his ivrongtul act, neglect, or default ; and su^h failure shall also, if proved upon any investigation held under the third or eighth j^a'i't of the Prin- cipal Act, he deemed to he an act of misconduct or a default for which his certificate (if any) may he ccnicelled or suspended. (Repealed by 36 & 37 Vict. c. 85, s. 33. The same Act con- tains (s. 16) a similar provision ; see infra, p. 260.) * * * » * ♦ S. 54. The OAvners of any ship, whether British or foreign, shall not, in cases where all or any of the following events occur without their actual fault or privitj^, that is to say : (c) The M. S. Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 80), s. 1 4, gives an appeal to a Court of Survey against a sur- veyor's refusal of a certificate. APPENDIX. 245 (1) where any loss of life or personal injury is caused to 25 & 26 Vict. any person being carried in such ship ; ^' ' (2) where any damage or loss is caused to any goods, merchandise, or other things whatsoever on board any such sliip ; (3) where any loss of life or personal injury is, by reason of the improper navigation of such ship as aforesaid, caused to any other ship or boat, or to any goods, merchandise, or other things whatsoever on board any other ship or boat ; be answerable in damages in respect of loss of life or personal injury, either alone or together with loss or damage to ships, boats, goods, merchandise, or other things, to an aggregate amount exceeding fifteen pounds for each ton of their ship's tonnage; nor in respect of loss or damage to ships, goods, mer- chandise, or other things, whether there be in addition loss of life or personal injury or not, to an aggregate amount exceeding eight pounds for each ton of the ship's tonnage ; such tonnage to be the registered tonnage in the case of sailing-ships, and in the case of steam-sliips the gross tonnage, without deduction on account of engine room. In the case of any foreign ship which has been or can be measured accordmg to British law, the tonnage as ascertained by such measurement shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be the tonnage of such sliip. In case of any foreign ship which has not been and cannot be measured under British law, the surveyor-general of tonnage in the United Kingdom, and the chief measuring officer in any British possession abroad, shall, on receiving from or by direction of the Court hearing the case such evidence concerning the dimensions of the ship as it may be found practicable to furnish, give a certificate under his hand, stating what would, in his opinion, have been the tonnage of such ship if she had been duly measured according to British law ; and the tonnage so stated in such certificate shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be the tonnage of such ship. S. 55. Insurances efiected against any or aU of the events Limitation of enumerated in the section last preceding, and occurring without invalidity of such actual fault or privity as therem mentioned, shall not be invalid by reason of the nature of the risk. S. 57. Whenever foreign ships are within British jurisdic- Foreigii ships tion, the Eegulations for preventing collision contained in Table ^uj-jglj^ction to (C) in the Schedule to this Act, or such other Eegulations for be subject to preventing collision as are for the time being in force under regulations in this Act, and all provisions of this Act relating to such Kegula- Table (C) in Schedule. 246 APPENDIX, 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63. Regulations wheu adopted by a foreign country, may be applied to its ships on the high seas. Ships of foreign countries adopting the rules for measurement of tonnage need not be re-measured in this country. tions, or otherwise relating to collisions, shall apply to such foreign ships ; and in any cases arising in any British Court of justice concerning matters happening within British jurisdiction, foreign ships shall, so far as regards such Eegidations and provi- sions, be treated as if they were British ships, S. 58. Whenever it is made to appear to Her Majesty that the Government of any foreign country is willing that the Regu- lations for preventing collision contained in Table (C) in the Schedule to this Act, or such other Regulations for preventing collision as are for the time being in force under this Act, or any of the said Regulations, or any provisions of this Act relating to collisions, should apply to the ships of such counti-y when beyond the limits of British jurisdiction. Her Majesty may, by Order in Council, direct that such Regulations, and all provisions of this Act which relate to such Regulations, and all such other provi- sions as aforesaid, shall apply to the ships of the said foreign country, whether within British jurisdiction or not, S. 60. Wlienever it is made to appear to Her Majesty that the rules concerning the measurement of tonnage of merchant ships for the time being in force under the Principal Act {d) have been adopted by the Government of any foreign country, and are in force in that country, it shall be lawful for Her Majesty, by Order in Council, to direct that the ships of such foreign country shall be deemed to be of the tonnage denoted in their certificates of registry or other national papers ; and thereupon it shall no longer be necessary for such ships to be remeasured in any port or place in Her Majesty's dominions, but such ships shall be deemed to be of the tonnage denoted in the certificates of registry or other papers, in the same manner, to the same extent, and for the same purposes in, to, and for which the tonnage denoted in the certificates of registry of British ships is deemed to be the tonnage of such ships. The Schedule referred to in this Act — Table (C) : — (The Eegulations contained in this Schedule, which, with the exception of some verbal errors, were identical with those of January, 1863, were modified by an Order in Council of the 9th January, 1863, and by the same Order in Council the following Eegulations were substituted in their place. The Regulations of 1863 remain in force until the 1st of September, 1880, on which day the Eegulations enacted by Order in Council of the 1 4th of August, 1879, come into force. By the same Order the Eegulations of 1863 are repealed as from that day. For convenience of reference the Regulations of 1863 and 1880 are here set out in parallel columns.) {d) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104. APPENDIX. 247 (The Regulations of 1863.) Kegulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea. Contents. Art. 1. Preliminary. RULES CONCERNING LIGHTS AND SIGNALS. 2. Lights to be carried as follows : — 3. Lights for steam-ships. 4. Lights for steam-tugs. 5. Lights for sailing-ships. 6. Exceptional lights for small sailing-vessels. 7. Lights for ships at anchor. 8. Lights for pilot vessels. 9. Lights for fishing ves- sels and boats. RULES CONCERNING FOG SIGNALS. 10. Fog signals. STEERING AND SAILING RULES. 11. Two sailing - ships meeting. 12. Two sailing - ships crossing. 13. Two ships under steam meeting. 14. Two ships under steam crossing. 15. Sailing-ship and ship vinder steam. IG. Ships under steam to slacken speed. 17. Vessels overtaking other vessels. 18. Construction of Arts. 12, 14, 15, and 17. 19. Proviso to save special cases. 20. No ship under any cir- cumstances to neglect proper precautions. The Regula- tions of lSt)3 and 1880. (The Regulations of 1880.) Eegulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea. (>See next pcuje.) 248 APPENDIX. Tlie Regula- tions of 1863 and 1880. Preliminary. Article 1. In the following rules every steam-ship which is under sail and not under steam is to be considered a sailing-ship ; and every steam- ship which is under steam, whether under sail, or not, is to be considered a ship under steam. Rvles concerning Lights. Article 2, The lights men- tioned in the following articles, and no others, shall be carried in all weathers from sunset to sunrise. Article 3. Seagoing steam- ships when under weigh shall carry : [a.) At tlie foremost head, a bright white light, so fixed as to show an uniform and un- broken light over an arc of the horizon of 20 points of the compass, so fixed as to throw the light 10 points on each side of the ship, viz., from right ahead to 2 points abaft the beam on either side, and of such a character as to be vi- sible on a dark night, with a clear atmosphere, a distance of at least five miles ; {b.) On the starboard side, a green light, so constructed as to show an uniform and un- broken light over an arc of the horizon of 10 points of the Preliminary. Article 1. In the following rules every steam-ship Avhich is under sail and not under steam is to be considered a sailing- ship ; and every steam-ship which is under steam, whether under sail or not, is to be con- sidered a ship under steam. Pules concerning Lights. Article 2. The lights men- tioned in the following articles, numbered 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, and no others, shall be carried in all weathers, from sunset to sunrise. Article 3. A seagoing steam- ship when under way shall carry : (a.) At, or in front of, the foremast, at a height above the hull of not less than 20 feet, and if the breadth of the ship exceeds 20 feet then at a height above the hull not less than such breadth, a bright white light, so constructed as to show an uniform and un- broken light over an arc of the horizon of 20 points of the comj^ass ; so fixed as to throw the light 1 points on each side of the ship, viz., from right ahead to 2 points abaft the beam on either side ; and of such a character as to be visible on a dark night, with a clear atmosphere, at a distance of at least five miles : (b.) On the starboard side, a green light, so constructed as to show an uniform and un- broken light over an arc of the horizon of 10 points of the APPENDIX. 249 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 on a dark night, with a clear at- mosphere, at a distance of at least two miles : (c.) On the port side, a red light, so constructed as to show an uniform and unbroken light over an arc of the horizon of 10 points of the compass ; so fixed as to throw a light from right ahead to 2 points abaft the beam on the port side ; 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 : (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. Lights for Steam-tugs. Article 4. Steam-ships when towing other ships shall carry two bright white masthead lights vertically, in addition to their side lights, so as to distin- guish them from other steam- ships. Each of tliese mastliead lights shall be of the same con- struction and character as the masthead lights which other steam-ships are required to carry. compass ; so fixed as to throw The Regula- the hght from right ahead to *nd'l880 ^^^ 2 points abaft the beam on the starboard side ; and of such a character as to bo visible on a dark night, with a clear at- mosphere, at a distance of at least two miles : (c.) On the port side, a red light, so constructed as to show an uniform and unbroken light over an arc of the horizon of 10 points of the compass; so fixed as to throw the light from right ahead to 2 points abaft the beam on the port side ; and of such a character as to be visible on a dark night, with a clear atmosphere, at a dis- tance of at least two miles : ((7.) 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. Article 4. A steam-ship, when towing another ship shall, in addition to her side lights, carry two bright white lights in a vertical line one over the other, not less than three feet apart, so as to dis- tinguish her from other steam- ships. Each of these lights shall be of the same construc- tion and character, and shall be carried in the same position as the light which other steam- ships are required to carry. Article 5. A ship, whether a steam-ship or a sailing-ship, when employed either in lay- 250 APPENDIX. The Regula- ing or in picking up a tele- tions of 1863 graph cable, or which from any and 1880. accident is not under command, shall at night carry, in the same position as the white light which steam-ships are required to carry, and if a steam-ship, in place of that light, three red lights in globular lanterns, each not less than 10 inches in diameter, in a vertical line one over the other, not less than three feet apart : and shall by day carry in a vertical line one over the other, not less than three feet apart, in front of but not lower than her foremast head, three black balls or shapes, each two feet in diameter. These shapes and lights are to be taken by approaching ships as signals that the ship using them is not under com- mand, and cannot therefore get out of the way. The above ships, when not making any way through the water, shall not carry the side lights, but when making way Lights for Sailing Ships. ^-^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ Article 5, Sailing ships un- Article 6. A sailing-ship un- der weigh or being towed shall der way, or being towed, shall carry the same lights as steam- carry the same lights as are ships under weigh, with the provided by Article 3 for a exception of the white mast- steam-ship under way, with the head lights, which they shall exception of the white light, never carry. which she shall never carry. Exceptional Lights for small Sailing-vessels. Article 6. Whenever, as in Article 7. Whenever, as in the case of small vessels during the case of small vessels during bad weather, the green and red bad weather, the green and red lights cannot be fixed, these lights cannot be fixed, these lights shall be kept on deck on lights shall be kept on deck, their respective sides of the on their respective sides of the APPENDIX. 251 vessel, ready for instant exhibi- tion; and shall, on the approach of or to other vessels, be exhi- bited 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 be seen on the port side, nor the red light on the star- board side. To make the use of these portable lights more certain and easy, they shall each be painted outside with the colour of the light they respectively contain, and shall be provided with suitable screens. Lights for Ships at Anchor. Article 7. Ships, whether steam-ships or sailing-ships, when at anchor in roadsteads or fairways, shall exhibit, where it can best be seen, but at a height not exceeding 20 feet above the hull, a white light in a globular lantern of eight inches in diameter, and so con- structed as to show a clear, uni- form and unbroken light visible all round the horizon, and at a distance of at least one mile. Lights for Pilot Vessels. Article 8. Sailing pilot ves- sels shall not carry the lights required for other sailing-ves- sels, but shall carry a white light at the masthead visible all roi;nd the horizon, and shall also exhibit a flare-up light every fifteen minutes. vessel, ready for use ; and shall, The Eegula- on the approach of or to other ^'^J^fgQ^*^^ 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 be seen on the port side, nor the red light on the starboard side. To make the use of these portable lights more certain and easy, the lanterns contain- ing them shall each be painted outside with the colour of the light they respectively contain, and shall be provided Avith proper screens. Article 8. A ship, whether a steam-ship or a sailing-ship, when at anchor shall carry, where it can best be seen, but at a height not exceeding 20 feet above the hull, a white light, in a globular lantern of not less than 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. Article 9. A pilot vessel, when engaged on her station on pdotage duty, shall not carry the lights required for other sailing-vessels, but shall carry a white light at the mast-head, visible all round the horizon, and shall also exhibit a flare- up light or flare-up lights at short intervals, which shall never exceed fifteen minutes. 252 APPENDIX. The Regula- tions of 1863 and 1880. Lights for Fishing Vessels and Boats. Article 9. OjDen fishing boats and other open boats shall not be required to carry the side lights required for other ves- sels; but shall, if they do not carry such lights, carry a lan- tern having a green slide on the one side and a red slide on the other side; and on the ap- proach of or to other vessels, such lantern 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 light on the starboard side. Fishing vessels and open boats when at anchor, or at- tached to their nets and sta- tionary, shall exhibit a bright white light. Fishing vessels and open boats shall, however, not be prevented from using a flare- up in addition, if considered expedient. A pilot vessel, when on her station on pilotage duty, shall carry lights similar to those of other ships. Article 10. [a.) Open fish- ing boats and other open boats when under way shall not be obhged to carry the side lights required for other vessels ; but every such boat shall in lieu thereof have ready at hand a lantern with a green glass on the one side, and a red glass on the other side ; and on the ap- proach of or to other vessels, such lantern shall be exliibited in sufficient time to prevent collision, so that the green light shall not be seen on the port side, nor the red light on the starboard side. (h.) A fishing vessel and an open boat when at anchor shall exhibit a bright white light. (c.) A fishing vessel, when employed in drift net fishing, shall carry on one of her masts two red lights in a vertical line one over the other, not less than tliree feet apart, {d.) A trawler at work shall carry on one of her masts two lights in a vertical line one over the other, not less than three feet apart, the upper light red, and the lower green, and shall also either carry the side lights required for other vessels, or if the side lights cannot be carried, have ready at hand the coloured lights as provided in Article 7, or a lantern with a red and a green glass as de- scribed in paragraph (a.) of this Article. (e.) Fishing vessels and open APPENDIX. 253 RULES CONCERNING FOG SIGNALS. Fog Signals. Article 10. Whenever there is fog, whether by day or night, the fog-signals described below shall be carried and used, and shall be sounded at least every five minutes, viz. : — {a.) Steam-ships under weigh shall use a steam- whistle placed before the funnel, not less than eight feet from the deck : (b.) Sailing-ships underweigh shall use a fog-horn : {c. ) Steam-ships and sailing- ships when not under weigh shall use a bell. boats shall not be prevented The Regula- from using a flare-up in ad- l°2\m^^^ dition, if they desire to do so. (/.) The lights mentioned in this Article are substitiited for those mentioned in the 12th, 13th, and 14th Articles of the Convention scheduled to the British Sea Fisheries Act, 1868 (e). Article 11. A ship which is being overtaken by another shall show from her stern to such last -mentioned ship a white light or a flare-up light. Sound Signals for Fog, 4'c- Article 12. A steam-ship shall be provided with a steam- whistle or other efficient steam sound signal, so placed that the sound may not be inter- cepted by any obstructions, and with an efficient fog-horn, to be sounded by a bellows or other mechanical means, and also with an efficient bell. A sailing ship shall be provided with a similar fog-horn and bell. In fog, mist, or falling snoAv, whether by day or night, the signals described in this Article shall be used as folloAvs; that is to say, (a.) A steam- ship under way shall make Avith her steam- whistle, or other steam sound signal, at intervals of not more than two minutes, a prolonged blast : (e) The Regulations are rot ex- pressed to be made in exercise of the powers of the Sea Fisheries Act, 1868 ; and it seems doubtfiil whether they are for all purposes ecfuivalent to rules of that Act. The Board of Trade are considering memorials praying for an alteration of this article. 254 APPENDIX. The Regula- tions of 1863 and 1880. [See Art. 16, wfra.] STEERING AND SAILING RULES. Ttvo Sailing-ships meeting. Article 11. If two sailing- sliips are meeting end on, or nearly end on, so as to involve risk of collision, the helms of both shall be put to port, so that each may pass on the port side of each other. Ttvo Sailing-ships crossing. Article 12. When two sailing- ships are crossing so as to in- volve risk of collision, then if they have the wind on different sides, the ship with the Avind on the port side shall keep out of the way of the ship with the wind on the starboard side ; except in the case in which the ship with the wind on the port side is close-hauled and the other ship free, in which case the latter ship shall keep out (h.) A sailing-ship under way shall make with her fog-horn, at intervals of not more than two minutes, when on the star- board tack one blast, when on the port tack two blasts in suc- cession, and when with the wind abaft the beam three blasts in succession : (c.) A steam-ship and a sail- ing-ship when not under way shall, at intervals of not more than two minutes, ring the bell. Speed of Shi^js to be Moderate in Fog, ^c. Article 13. Every ship, whether a sailing-ship or steam-ship, shall, in a fog, mist, or falling snow, go at a mode'- rate speed. Steering and Sailing Rules. Article 14. "When two sail- ing-ships are approaching one 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 ship which is running free shall keep out of the way of a sliip Avhich is close-haided : (b.) A ship which is close- hauled on the port tack shall keep out of the way of a ship which is close-hauled on the starboard tack : (c.) When both are running free with the wind on dilferent sides, the ship 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 APPENDIX. 255 of the way; but if they have the wmd on the same side, or if one of them has the wind aft, the sliip which is to wind- ward shall keep out of the way of the ship which is to lee- ward. Two Ships under Steam meeting. Article 13. If two ships under steam are meeting end on, or nearly end on, so as to involve risk of collision, the helms of both shall he put to port, so that each may pass on the port side of the other. \^And see Order in Council of SOth July, 1868, infra, p. 258.] side, the ship which is to wind- The Regula- ward shall keep out of the way ^^"JYsSO^^^ of the ship which is to leeward : ^ ^ (e.) A ship which has the Avind aft shall keep out of the way of the other ship. Article 15. If two ships under steam are meeting end on, or nearly end on, so as to involve risk of collision, each shall alter her course to star- board, so that each may pass on the port side of the other. This Article only applies to cases where ships are meeting end on, or nearly end on, in such a manner as to involve risk of collision, and does not apply to two ships which must, if both keep on their respec- tive courses, pass clear of each other. The only cases to which it does apply are when each of the two ships is end on, or nearly end on, to the other; in other words, to cases in which, by day, each ship 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 ship is in such a position as to see both the side lights of the other. It does not apply by day to cases in which a ship sees an- other ahead crossing her own course; or by night to cases where the red light of one ship is opposed to the red light of the other, or where the green light of one ship is opposed to the green light of the other, or 256 APPENDIX. The Regula- tions of 1863 and 1880. Ships under Steam crossing. Article 14. If tAvo ships under steam are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, the ship which has the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way of the other. Sailing-ship and Ship under Steam. Article 15. If two ships, one of which is a sailing-ship and the other a steam-ship, are pro- ceeding in such directions as to involve risk of collision, the steam-ship shall keep out of the way of the sailing-ship. Ships under Steam to slacken Speed. Article 16, Every steam-ship, when approaching another ship so as to involve risk of col- lision, shall slacken her speed, or, if necessary, stop and re- verse ; and every steam-ship shall, when in a fog, go at a moderate speed. where a red light without a green light, or a green light without a red light, is seen a- head, or where both green and red lights are seen anywhere but a-head. Article 16. If two ships under steam are crosshig so as to involve risk of collision, the ship v/hich has the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way of the other. Article 1 7. If two ships, one of which is a sailing-ship and the other a steam-ship, are pro- ceeding in such directions as to involve risk of collision, the steam-ship shall keep out of the way of the sailing-ship. Article 1 8. Every steam-ship, when approaching another ship so as to involve risk of col- lision, shall slacken her speed, or stop and reverse, if necessary. Article 19. In taking any course authorised or required by these Regulations a steam- ship under way may indicate that course to an}'^ other ship which she has in sight by the following signals on her steam- whistle, viz. : — One short blast to mean " I am directing my course to starboard." Two short blasts to mean "I am directing my course to port." Three short blasts to mean " I am going full speed astern." The use of these signals is APPENDIX. :>57 Vessels overtaking other Vessels. Article 17. Every vessel overtaking any other vessel, shall keep ont of the way of the said last-mentioned vessel. Construction of Articles 12, 14, 15, and 17. Article 18. Where by the above rules one of two ships is required to keep out of the way, the other shall keep her course, subject to the qualifica- tions contained in the follow- ing Article. Proviso to save Special Cases. Article 19. In obeying and construing these rules, due re- gard must be had to all dangers of navigation ; and due regard must also be had to any special circumstances which may exist in any particular case render- ing a departure from the above rules necessary in order to avoid immediate danger. Nv Shi2J under any Circum- stances to neglect Proper Pre- cautions. Article 20. Nothing in these rules shall exonerate any ship, or the owner, or master, or crew thereof, from the conse- (piences of any neglect to carry lights or signals, or of any neglect to keep a proper look- optional : but if they are used, The Eegula- A t ^-u ^ ■ i- 1 tious of 1863 the course oi the ship must be , , ooq in accordance with the signal made. Article 20. Notwithstanding anything contained in any preceding Article, every ship, whether a sailing-ship or a steam-ship, shall keep out of the way of the overtaken ship. Article 21. In narrow chan- nels every steam-ship shall, when it is safe and j)racticable, keep to that side of the fair- Avay or midchannel which lies on the starboard side of such ship. Article 22. AVhere by the above rules one of two ships is to keep out of the way, the other shall keep her course. Article 23. In obeying and construing these ndes, due re- gard shall be had to all dangers of navigation ; and to any special circumstances which may render a departure from the above rides necessary in order to avoid immediate danger. No SIdp under any Circnm- stances to neglect Proper Pre- cautions. Article 19. Nothing in these rules shall exonerate any ship, or the owner, master, or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to carry lights or signals, or of any neglect to keep a proper look-out, or of 258 APPENDIX. The Regula- tions of 1863 and 1880. out, or of the neglect of any l)recantion which may be re- quired by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case. The following addition to, or ex- planation of, the above Articles 11 and 13 was made by Order in Coun- cil of the 30th of July, 1868. The two Articles numl:)ered 11 and 13 respectiA'ely only apply to cases where ships are meeting end on, or nearly end on, in sucJi a manner as to in- volve risk of collision. They, consequently, do not apply to two ships which must, if both keep on their respective courses, pass clear of each other. The only cases in which the said two Articles apply are Avhen each of the two ships is end on, or nearly end on, to the other ; in other words, to cases in which, hy day, each ship sees the masts of the other in a line, or nearly in a line, with her own ; and J)}j night, to cases in which each ship is in such a position as to see both the side lights of the other. The said two Articles do not apply hy day, to cases in which a ship sees another ahead cross- ing her own course ; or hy night, to cases where the red light of one ship is opposed to the red light of the other ; or where the green light of one ship 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 Avhere both green and red lights are seen anywhere but ahead. the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary 2:)ractice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case. Reservation of Rules for Harbour and Inland Navigation. Article 25. Nothing in these rules shall interfere with the operation of a special rule, duly made by local authority, re- lative to the navigation of any liarbour, river, or inland navi- gation. Special Lights for Squadrons and Convoys. Article 26. Nothing in these rules shall interfere with the operation of any special rules made by the government of any nation with respect to addi- tional station and signal lights for two or more ships of war, or for sliips sailing under con- voy. APPENDTX. 259 31 & 32 Vict. c. 45. Sect. 20. Articles 13 and 14 of the First Schedule to this Act Sea Fisheries shall, as to all sea-fishing boats within the exclusive f'^''"''T ^Ho ^as'to limits of the British Islands, and as to British sea-fishing boats ij^.^^^.*^ outside of these limits, have the same force as if they were Eegulations r&specting lights within the meaning of the Acts relating to merchant shipping, with this addition, that any sea- fishery officer shall have the same powers of enforcing such Eegulations as are given to any officer by such Acts, and any in- fringement of the Eegulations contained in Articles 13 and 14 shall be deemed an offence within the meaning of the portion of this Act which gives power to sea-fishery officers. (Articles 12, 13 and 14 of the Convention contained in the Schedule and referred to in the above section are as follows.) Artirh' 12. 'No boat shall anchor between sunset and sunrise on grounds where drift-net fishing is actually going on. This prohibition shall not apply to anchorings which may take place in consequence of accidents, or any other compulsory cir- cumstances ; but in such case the master of the boat thus obliged to anchor shall hoist, so that they shall be seen from a distance, two lights, placed horizontally, about three feet (one metre, French) apart, and shall keep those lights up all the time the boat shall remain at anchor. Article 13. Boats fishing with drift-nets shall carry on one of their masts two lights, one over the other, three feet (one metre, French) apart. These lights shall be kept up during all the time their nets shall be in the sea between sunset and sunrise. Artixle 14. Subject to the exceptions or additions mentioned in the two preceding Articles, the fishing-boats of the two countries shall conform to the general rules respecting lights which have bei'U adopted by the two countries (roceeding in opiposite directions, the one up and the other down the river, are approaching one another so as to involve risk of collision, they shall pass one another j^ort side to port side. 23. Steam-vessels navigating against the tide shall, before rounding the folloioing points, viz., Coalhouse Point, Tilhuryness, Broadness, Sfoneness, Grayfordness, Cold Harbour Point, Jen- ningtree Point, Halfway-house Point or Crossness, Margaretness or Tripcock Point, Bull Point or Gallionsness, Hookness, and Blackwall Point, ease their engines and wait until any other vessels rounding the point ivith the tide have passed clear. 24. Steam-vessels crossing from one side of the river towards APPENDIX. 279 the other side shall keep out of the ivmj of vessels navigating up Proposed rules a'nd down the river. ^ ames). 25. Where hy the ahove rules one of two vessels is to keej) out of the toay, the other shall keep her course. Bye-laws and Rides regulating the Navigation of the River ahove Teddington. 26. When tioo steam-vessels proceeding in opposite directions, the one up and the other down the river, are aj^j^roacJiing one another so as to involve risk of collision, they shall puss one another piort side to jJort side. 27. Steam-vessels navigating against the stream shall ease, and, if necessary, stop, to allow vessels coming down tcith the stream to pass clear. 28. Every steam-vessel shall, ichen under loay after sunset and before siinrise, either carry the lights required for steam-vessels hy Ride 5 or exhihit a hright white light on or ahove the stem, or on the funnel. 29. The name of every steam-vessel navigating the river shall he painted or marked and kept in plainly legihle characters not less than tivo inches in length on the outside of hoth bows and on the outside of the stern ; and such name and the residence of the oioner shall he registered with the Conservators. MERSEY (a). Local rule.. An Order iu Council, of the 27th of June, 1866, contains the following Mersey. rules, made under 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, s. 31 : — Rules concerning the Lights or Signals to be carried and con- cerning the Steps foi' avoiding Collision to he taken by Vessels navigating the River Mersey. 1. All vessels, as well sailing vessels as steamers, including river craft exceeding ten tons measurement, while navigating or anchoring in any part of the river ]\Iersey below Warrmgton Bridge, shall, save as mentioned in the third rule, observe and obey the " Eegidations for preventing Collisions at Sea," set out in Table C {b) in the schedule to the" Act 25 & 26 Vict. cap. 63, (a) For rules relating to the sea (h) The regulations require tlie channels leading to the Mersey, see riding light to be exhibited from above, p. 261. "sunrise to sunset." 280 APPENDIX. Local rules the short title of wliich is " The Merchant Shipping Act Ameiid- (Mersey). nient Act, 1862," together with the additional regulations following : — 2. Canal flats, or vessels withoiit masts, being towed, shall carry the lights prescribed for sailing vessels by Articles 5 and 6 of the said Table C. 3. The single bright light, prescribed by Article 7 of the same table, is to be carried by all vessels when at anchor in the Mersey or the sea channels or approaches thereto, at a height not exceeding twenty feet above the hidl, suspended from the forestaj', or otherwise near the bow of the vessel where it can be best seen ; and in addition to the said light all ships or vessels having two or more masts shall exhibit another bright light, at double 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 be best seen. SUEZ CANAL. Suez Canal. The substance of the Regulations for the navigation of the Suez Canal (of 1st July, 1878) is as follows (a) :■ — The maximum speed is to be five and a half 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 ; jib-booms to be in ; and a kedge ready to let go astern ; a boat is to be towed astern ; watch to be kept by day and night ; hands are to be stationed ready to let go hawsers ; navigation at night is at the captain's risk. Ships moored are to show a light forward and another aft ; otherwise the usual lights to be carried, except that on the approach of another shij) two white lights are to be shown over the side on which the other is to pass ; whistles are to be blown on ships approaching and passing ; steam- ships are to stop when the passage is not clear, and to reduce speed when passing craft. " Whenever a collision appears probable, no ship must hesitate to take the groxind, and thus avoid collision. The expenses con- sequent upon a grounding under these circiunstances shall be defrayed by the ship in fault." Vessels aj)proaching are to reduce speed and hug the starboard side, if required to do so by the pilot ; vessels are not to over- take and pass others, except when necessary, and then only at sidings and by the direction of the canal authorities. (a) See "Nautical Magazine," 1878, p. 572. INDEX. Abandonment, liability of owners after, 41 of the other sliip after collision, 12 _ _ of their own ship hy crew after collision, 57, 58 recovery of abandoned ship, 59, 61 Accident [see Inevitable Accident] Admiralty Jurisdiction, limits of, 97 loss of life, 64, 65 pilot cannot be sued personally, 41, 42 where no collision, 55 Admitting Liability, action for limitation of liability, 71 American Law, cargo owner's right where both ships in fault, 60 infringement of the Eegulations, 1 9 inscrutable fixult, liability in case of, 53 limitation of liability, 76 tug and tow, liability of, 85 — 87 Anchor [see At Anchor] a-cock-bill, damage by, 3 letting go, to avoid collision, 7, 23 watch, 210 Application of the Eegulations [^ee Eegulations] Approaching too Close to other Ships, 230 282 INDEX, Arrest of cargo, 30, 44 of ship, 29 of sliip of foreign owners, 97, 98 Ashore, collision "svith ship, 8 taking the ground alongside a ship, 220 At Anchor, bui'den of proof where one ship is, 9, 10, 219 collision vrith. ship, 219 fast to a buoy, 223 foul berth, 220 improper berth, 223 insufficient fasts or ground tackle, 222 making fast to another ship, 223 making snug, 222 parting of cable or moorings, 23, 221 pilot in charge [see Compulsory Pilot] riding lights, 156, 157 sheering about, 219 shifting berth, 223 Baffling Lights, 182 Baffling Wind, 231 Bailees of Ship, may recover for collision, 48 Barratry, infringement of the Eegiilations is not, 143 Beating out Tacks, rule as to, 227 Belfast, special rules at, 262 Board of Trade certificates may be cancelled for collision, 46 instructions to surveyors as to lights, 150 proceedings by, for loss of life, 65 INDEX. 283 Boats [see Fishing Boats] coUision with, standing by after, 14 lights, 158 Eegulations apply to, 134 Both Ships in Fault [see Division of Loss] Bringing Up at night, 221 foul berth, 220 improper place, 224 rounding to, 221 shortening sail, 221 Burden of Proof, collision with ship at anchor, 219 of negligence, 9, 11 of negligence of compulsory pilot, 107 Campbell [see Lord Campbell's Act] Cargo Owners not liable for collision, 44 recovery by, where both ships in fault, 52, 65, 66 Carrier, ' liability for collision, 20 Certificates, officers', may be cancelled for collision, 46, 101 Chartered Ship, liability of owners for collision, 27, 28 liability to arrest for collision, 33, 34 Close-hauled Ship, duty of, 167 meaning of, 170 Clyde Rules, 263 Consolidation of Actions, 49 284 indp:x. Collision [see Foreign Law, Inevitable Accident, Negligence, Tug and Tow] abroad, 94, 97 both ships in fault, 1, 49 — 54 four cases of, 1 incidence of loss, 1, 49, seq. maritime lien for, 29 Eoman law as to, 31 ships of same owner, 39, 44, 79 third ship, 39, 40 with light ship, 65 with salvor, 46 with two ships at once, 69 Common Employment, doctrine of, does not apply to tug, 82 or to compulsory pilot, 49 liability of servants to one another, 49 Common Law jurisdiction in case of collision abroad, 98 liability of owners by, 27 remedy in Common Law Division after proceedings in rem, 36 unlimited liability of owners at, 27 Compulsory Pilotage, compulsory pilot is not owner's servant, 101, 104 contributory negligence of owner or crew, 106 — 109 costs where defendant succeeds on plea of, 72 damage to pier, 103 damage to property of Thames Conservancy, 103 defect of ship causing collision, 109 defence of, 105, 106 definition of, 101, 102 duties of officers and crew, 112 duties of pilot. 111 exemptions from, 119, 121 foreign law, compulsion by, 95, 103 foreign ships, defence available for, 92 general Acts as to, 118 — 122 generally, 101—132 interference by master with pilot, 114 intoxication or incompetence of pilot, 114 liability where compulsory pilot in charge, 102 local Acts as to, 122—132 INDEX, 285 Compulsory Pilotage — continued London Trinity House, 126 owners exempt by common law and statute, 102 where no compulsion at place of collision, 104 where compulsion is by foreign law, 103 passenger ships subject to, 119 pilot below at time of collision, 105 pilot in owner's constant employment, 103 pilot on board, but not in charge, 104 pilot supersedes master, 110 proof of pilot's negligence, lOG, 107 ship at anchor, 104 statutes as to, 117 — 132 tug and tow, application to, 109 Consequential Damages, abandonment after collision, 57 demurrage, 62 diminution of market value, 62 going ashore after collision, 56 — 58 loss of freight, 61, 64 loss of future earnings, 62, 63 salvage, expenses for, 61 Contributory JSTegligence, common law rule as to, 50 when compulsory pilot in charge, 109 Convenience does not justify departure from the Regulations, 212 Co-owners [see Part-owners] Cork Eules, 265 Costs generally, 71, 72 limitation of liability does not affect liability for, 71 Crew, sufficiency of, 218 Criminal Liability for Collision, foreign ship, 98, 99 generally, 45, 99 286 INDEX. Crossing Ships in winding river, 193 — 197 sailing-ships crossing, 167 — 173 steam-ships crossing, 177 — 179 what are, 178 Custom conflicting with the Eegulations cannot he good, 142 track in rivers, 193 Damages [see Consequential Damages, Limitation of Liability, Loss OF Life] abandonment of injured ship, 57, 58 both ships in fault, 1, 65, 67 caused by collision only recoverable, 60, 61 generally, 55 — 73 increased by collateral negligence, 61 injury where no collision, 55 interest, 62 — 64 measiu'e of, 63 new for old materials, 63, 64 remoteness of, 63 repairing injured ship, 59 restitutio in interimm, 63 ship sunk by collision, raising, 61 weak state of injured ship before collision, 4 Demise op Ship, liability for collision, 27, 28, 33 Demurrage, 62 Departure from Regulations {see Regulations, Article 23, Infringement of the Regulations] convenience no excuse for, 212, 213 disabled ship, 210 hailing from the other ship, 7 must be in the right way, 211 necessity for, must be proved, 211 seldom allowed, 209 when justifiable, 206, 210 Disabled Ship, 22, 210 INDEX. 287 Division of Loss, history of law as to, 49 — 54 when applicable, 2 Dock-master, liability for collision when ship in charge of, 11 G Dockyard Ports, special rules for, 239 Dublin Rules, 266 Dumb Barge, collision with, 24, 234 Eddy Tide, 230 ''End on," Meaning of, 173 Evidence, Eules as to, 9 Ferry Boat must not ply in dense fog, 163 — 165 Fishing Boats [see Trawlers] duty to keep clear of, 228 lights, 158, 253, 259 Flare-up may be shown to overtaking ship, 160 Fog defined, 162 ferry boats not to ply in dense, 163 — 165 precautions in, 165, 167 signals, 160 — 162 speed in, 162, 165, 166 under way unnecessarily in, 163 Following Ship [see Overtaking Ship] 288 INDEX. Foreign Judgment, enforcement of, in Admiralty, 9G res judicata, plea of, 9G Foreign Law, application in case of collision abroad, 94 compulsory pilotage, 94 limitation of liability by, 76, 77 when applicable, 88, 94 Foreign Ships, Admiralty jurisdiction as to, 97 arrest of, for injury to property of British subject, 94, 98 compulsory pilot, defence available for, 92 criminal liability for reckless navigation of, 98 infringement of the Eegulations by, 91 law applicable to, 88 limitation of liability, 74—77, 89 local regulations bind, 239 Lord Campbell's Act, 64, 94 pilotage laws binding on, 92 public ships, 93 Eule of the Eoad for, 90 statutory rules as to presumption of fault apply to, 91 Foreign Sovereign, ships of, 93 Foreign Waters, collision in, 97 Foul Berth, 220 Freight, liability for damages, 30 loss of, recoverable as damages, 61, 64 French Law, 11, 42, 53 German Law, 11, 42, 53, 77 Getting under Way, 225 Going About [see In Stays] INDEX. 289 Hailing from the other ship, whether to obey, 7, 214 H ARCOU R- M ASTER, liability for damage by ship in charge of, 11 G Helm, orders to, and effect of, 174, 184 Holland, law of, 42, 54, 77 HOVE-TO, duty of ships hove-to in risk of collision, 170, 171 Identification of wrong-doing Ship, 12 Immediate Danger, disobeying Regulations to avoid, 203, seq. " In rem " [see Proceedings in Rem] In Stays, beating out tack, American rule as to, 227 caution and seamanship to be used in going about, 226 duty to keep clear of sliip in stays, 226 Inevitable Accident, American cases as to, 25 biirden of proving, 22 definition of, 21 disabled ship, 22 generally, 21 — 26 incidence of loss in case of , 2 1 instances of, 23, 24 Independent Contractor, liability of ship for fault of, 33 Infringement of the Regulations [see Departure from the Regulations] American law, 19 290 INDEX. Infringement op the Regulations — continued. difficulty of applying rule as to, 15 foreign ships, 91 history of rule as to, 16 local regulations, 18, 19 statutory rule as to, 14 — 17 tug, application of the lule to, 16, 79 what is, 15—18, 141, 142 Injury to Person, damages for, 64, 65, 98 Inscrutable Fault, 20 Insurance against loss by collision [see Underwriters] Interest [see Damages] Italian Law, liability by, 54 Jamming of Cable, 23 Judicature Act, alteration of law as to contributory negligence by, 51 Jurisdiction [see Admiralty Jurisdiction] British, 98 criminal, 99 Keep her Course, duty of sailing-ship to (Art. 17), 181 luffing, 200 meaning of term, 199 Keep out of the Way, how to, 180, 198 reason of rule as to, 179 tug tow and sailing-ship, 181 INDEX. 291 Launch, special precautions at, 235 Laying-to [see Hove-to] Lex Fori, claimants against the ship rank according to, 89 compulsory pilotage, non-liability in case of, 92 presumption of fault, statutory rules as to, 92 "standing by" rule, 92 Liability [see Damages. Limitation of Liability, Persons Liable, Tug and Tow, Compulsory Pilotage] Licensed Pilot [see Compulsory Pilotage] Lien for Damage [^ee Proceedings in Eem] Light-ship, collision with, 65 Lights, Ships' [see Ships' Lights] Limitation of Liability, action for, 70, 71 collision with two ships at once, 69 common law, none at, 74 costs added to statutory amount of damages, 71 " fault or privity of " master, meaning of, 69 foreign ships, 89 generally, 66 — 77 history of law as to, 73 — 77 interest added to statutory amount of damages, 7 1 loss of life, 68 master part owner, 69 on breach of contract as well as for tort, 68 railway company carrying by sea, 69 statutory rule as to, is not lex fori, 90 statutory rule construed strictly, 70 tonnage, mode of estimating, 66 Trinity pilot's liability, 72 unregistered Britisli-owned ship not entitled to, 67 unregistered owners entitled to, 69 when it applies, 70 who entitled to, 70 U 2 2<)2 INDEX. Liverpool, compulsory pilotage, 126 local regulations for, 261, 279 Local Eegulatioxs, conflict Avith general Regulations, 238 customary rules, their force, 239 effect of, 237 foreign sliips bound by, 239 generally (Art. 25), 236—239 infringement of, 19 power to make, 24:4 summary of various local rules, 261 — 280 London Trinity House, compulsory pilotage, 126 Look-out astern, 216 generally, 215 — 218 glasses, 217 liability for consequences of bad, 215 station for, 216 what is sufficient, 216, 218 Lord Ca:hpbell's Act, 64 foreign ships, 94 Loss, Division of, 1, 2 history of law as to, 49 — 54 Loss of Life, Admiralty jurisdiction for, 64, 65 damages for, 64 proceedings by Board of Trade, 65 LviNG-TO [see HOVE-TO] Mail Ships, Speed of, 186 Maritime Law, division of loss, 49 — 54 limitation of liability, 74, 75 regulations for preventing collision, 90, 135 INDEX. 203 Maritime Lien, 29, 35 Mastfr, duties of, when pilot in charge, 112 liability of, for acts of pilot, 101, 110 wilfully running into a ship, 37 Measure of Damages, 63 Meeting Steam-ships, Article 15, 173—177 distinguished from " crossing " and " overtaking " ships, 1 75 duty of, 173— 177 " end on," meaning of, 173 in winding river, 193 — 197 Mersey, Special Eules for, 261, 279 Misdemeanour endangering life or ship, 46 infringing Eegidations, 143, 148 not standing by to assist, 12 MiSLExVDING by hailing, 7, 214 by ^vl■ong lights, 78, 146 Moorings, parting of, 23, 221 Narrow Channels, starboard side, rule in (Art. 21), 191—197 Negligence, definition of, 5 generally, 2 — 20 immaterial, what is, 4 — 8 increasing loss, but not causing collison, 3, 4 of salvor, 8 of tug [see Tug and Tow] presumption of, 10, 12, -ye*/. proof of, 9—20 statutory, 12 — 19 stress of weather, excuse of, 230 sudden peril, excuse of, 6 294 INDEX. Order of Claimants in Eem, 49 Overtaking Ship, duty of (Art. 20), 187—191 sailing-ship overtaking steam-ship, 187 showing light astern to, 160 ships working to windward in company, 226 what are, 175, 188 Owners, abandoned ship, liability for damage by, 41 liability of, 27, 28, 37, 38 liable for fault of licensed waterman, 117, or pilot, 101 not liable for criminal acts of master, 37 not liable for acts of compulsory pilot, 101 prima facie liable, 26 resident abroad, 98 unregistered, liability of, 26 ; recovery by, 47 Part Owners, actions by, 48 contribution between, 39 liability of, 38 master or part owner, liability, 69 Parting of Cable or Moorings, 23, 221, 222 Penalties [see Misdemeanour] infringement of the Regulations, 14 — 17 insufficient fasts in dock, 222 liability for, when pilot in charge, 101 light-ship, injury to, 65 not standing by to assist, 1 2 officers' certificates, cancellation of, 46 Peril of the Sea, collision is, within policy and bill of lading, 42 Persons entitled to Recover, bailees of injured ship, 48 common employment, 49 generally, 47, 48 Lord Campbell's Act, 64 personal injury, loss of life, 64, 65, 94 persons on board wrong-doing sliip, 47 rule as to prior petetis, 49 INDEX. 295 Person in Charge is owners' servant, prima facie, 26 within statutory "standing by" rule, 13 Persons Liable [see Compulsory Pilotage, Owners, Part Owners] abandoned ship doing damage, 41 both ships belonging to same owner, 39, 44 cargo owners are not, 44 collision abroad, 94 demise, ship under, 27, 28, 33, 34 master, 42 pier, damage to, 103 Queen's ships, 45 salvor, 40 ship liable in proceedings in rem, 29 tug and tow, 78 — 87 underwriters, 42 — 44 wilful act of master, 37 wrong-doer, 26, 41 "wrong-doing" ship, metaphorical expression, 26 Pier, damage to, 103 owners not liable for damage by compulsory pilot, 103 Pilot, authority and duties of, 110 cannot be sued in Admiralty, 41 compulsory \_see Compulsory Pilot] duties of. 111 liability of Trinity, is limited, 72 owners' servant when not compulsory, 101 tug must obey pilot of tow, 81 Pilot Boat, collision with, 158 lights of, 157, 158 Pilotage Acts and Authorities, List of, 122 — 132 Pilotage Certificate, owner liable for fault of master having a, 102 Pilotage Laws, 122—132 enforced beyond the three mile limit, 92 296 INDEX. Poet Helm, Eule of, Ai-ticle 15, 173—175 both sliips must port, 176 how much helm to give, 176 meaning of "porting," 174 meeting ships only to port, 175 old rule as to, 175 Port Tack, duty of ship on, 167, seq. Portuguese Code, as to collision, 54 Practice of Seamen \see Seamanship] when inconsistent with the law, 142 Presumption of Fault, infringement of the Eegulations, 14 — 17 loss following collision presumed to be caused thereby, 56 not standing by to assist, 12 when raised, 9, 10 Privity of Master or Owner, 69 Proceedings in Personam cannot be taken against pilot in Atlmiralty, 41 Proceedings in Eem, generaUy, 29—37 liability of ship in, 32 — 36 no bar to common law action, 36 owners resident abroad, 98 set-oif in, 37 supplementary to action at law, 37 Queen's Ships, liability for damage by, 45 not bound by the Eegulations, 240 responsibility of captain when pilot on board, 110 ships in service of the Government, damage by, 28, 33 INDEX. 297 Eailway Company carrying by Sea, 20, 69 Eegulations for prevextixg Collisions, application at sea and in rivers, 134, 177 application to foreign ships, 90, 135 application to Queen's ships, 240 Articles 1—26 (Regulations of 1880), 144—240, 247—258 Articles 1—20 (Regulations of 1863), 247—258 compliance AA'ith them, 139 — 142 conilicting rules, 141, 238 convenience not to be considered in applying, 195, 213 departure from, when justifiahle, 198, 203, 206 difficulty in applying them, 170 foreign local rules, 97 . furnish the test of negligence, 136 history of legislation as to Eule of the Road, 133 infringement of, 14 — 17, 136, 143 international character, 136 " keep her course," 197 — 203 local rules, 236 narrow channels, starboard side rule in, 191 — 197 overtaking ships, 187 — 191 practice inconsistent with, is bad, 142 risk of collision, 137 sailing-ships crossing or meeting, 167 — 173 sailing-ship and steam-ship, 179 — 182 steam-ships meeting, 173; crossing, 177 steam-ships to slacken, 188 starboard side rule, 191 — 197 tug and tow, their application to, 79, 145, 179 universal application of, 136, 204 what ships bound by, 134 when they apply, 137 where they apply, 134 wilful infringement of, 143 winding river, their application in, 193 — 197 Remoteness of Damage, 63 Res [see Proceedings in Rem] Res Judicata, 96 Restitutio in Integrum, 63 298 INDEX. EiDiNG Light [see Ships' Lights] EisK OP Collision, altering course where there is no, 139 American cases as to, 138 instances of, 140 what constitutes, 136 — 140 when determined, 183 ElVERS, American rivers, rules in, 192 customary track in, 193 navigation of winding, 193 — 197 EoMAN Law, liability for collision, 31 unlimited liability by, 74 EOUNDING TO, care required in, 221 EuLE OF THE EoAD [see Eequlations for Preventing Collisions] EussiAN Code, as to collision, 54 Salvage for assistance given after collision, 46 Sailing-ship, definition of, 144 Salvor, collision with, 9, 46 negligence of, owners' liability for, 38 Scope of Employment of master, salvage service, 38 Screens [see Ships' Lights] INDEX. 299 Seamanship, assessors in Admiralty advise on, 137 rules of seamanship to be observed, 214 Ship [see Foreign Ships, Queen's Ships, Disabled Ship, Over- taking Ship, Third Ship] liability of, in rem, 29, seq. limitation of liability for damage by, 70 " seagoing " steam-ships' liglits, 152 what is a ship, 14, 67, 134 " wrong-doing " ship, 26 Ships' Lights alongside wharf, 157 astern, showing a light, 145, 160 at anchor, 156, 157 Board of Trade instructions as to, 150 boats, 158, 159 carried away must be replaced, 146 clear night no excuse for absence of, 147 convoy, 239 disabled ship, 153 dredgers in the Thames, 272, 276 fishing boats, 158 fitting of, 150 flare-up, 160 going to sea with improper, 148 hove-to, ship, must carry side lights, 155 impossibility of carrying, owing to weather, 155 improper or insufficient, 146 infringement of Eegulations as to, 151 men-of-war's, 239 Mersey, special lights for, 147, 279 neglect to carry, a misdemeanour, 148 neglect to carry, ship may be stopped for, 148 no others than Regulation lights to be carried, 144, 145 obscuring by flare-up, or by ship's smoke, 147 overtaken ship to show a light, 160 pilot boats, 157, 158 range of, 148, 152 Eegulations to be strictly observed, 1 44 riding light, when to be carried, 156, 157 sailing-ships', 154 seagoing steam-ships only within the Eegulations as to, 152 ship in tow, 153, 154 ship not under command, signals for, 153 300 INDEX. Ships' Lights — contiaued. side lights, 148, 154 signal lights, 147 small vessels, 155, 156 spare lights, 146 special lights for the Thames, 147 ; the Mersey, 147; Ameri- can coasting steamers, 147 ; and Suez Canal, 147 steam-ships' lights, 148 — 152 steam-ship in tow, 153 telegraph ships, 153 trawler at Avork, lights of, 159 trimming no excuse for ahsence, 146 tugs', 15^3 Avhen to be carried, 144, 147, 149 Shortexing Sail when entering hai hour, 221 Side Lights \_see Ships' Lights] Signals, private, 147 in fog, 160—162 whistling to indicate alteration of course, 186 Slacken Speed, duty of steam-ship to, 182 Small Craft not required to keep out of the way of large, 236 Slipping to avoid collision, 225 Sovereign, ship of foreign, 93 Spanish Law, 42, 54, 77 Special Prj^cautions, when required, 228, seq. Speed, duty of steam-ship to slacken if necessary, 182 generally, 184—186 INDEX. 301 Speed — continued. in narrow channels, 23-i mail ships', 186 "moderate," what is, 185 sailing-ships', 16o, 1G6 swell, sinking craft by, 5G, 234 Standing by, statutory rule as to, 12 — 14 does not afi'ect right to salvage, 14 foreign ships bound by, 91 " person in charge," 13 Starboard Side Rule, 191 — 197 Starboard Tack, duty of ships on, 1G7 Stay of Proceedings, action for collision proceeding elsewhere, 97 Stays \fpp In Stays] Steam-whistle [see Fog] Steam-ship, meaning of the term in the Eegulations, 144 meeting another end on, 173 hove-to under sail, must keep out of way, 181 lights of [see Ships' Lights] " seagoing " steam-ship's lights, 152 to keep out of the way of sailing-ship, 179 — 183 to slacken speed if necessary, 182 tug is, and must keep nut of way, 181 Stress of Weather, collision by, is an mevitable accident, 1 excuse of, received with care, 230 Sudden Peril excuses wrong step, 6 inevitable accident, 24 302 INDEX. Suez Canal Eules, 280 Sunken Ship, no obligation to raise, 59, Gl Swell, sinking craft hy raising swell, 55, 234 Thames, special regulations for, 271, seq. Thames Conservancy, injury to property of, by compulsory pilot, 103 Thick "Weather [see Fog] Third Ship, collision with, 39, 40 collision of tug and tow with, 78, seri. Towage Contract broken by negligent collision, 83 each ship required to show proper skill, 83 tug bound to obey tow, 80 Transport, liability for damage by, 28, 33 Trawlers' Lights, 159 Tug and Tow, Admiralty jurisdiction as between, 84 American law as to liability, 85 — 87 _ both belonging to same owner, collision with both, 80 castmg off tow, 83 collision between tug and tow by fault of tow, 83 collision between tug salvor and tow, 84 collision by tug's negligence, 80 collision of tug or tow and third ship, 83 command is with toAv, 78 common employment, doctrine of, does not apply as be- tween, 82 compulsory pilot in charge of tow, 81 INDEX. Tug and Tow — continued. departure from Regulations by, 78, 79 duty of tug where no orders from tow, 80 duty of tug to warn tow of danger, 82 duty to employ tug, 82 generally, 78 — 87 keeping out of the way of sailing-ships, 79 liability of tow for tug's negligence, 78, 79 _ liability of tug for collision with toAV is limited, 84 one ship in intendment of law, 78 Regulations apply to tug and tow, 79 salvage service by tug, 80 tow can recover against tug for collision, 80 towage contract, 80 trial of question of negligence as between, 84 tug salvor in charge of tow, 79 tug is servant of tow, 78 two ships in tow of same tug, 84 Two Ships, collision with, 69, 80 * Tyne, special regulations for, 269 Uncertainty a8 to other ship's course, 139, 140 Under "Way, meaning of term, 149 Underwriters, liability of, for loss by collision, 42 right of, to sue in insurer's name, 43, 44 Unlimited Liability [see Limitation of Liability] Unmanageable Ship, lights for, 153 Unusual Course, 229 Unusual Construction, ship of, 233 303 304 INDEX. Warpincx, 228 "Waterman, owner liaLle for fault of licensed, 117 "Wearing, 226 "Wilful Damage, owner not liable for crew's, 37 Winding River, navigation of, 193 — 197 " Wrong-doing " Ship, 2G THE END. STEVENS AND RICHARDSON, PRINTERS, 5, GREAT QUEEN STREET, W.C. May, 1880. OF LAW WORKS, PUBLISHED BY STEVENS AND SONS, 119, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C. {Formerly of Bell Yard, Lincoln's Inn). Law Books Purchased or Valued. Acts of Parliament. — Public and Local Acts from an early date, may he had of the Publishers of this Catalogue, tvho have also on sale the largest collection of Private Acts, relating to Estates, Encloswres, Railways, Roads, dx., d'c. ACTION AT LAW.— Foulkes' Elenaentary View of the Proceedings in an Action. — Founded on "Smith's Action at Law." By W. D. I. FOULKES, Esq., Barrister-at- Law. Second Edition. 12mo. 1879. 10s. Gd. " Tlio student will find in ' Smith's Action' a mauual, by the etiidy of which he may easily acquire a general kiiowledpe of the mode of )irocedure in the various stagee of an action in the several divisions of the High Court of Justice." — Law Times. Peel. — Vide " Chancery." Prentice's Proceedings in an Action in the Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exche- quer Divisions of the High Court of Justice. Second Edition (including the New Kules, April, 1880). By SAMUEL PRENTICE, Esq., one of Her Majesty's Counsel. Eoyal 12mo. 1880. 12s. "The book can be safely reconnmended to students and practitioners"— Xcnc Tirdcs. Smith's Action. — Vide " Foulkes." ADVIIrlALTY.-Boyd.— Fide "Shipping." Lowndes. — Marsden. — Vide " Collisions." Pritchard's Admiralty Digest.— With Notes from Text Writers, and the Scotch, Irish, and American Reports. Second Edition. By EGBERT A. PRITCHARD, D.C.L., Barriater-at-Law, and WILLIAM TARN PRITCHARD. With Notes of Cases from French Maritinae Law. By ALGERNON JONES, Avocat a la Cour Imperiale de Paris. 2 vols. Royal 8vo. 1865. 3?. Roscoe's Treatise on the Jurisdiction and Practice of the Admiralty Division of the High Court of Justice, and on Appeals there- from, &C. With an Appendi.x containing Statutes, Rules as to Fees and Costs, Forms, Precedents of Pleadings and Bills of Costs. By EDWARD STANLEY ROSCGE, Esq., Barrister-atLaw, and Northern Circuit. Demy 8vo. 1878. H. "Mr. RoBooe has performed his task well, supplying Id the most convenient shape a clear digest of ihe law and practice of the Admiralty Cvurte."— Liverpool Courier. *,* All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings, [No. 4.] a 2 STEVENS AND SONS' LAW PUBLICATIONS. AGENCY. — Petgrave's Principal and Agent.— A Manual of the Law of Principal and Agent. By E. C. PETGEAVE, Solicitor, 12mo. 1857. 7s. 6d. Petgrave's Code of the Law of Principal and Agent, with a Preface. By E. C. PETGR.WE, Solicitor. Demy 12mo. 1876. Net, 2s. Rogers. — Vide "Elections." Russell's Treatise on Mercantile Agency. — Second Edition. 8vo. 1873. 14«. AGRICULTURAL LAW.— Addison's Practical Guide to the Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 187S (•38 & 39 Vic. c. 92), and Treatise thereon, Bho^ving the Alterations in the Law, and containing many useful Hints and Suggestions as to the carrying out of the Provisions of the Act; with Handy Eorms and a Carefully Prepared Index. Designed chiefly for the use of Agricultural Landlords and Tenants. By ALBERT ADDISON, Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Judicature. 12mo. 1876. Net, 2s. 6d. Cooke on Agricultural La^AA. — The Law and Practice of Agricultural Tenancies, with Numerous Precedents of Tenancy Agreements and Farming Leases, &c., &c. By G. WINGROVE COOKE, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 8vo. 1851. 18s. Dixon's Farm. — Vide "Farm." ARBITRATION.— Russell's Treatise on the Duty and Power of an Arbitrator, and the La^Ar of Submissions and Awards; with an Appendix of Forms, and of the Statutes relating to Arbitration. By FRANCIS RUSSELL, Esq., M.A., Barrister-at-Law. Fifth Edition. Royal 8vo. 1878. 11. 16s. ARTICLED CLERKS.— Butlin's Ne^^r and Complete Examination Guide and Introduction to the Law ; for the use of Articled Clerks .ind those who contemplate entering the legal profession, comprising Courses of Reading for the Preliminary and Intermediate Examinations and for Honours, or a Pass at the Final, with Statute, Case, and Judicature (Time) Tables, Sets of Examination Papers, &c., &c. By JOHN FRANCIS BUTLIN, Solicitor, &c. 8vo. 1877. 18s. " A sensible and useful guide for the legal tyro." — SolicUort' Journal "In supplying law students with materials for preparing themselves for examination, Mr. Butliu, we think, has distanced all competitors. The volume before ns contains hints on reading, a very neat summary of law, which the best read practitioner need not despise. There are time tables under the Judicature Act, and an excellent tabular arrangement of leadiu'^ cases, which will be found of great service .... Tiaition of this kind will do much to remove obstacles which present ttiemselves to commencing students, and when examinations ate over the book is one which may be usefully kept close at hand, and will well repay 'noting up.' "—Law Times. Rubinstein and Ward's Articled Clerks' Hand- book. — Being a Concise and Practical Guide to all the Steps Necessary for Entering into Articles of Clerkship, passing the Preliminary, Intermediate and Final Examinations, obtaining Admission and Certificate to Practise, with Notes of Cases affecting Articled Clerks, Suggestions as to Mode of Reading and Books to be read during Articles. Second Edition. By J. S. RUBINSTEIN and S. WARD, SoUcitors. 12mo. 1878. 3s. " No articled clerk should be without it." —Law Timet. ' We think it omits nothing which it ought to contain." — Law Journal. "Wharton's Articled Clerk's Manual. — A Manual for Articled Clerks : being a comprehensive Giude to their successful Examination, Admission, and Practice as Attorneys and Solicitors of the Superior Courts. Ninth Edition. Greatly enlarged. By C. H. ANDERSON. Royal 12mo. 1864. 18». •»* All standard Law Worhs are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings 119, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C. ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION.— Palmer.— Fide "Conveyancing." ATTORNEYS.— Cordery.— Fi<£e" Solicitors." , o • , Pulling's Law of Attorneys, General and bpecial, Attorn eys-at- Law, Solicitors, Notaries, Proctors, Conveyancers, Scriveners, Land Agents, House Agents, &c., and the Offices and Appointments usually held by them, &c. By ALEXANDLL PULLING, Serjeaut-at-Law. Third Edition. 8vo. 1862. 18s. " It is a laborious work, a careful work, the work of a lawyer, and, beyond comparison the best that has ever been produced upon this Bubject."— iatc Ttmes. Smith.— The Lav/yer and his Profession.— A Series of Letters to a Solicitor commencing Business. By J. ORTON SMITH. 12mo. 1860. 4s. AVERAGE.— Hopkins' Hand-Book on Average.— Third Edition. 8vo. 1868. ^ ,. u ^^'i Lowndes' Law^ of General Average.— Enghsh and Foreign. Third Edition. By RICHARD LOWNDES, Author of " The Admiralty Law of Collisions at Sea." Royal 8 vo. 1878. 21s. BALLOT.— FitzGerald's Ballot Act.— With an Introduction. Forming a Guide to the Procedure at Parliamentary and Municipal Elections. Second Edition. Enlarged, and containingthe Municipal Elections Act, 1875, and the Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Act, 1875. By GERALD A. R. FITZGERALD, M. A., of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Fcap. 8vo. 1876. 5s. Gd. "Ansefitl guide to all coucerned in Parliamentary and Municipal Elections. -Law '''"^wrshonld strongly advise any person connected with elections, whether acting as candidate, agent, or in any other capacity, to become possessed of this manual. BANKING.— Walker's Treatise on Banking Law. In- cludintrthe Crossed Checks Act, 1876,^vith dissertations thereon, also references to some American Cases, and full Index. By J. DOUGLAS WALKER, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1877. 14s. "The work has been carefully written, and will supply the want ot a compact sum- mary of Banking Law."— Soiiciiors' yournd/. .J J . f A-m.„u.- '•Persons who are interested in banking law may be guided out of many a difQcultj by consulting Mr. Walker's volume."— Z,ai« Times. BANKRUPTCY.— Bedford's Final Examination Guide to Bankruptcy.— Third Edition. 12mo. 1877. 6s. Havnes. — Vide " Leading Cases." Lvnch's Tabular Analysis of Proceedings in Bankruptcy, for the use of Students for the Incorporated Law Society's Examinations. Second Edition. 8vo. 1874. Net, Is. Scott's Costs in Bankruptcy.— Fzd€" Costs." Smith's Manual of Bankruptcy.— A Manual relating to Bankruptcy, Insolvency, and Imprisonment for Debt ; comprising the New Statute Law verbatim, in a consolidated and readable form. With the Rules, a Copious Index, and a Supplement of Decisions. By JOSIAH W. SMITH, B.C. L.,Q.C. l2mo. 1873. 10s. * * The Supplement may be had separately, net, 2s. 6rf. Williams' Law and Practice in Bankruptcy: comprising the Banlcruptcy Act, the Debtors Act, and the Bankruptcy Repeal and Insolvent Court Act of 1869, and the Rules and Ponns made under those Acts. Second Edition, ^^y R^^^HAND VAUGHAN WILLIAMS, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., and WALTER \ ALGHAN WILLIAMS, of the Inner Temple, Esq., assisted by Francis Hallett Habdcastle, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barristers-at- Law. 8vo. 1876. , ., • ^'- ^'• " ' WilUams on Bankruptcy ' is quite satisfactory. -Law Magazine. '• It would be difficult to speak in terms of undue praise of the present work. • * All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and othei-bindin^i. * A 2 STEVENS AND SONS' LAW PUBLICATIONS. BAR, GUIDE TO THE. — Shearwood. — Vide "Examination Guides." BILLS OF EXCHANGE.— Chalmers' Digest of the Law of Bills of Exchange, Promissory Notes, and Cheques. By M. D. CHALMERS, of the Inner Temple, Esq. Barrister-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1878. 12s. 6d. *»*This work is n the form of the Indian Codps, besides the Entflish Cases it is noted up with reference to the French Law and the German Code, and on doubtful points to the more recent American Decii-ions; it also contains a table of overruled or doubted cases. " Mr. Chalmers has dono wisely in c«ting his book into its present form, and the plan, thus well conceived, has been most effectually carried out. As a handy book of reference on a difBcult and important branch of the law, it is most valuable, and it is perfectly plain thit no pains have been spared to render it complete in every respect. The index is copious and well arranged." — Sa'urda)/ Review. " The book is not only well planned, but well executed for the risinj? genera- tions and for men of business this digest will be a gift of no small value." — Pall Mai Gazette. Chitty on Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes, AATith references to the law of Scotland, France and America. — Eleventh Edition. By JOHN A. IWSSELL, Esq., LL.B., one of Her Majesty's Counsel, and Judge of County Courts. Demy Svo. 1878. 11. 8s. Eddis' Rule of Ex parte "Waring. By A. C. EDDIS, B.A., of Lincoln'sinn, Barrister-at-Law. Post Svo. 1876. Net,2s.6d. BILLS OF SALE. — Cavanagh. — Vide " Money Securities." Millar's Bills of Sale. — A Treatise on Bills of Sale, with an Appendix containing the Acts for the Registration of Bills of Sale Precedents, &c. (being the Eoitrth Edition of Millar and Collier's Treatise on Bills of Sale). By F. C. J. MILLAR, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. ]2mo. 1877. 12« " The original work is brought down to date, and the latest cases are referred to and considered. The value of the work is enhanced throughout by careful annotation." —Law Magazine. BOOK-KEEPING.— Bedford's Intermediate Examina- tion Guide to Book-keeping. — Second Edition. 12mo. 1875. Mt, 2s. 6d. CANAL TRAFFIC ACT.— Lely's Railway and Canal Traf- fic Act, 1873. — And other Railway and Canal Statutes ; with the General Orders, Forms, and Table of Fees. Post Svo. 1873. 8«. CARRIERS. — Browne on Carriers.— A Treatise on the Law of Carriers of Goods and Passengers by Land and Water. With References to the most recent American Decisions. By J. H. BALFOUR BROWNE, of the Middle Temple, Esq., Barrister-at- Law, Registrar to the Railway Commission. Svo. 1873. 18s. CHANCERY, and Vide " EQUITY." Daniell's Chancery Practice. — Sixth Edition, by LEONARD FIELD and EDWARD CLENNELL DUNN, Barristers-at-Law ; assisted by W. H. UPJOHN, Student and Holt Scholar of Gray's Inn, &c., &c.. Editor of " DanieU's Forms, Third Edition." 2 vols. Svo. (In preparation.) Daniell's Forms and Precedents of Proceed- ings in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice and on Appeal therefrom; with Dissertations and Notes, forming a complete guide to the prac- tice of the Chancery Division of the High Court and of the Courts of Appeal. Being the Third Edition of "DanieU's Chancery Forms." By WILLIAM HENRY UPJOHN, Esq., Student and Holt Scholar of Gray's Inn, Exhibitioner in Jurisprudence and Roman *» * All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law coif and other bindings. 119, CHANCEKY LANE, LONDON, W.C. CHANCERY. -Contmued. Law in the University of London, Holder of the First Senior Stu- dentship in Jurisprudence, Roman Law and International Law awarded by the Council of Legal Education in Hilary Term, 1879. In one thick vol. Demy 8vo. 1879. 2^.23. " Mr. Upjohn has restored the vohime of Chancery Forms to the place it held before the recent changes, as a trustworthy and complete collection of precedents. It has all the old merits ; nothing is omitted as too trivial or commonplace ; the solicitor's clerk finds how to indorse a brief, and how, when necessary, to ^jive notice of action ; and the index to the forms is full and perspicuous."— Soiicitors' Journal. " It will be as useful a work to practitiouers at Westminster as it will be to those in Lincoln's Inn." — Law Times. Haynes' Chancery Practice.— The Practice of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice and on Appeal therefrom, for the use of Practitioners and Students. — By JOHN F. HAYNES, LL.D. Author of the " Student's Leading Cases," &c. Demy 8vo. 1879. 1/. 5s. "Materials for enabling the practitioner himself to obtain the information he may require are placed before him iu a convenient and Accessible form. The arrangement o the work appears t j be good." — Law Magazine and Review, February, ISSO. Morgan's Chancery Acts and Orders. — The Statutes, General Orders, and Ilules of Court relating to the Practice, Pleading, and Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Judicature, particularly with reference to the Chancery Division, and the Actions assigned thereto. With copious Notes. Fifth Edition. Carefully revised and adapted to the new Practice hv GEORGE OSBORNE MORGAN, M.P., one of Her Majesty's Counsel, and CHALONER W. CHUTE, of Lincohi's Inn, Barrister- at-Law, and late Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford. Demy 8vo. 1876. 1/. 10s. •'This edition of Mr. Morgan's treatise must, we believe, be the most popular with tbe profession." — Lmo Times. Morgan and Davey's Chancery Costs. — Ftc^e "Costs." Peel's Chancery Actions.— A Concise Treatise on the Practice and Procedure in Chancery Actions.— By SYDNEY PEEL, of the Middle Temple, Esq., Barrister- at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1878. 7s. 6f/. " To Chancery practitioners of both branches the volume will doubtless prove very useful." — Law Times. CHANCERY PALATINE OF LANCASTER.— Snow and Win- stanley's Chancery Practice. — The Statutes, Consoli- dated and General Orders and Rules of Court relating to the Practice, Pleading and Jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, of the County Palatine of Lancaster. With Copious Notes of all practice cases to the end of the year 1879, Time Table and Tables of Costs and Forms. By THOMAS SNOW. M.A., and HERBERT WINSTANLEY, Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law. Royal 8vo. 1880. Jl. 10s. CIVIL LAW. — Bowyer's Commentaries on the Modern Civil Law.— By Sir GEORGE BOWYER, D.C.L., Royal 8vo. 1848. 18s. Bowyer's Introduction to the Study and Use of the Civil Law.— By Sir GEOBGE BOWYER, D.C.L. Royal 8vo. 1874. 5s. Cumin's Manual of Civil Law, containing a Translation of, and Commentary on, the Fragments of the XII. Tables, and the Institutes of Justinian ; the Text of the Institutes of (iaius and Justinian arranged in parallel columns ; and the Text of the Frag- ments of Ulpian, &c. By P. CUMIN, M.A., Barrister-at-Law Second Edition. Medium 8vo. 1865. _ ISg. •^* All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in hno calf and other hindiur/s. 6_ STEVENS AND SONS* LAW PUBLICATIONS. COLLISIONS.— Lowndes' Admiralty Law of Collisions at Sea.— 8vo. 1867. 7s. 6d. Marsden on Maritime Collision. — A Treatise on the Law of Collisions at Sea. With an Appendix containing Extracts from the Merchant Shipping Acts, the International Regulations (of 1863 and 1880) for preventing Collisions at Sea; and local Rules for the same purpose in force in the Thames, the Mersey, and else- where. By REGINALD G. MARSDEN, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Demy Svo. ISSO. 12s. COLONIAL LAW.— Clark's Colonial Law.— A Summary of Colonial Law and Practice of Appeals from the Plantations. Svo. 1834. 1/. 4s. COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND.— Bedford.— Vide " Examination Guides." Broom and Hadley's Conamentaries on the Laws of England.— By HERBERT BROOM, LL.D., of the Inner Temple, Barrister- at-Law ; and EDWARD A. HAD- LEY, M.A., of Lincoln's Inn. Barrister-at-Law ; late Eellow of Trinity Coll., Cambridge. 4 vols. Svo. 1869. 31. 2s. '' Nothing that couH be done to make the work useful and handy has been lelt undone." — Lm/! Journal. COMMERCIAL LAW. —Goirand's French Code of Com- merce and most usual Commercial Laws. With a Theoretical and Practical Commentary, and a Compendium of the judicial organization and of the course of procedure before the Tribunals of Commerce ; together with the text of the law ; the most recent decisions of the Courts, and a glossary of French judicial terms. By LEOPOLD GOIRAND, Licencic; en droit. In 1 vol. (850 pp.). Demy Svo. 1880. 21. 2it. Levi.— F/f?e " International Law." COMMON LAW.— Archbold's Practice of the Queen's Bench, Common Pleas and Exchequer Divi- sions of the High Court of Justice in Actions, etc., in -which they have a common jurisdic- tion.— Thirteenth Edition. By SAMUEL PRENTICE, Esq., one of Her Majesty's Counsel. 2 vols. Demy Svo. 1879. SI. 3s. Ball's Short Digest of the Common Law; being the Principles of Torts and Contracts. Chiefly founded upon the works of Addison, with lUustrativo Cases, for the use of Students. By W. EDMUND BALL, LL.B., late "Holt Scholar " of Gray's Inn, Barrister-at-Law and Midland Circuit. (Nearly ready.) Chitty. — Vide "Forms." Foulkes. — Vide "Action." Fisher. — Vide " Digests." Prentice. — Vide "Action." Shirley. — Vide "Leading Cases." Smith's Manual of Comnion Law. — For Practitioners and Students. A Manual of Common Law, comprising the funda- mental principles and the points most usually occurring in daily life and practice. By JOSIAH W. SMITH, B.C.L., Q.C. Eighth Edition. 12mo. 1878. 145. COMMONS AND INCLOSURES.— Chambers' Digest of the Law relating to Comnnons and Open Spaces, including Public Pai'ks and Recreation Grounds, Avith various ofiBcial documents ; precedents of by-laws and regulations. The Statutes in full and brief notes of leading cases. By GEORGE F. CHAM- BERS, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Imperial Svo. 1877. 6s. 6d. Cooke on Inclosures.— With Forms as settled by the Inclosure Commissioners. By G. WINGROVE COOKE, Esq., Bamster-at-Law. Fourth Edition. I2mo. 1864. 16s. ** All standard Law Works are kept in Utock, in law calf and other bindings. 119, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C. COMPANY LAW.— Finlason's Report of the Case of Twycross v. Grant. 8vo. 1877. Nct,2s. (id. PallTier. — Vide " Conveyancing." Palmer's Shareholders' and Directors' Coni- panion.— A Manual of every-day Law and Practice for Pro- moters, Shareholders, Directors, Secretaries, Creditors and Solicitors of Companies, under the Companies' Acts, 1862, 1867, and 1877. Second Edition. By ERANCIS B. PALMER, Esq., Barrister-at- Law, Author of "Company Precedents." 12mo. 1880. Nct,2s.6d. Thring.— Fic^e "Joint Stocks." CONTINGENT REMAINDERS.— An Epitome of Fearne on Contingent Remainders and Executory De- vises. Intended for the Use of Students. By W. :M. C. Post 8vo. 1878. . 6s. 6a. "An acquaintance witli Fearne is indispensable to a stmient who deoires to be thoroughly grounded in the common law relating to real property. Such Btudeut will find a perusal of this epitome of great value to huu."— Law Jouniai. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.— Bowyer's Commentaries on the Constitutional Law of England.— By Sir GEO. BOWYER, D.C.L. Second Edition. Royal 8vo. 1846. II. 2s. Haynes. — Vide " Leading Cases." CONTRACTS.— Addison on Contracts.— Being a Treatise on the Law of Contracts. By C. G. ADDISON, Esq., Author of the " Law of Torts." Seventh Edition. By L. W. CAVE, Esq., one of Her Majesty's Counsel, Recorder of Lincoln. Royal 8vo. 1875. ]^- 18s. "At present this is by far the best book upon the Law of Contract posaesaed by the Profession, and it is a thoroughly practical book."— /-aui Times. Leake on Contracts.— An Elementary Digest of the Law of Contracts (being a new edition of " The Elements of the Law of Contracts"). By STEPHEN ]^LA.RTIN LEAKE, Barristei-at- Law. 1 vol. Demy Svo. 1878. 1^- ^8s. Pollock's Principles of Contract at Law and in Equity ; being a Treatise on the General Principles relating to the Validity of Agreements, with a special view to the comparison of Law and Equity, and with references to the Indian Contract^ Act, and occasionally to American and Foreign Law. Second Edition. By FREDERICK POLLOCK, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barristei-at- Law. Demy Svo. 1878. 1^- 6s. The Lord Chief Justice in his judgment in Metropolitan Railway Company v. Brog- den and otheis, said, "The Law is well put by Mr. Frederick Pollock in his very able and learned work on Contracts."— TTie Times. "For the piu-poses of the student there is no book equal to "Mr. roUock's."— T-Ae ^'^°"^Tuiis succeeded in writing a book on Contracts which the working lawyer will fiiui as ustful f..r relerence as any of its predecessors, and which at the same time wdl gire the Siudent what he will seen, for iu vain elsewhere, a complete rationale ot the law, — "■"" WeTelmhTng fo qu^ify "> the praise we bestowed on the first edition. The chapters on unlawlul and impossible agreements are models of full and clear treatment. -Sohciton Journal. Smith's La-w of Contracts.— By the late J. W.SMITH. Esq Author of "Leading Cases," &c. Seventh Edition. ]5y VINCENT T. THOMPSON, Esq., Banister-at-Law. Demy Svo. 1878 ^^- •'*• " We know of few books equally likely to benefit the student, or marked by «ue!i dis- tinguished qualities ol lucidity, order, and accuracy as the work before us. -/^ultruor. Journal, December 28, lS7b. *,« All Standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other blndinys. STEVENS AND SONS' LAW PUBLICATIONS. CONVICTIONS.— Paley's Law and Practice of Sum- mary Convictions under the Summary Juris- diction Acts, 1848 and 1879; including Proceedings preliminary and subsequent to Convictions, and the responsibility of convicting Magistrates and their Officers, with Forms. Sixth Edition. By W. H. MACNAMARA, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1879. 11. is Stone. — Vide " Petty Sessions." TempleP. — Vide " Summary Convictions." Wigram. — Vide "Justice of the Peace." CON VEYANCING.-Dart.— Fide " Vendors and Purchasers." Greenwood's Manual of Convey ancing. — AManua of the Practice of Conveyancing, showing the present Practice relating to the daily routine of Conveyancing in Solicitors' Offices To which are added Concise Common Forms and Precedents in Conveyancing ; Conditions of Sale, Conveyances, and all other Assurances in constant use. Fifth Edition. By H. N. CAPEL, B.A., LL.B., Solicitor. Demy Svo. 1877. 15s. "A careful study of these pages would probably arm a diligent clerk with as much useful knowledge as he might otherwise take years of desultory questioning and observing to acquire." — Solicitors' Journal. The young solicitor will find this work almost invaluable, while the members of the liiKher branch of the profession may refer to it with advantage. We have not met with any book that furnishes so simple a guide to the management of business entrusted to articled clerks." Haynes. — Vide "Leading Cases." Martin's Student's Conveyancer. — A Manual on the Principles of Modern Conveyancing, illustrated and enforced by a Collection of Precedents, accompanied by detailed Remarks. Part I. Purchase Deeds. By THOMAS FREDEKIC MARTIN, Solicitor. Demy Svo. 1877. 5s. 6d. " It should be placed in the hands of every student." Palmer's Company Precedents. — Conveyancing and other Forms and Precedents relating to Companies' incorporated under the Companies' Acts, 1862 and 1867. Arranged as follows : — Agreements, Memoranda of Association, Articles of Association, Resolutions, Notices, Certificates, Provisional Orders of Board of Trade, Debentures, Reconstruction, Amalgamation, Petitions, Orders. With Copious Notes. By FRANCIS BEAUFORT PALMER, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1877. 1^. 5s. " There had never, to our knowledge, been any attempt to collect and edit a body of Forms and Precedents exclusivelyr elating to the formation, working and winding-up of companies. This task Mr. Palmer has taken in hand, and we are glad to say with much success .... The information contained in the 650 pages of the volume is rendered easily accessible by a good and full index. The author lias evidently not been sparing of labour, and the fruits of his exertions are now before the legal profession in a work of great practical utility." — Law Magazine. " To those concerned in getting up companies, the assistance given by >Ir. Palmer must be very valuable, because he does not coutiDe himself to bare precedents, but by intelligent and learned commentary lights up, as it were, each step that he takes. The volume before us is not, therefore a book of precedents merely, but, in a greater or less degree, a treatise on certain portions of the Companies' Acts of 1862 and 1867. There is an elaborate index, ami the work is one which must commend itself to the profession." — Laic Times. ' 'The (.irecedents are as a rule exceedingly well drafted, and adapted to companies for almost every conceivable object So especially are the forms of memoranda and articles ol association ; and these will be found extremely serviceable to the conveyancer. . . All the notes have been elaborated with a thoroughly scientific knowledge of the principles of company law, as well as with copious references to the cases substantiating the principles. . . We venture to predict that his notfs will be found of great utility in guiding opinions on many complicated questions of law and practice.' — Law Journal. *,* A II standard Law Works are Jcept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings. 119, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C. CONWEYANCIUG -Continued. Prideaux's Precedents in Conveyancing. — With JJissertations on its Law and Practice. Ninth Edition. By FREDERICK PRIDEAUX, late Professor of the Law of Real and Personal Property to the Inns of Court, and JOHN WHITCOMBR, Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law. 2 vols. Royal 8 vo. 1879. 3^ 10s. " We have been always accustomed to view 'Prideaux' as th.e most useful work out on conveyancing'. It combines conciseness and clearness in its precedents with aptness and comprehensiveness in its dissertations and notes, to a degree superior to that of any other work of its kind." — Law Journal, February 8, 1870. "Prideaux has become an indispensable part of the Conveyancer's library The new ediiiou has been edited with a care and accmacy oif which we can hardly speak 00 highly The care and completenrss with which the dissertation has been revised leaves us hardly any room tor criticism." — Solicitors' Journal. " The volumes are now soinethiui; more tljan a mere collection of precedents; they contain most valuable dissertations on the law and practice with reference to conveyancing. These dissertations are followed by the precedents on each subject dealt with, and are in themBelvescOMdeused treatises, embodyiuKt" the latest case and statute la«r . . . Having regard to the wide general knowleoge required of all lawyers in the present day, such a work as this must prove highly acceptable to the whole Profession." — Law Times. COPYRIGHT. -Phillips' La\w of Copyright.— The Law of Copyright in Works of Literature and Art, and in the Appli- cation of Designs. With the Statutes relating thereto. By CHARLES PALMER PHILLIPS, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 8vo. 1863. 12s. CORONERS.— J ervis on the Office and Duties of Coroners. — With Forms and Precedents. Fourth Edition. [In jtreparatkin.) COSTS. — Morgan and Davey's Treatise on Costs in Chancery.— By GEORGE OSBORNE MORGAN, M.P., one of Her Majesty's Counsel, late Stowell Fellow of University CoUege, Oxford, and Eldon Scholar ; and HORACE DAVEY, M.A., one of Her Majesty's Counsel, late Fellow of University CoUege, Oxford, and Eldon Scholar. With an Appendix, containing Forms and Precedents of Bills of Costs. 8vo. 1865. 11. Is. Scott's Costs in the High Court of Justice and other Courts. Fourth Edition. By JOHN SCOTT, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, Reporter of the Com- mon Pleas Division. Demy 8vo. ISSO. 11. 6s. " Mr. Scott's introductory notes arc very useful, and the work is now a compendium on the law and practice regarding costs, as well ns a book of precedents."— Xa??; Tiraes, January 3, 1880 Scott's Costs in Bankruptcy and Liquidation under the Bankruptcy Act, 1869. Royal l2mo. 1873. net 3s. Summerhays and Toogood's Precedents of Bills of Costs in the Chancery, Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, Exchequer, Probate and Divorce Divisions of the High Court of J UStice, in Conveyancing, Bankruptcy, the Crown Office, Lunacy, Arbitration under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, the Mayor's Court, London ; the County Courts, the Privy Council, and on Passing Residuary and Succession Accounts ; with Scales of Allow- ances and Court Fees, the Law Society's Scale of Commission in Conveyancing ; Forms of Affidavits of Increase, and Objections to Taxation. By Wm. FRANK SUMMERHAYS, Solicitor, and THORNTON* TOOGOOD. Third Edition, Enlarged. Royal 8vo. 1879. 1^- !•". "In the volume before us we have a very complete manual of taxation. The work is beautifully jirinted and arranged, and each item catches the eye instantly."— Z<»»c Journal. * * All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings. A 3 10 STEVENS AND SONS' LAW PUBLICATIONS. COSTS. -Co'*''""^'*- ^A/^ebster's Parliamentary Costs. — Private Bills, Election Petitions, Appeals, House of Lords. By EDWARD WEBSTER, Esq., of the Taxing and Examiners' Office. Third Edition. Post 8vo. 1867. 20s. COUNTY COURTS.— Pitt-Lewis' County Court Prac- tice. A Complete Practice of the County Courts, including Admi- ralty and Bankruptcy, embodying the Acts, Rules, Forms and Costs, with Additional Forms and a Full Index. By G. PITT-LEWIS, of the Middle Temple and Western Circuit, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, sometime Holder of the Studentship of the Four Inns of Court, assisted by H. A. DE COLYAR, of the Middle Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-T/aw, Author of "A Treatise on the Law of Guaran- tees." In Two parts. 2 vols. (2028 pp.). Demy Svo. 1880. 11 2s. The parts, each complete in itself, sold separately. Part I. History, Constitution, and Jurisdiction (including Prohibition and Mandamus), Practice in all ordinary Actions (including Actions under the Bills of Exchange Acts, in Ejectment, in Remitted Actions, and in Replevin), with Appenciices, Index, &c. (1184 pp.). 30s. Parb II. Practice in Admiralty, Probate, the Practice under Special Statutes, and in Bankruptcy, with Appendices, Index, &c, (1004 pp.). 25s. CRIMINAL LAW.— Archbold's Pleading and Evidence in Criminal Cases. — With the Statutes, Precedents of Indictments, &c., and the Evidence necessary to support them. By JOHN JERVIS, Esq. (late Lord Chief Justice of Her Majesty's Court of Common Pleas). Nineteenth Edition, including the Practice in Criminal Proceedings by Indictment. By WILLIAM BRUCE, of the Middle Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, and Stipendiary Magistrate for the Borough of Leeds. Royal 1 2mo. 1878. i;. lis. 6d. Cole on Criminal Informations and Quo War- panto. — ByW. R.COLE, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 12mo. 1843. 12s. Greaves' Criminal Law Consolidation and Amendment Acts of the 24 & 2S Vict.— With Notes. Observations, and Forms for Summary Proceedings. By CHARLES SPRENGEL GREAVES, Esq., one of Her Majesty's Counsel. Second Edition. Post 8vo. 1862. 16s. Haynes. — Vide " Leading Cases." Roscoe's Digest of the Law of Evidence in Criminal Cases.— Ninth Edition. By HORACE SMITH, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Royal 12mo. 1878. ll.lls.6d. Russell's Treatise on Crimes and Misdemea- nors.— Fifth Edition. By SAMUEL PRENTICE, Esq., one of Her Majesty's Counsel. 3 vols. Royal Svo. 1877. 6/. 15s. 6d. This treatise is so much more copious than any other upon all the subjects contained in it that it affords bv far the best means of aeqviii-iDg a knowledge of the Criminal Law 'n goueral, or of any offence in particular ; so that ii will be found peculiarly useful as well to thoBs who wish to obtain a complet.' knowlndge of that law, as to those who desire to be informed on any portion of it as occasion may require. " VVhat better Digest of Criminal Law could we possibly hope for than 'Russell on Crimes? ' "Sir James Fitzjames Stephen's Speerh on Codification. " No more trustworthy authority, or more exhaustive expositor than 'Russell' can be consulted." — Law Magazine and Review. " Alterations have been made in the arrangement of the work which withc^ut interfering with the genera! plan are sufBcient to show that great care and thought have been bestowed We are aniazed at the patience, iurtustry ar.d skill which are exhibited in the collection and arranpemen* of all this mass of learning." — The Tivus. * * All standard Latv Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings. 119, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C. 11 CROSSED CHEQUES ACT — Cavanagh.— Fic/e "Money Securi- ties." WB.ik.er. — Vide " Banking." DECREES.— Seton.— F«/e " Eqiiity." DIARY.— Lawyer's Companion (The), Diary, and La^A/' Directory for 1880.— For the use of the Legal Profession, Public Companies, Justices, Merchants, Estate Agents, Auctioneers, &c., &c. Edited by JOHN THOMPSON, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Iiaw; and contains a Digest of Kecent Cases on Costs ; Monthly Diary of County, Local Government, and Parish Business ; Oaths in Supreme Court ; Summary of Legislation of 1878; Alphabetical Index to the Practical Statutes; a Copious Table of Stamp Duties; Legal Time, Interest, Discount, Income, Wages and other Tables ; Probate, Legacy and Succession Duties ; and°a variety of matters of practical utility. Published Annually. Thirty-fourth Issue. The work also contains the most complete List published of Town and Country Solicitors, with date of admission and appointments, and is issued in the following forms, octavo size, strongly bound in cloth : — s. d. 1. Two days on a page, plain 5 2. The above, interleaved for Attendances . . .70 3. Two days on a page, ruled, with or without money columns 5 6 4. The above, interleaved for Attendances . . . .80 5. Whole page for each day, plain 7 6 6. The above, interleaved for Attendances . . .96 7. Whole page for each day, ruled, wibh or without money columns ,....••••• ° ^ 8. The above, interleaved for Attendances . . .10 6 9. Three days on a page, ruled blue lines, without money columns . . .,,.... 5 The Diary contains memoranda of Legal Business throughout the Year. " An excellent work." y/c ?'tm««. " A publication whuh bas long ago secured to it.self the favour of the profession, aud which as heretofore, justifies by its contents the title aesuined by it."— Laio Joumal. "Contains all the information which could be looked tor in such a woik, and gives ifc in aiaost convenient form and very coiupletdy. We may unhesitatingly recommend the •woik to OUT reAdeiH."- Solicitors Journal. , , , ^ ,. . u ■ ., • r "The ' Lawyer's Companion and Diary' is a book that ought to be lu the possession of every lawyer, and of every man of business." „ , , ., "The 'Lawyer's Companion' is, indeed, what it is called, for it combines evei7thing rf quired for reference in the lawyer's office." — Lma Times. " It is a book without which no hiwyer's library or office cnn be complete, —hwh Law Times. , . , . , , ,, •..,,• • ' This work has .attained to a completeness which is beyond till praise. —Mornm DICTIONARY Wharton's La>A/^ Lexicon.— A Dictionary of Jurisprudence, explaining the Teehnical Words and Phrases employed in the several Departments of English Law ; including the various Legal Terms used in Commercial Transactions. Together with an Explanatory as well as Literal Translation of the Latin Maxims contained in the Writings of the Ancient and Modern Commentators, Sixth Edition. Enlarged and revised in accordance with the Judicature Acts, by J. SHIRESS WILL, of the Middle Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Super royal 8vo. 1876. 2/. 2s. ' As a work of reference tor the library, ihe handsome and elaborate editicii of AVharton's Law Lexicon ' which Jlr. Shiress Will has piodiictd, must supersede all termer SBiies of that well-known work."— /-au) Magazine and Review. " ^o law library is complete without a law dictionary or law lexicon. To the practi- tioner it IS always useful to have at hand a book where, in a small compass, he can find an explai^-tion of terms of inlrequent occurrence, or obtain a reference lo statures on most buojecvs, or to books wherein particular .subjects are Ir^ted of at full Ifugth. To the Student It is 'almost iiidlBpensable."— Z,au; Timej. , ,. * * All Standard Law Works are kept m iStock, m law calf and other bindings. • A i 12 STEVENS AND SONS' LAW PUBLICATIONS, DIGESTS. — Bedford. — Vide " Examination Guides." Chamber's — Vide " Public Health." Chilly's Equity Index.— Chitty's Index to all the Reported Cases, and Statutes, in or relating to the Principles, Pleading, and Practice of Equity and Bankruptcy, in the several Courts of Equity in England and Ireland, the Privy Council, and the House of Lords, from the earliest period. Third Edition. By J. MACAULAY, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 4 vols. Eoyal 8vo. 1853. 71. Is. Fisher's Digest of the Reported Cases deter- mined in the House of Lords and Privy Council, and in the Courts of Common Law, Divorce, Probate, Admiralty and Bank- ruptcy, from Michaelmas Term, 1756, to Hilary Term, 1870 ; with References to the Statutes and Rules of Court. Founded on the Analytical Digest by Harrison, and adapted to the present practice of the Law. By R. A. FISHER, Esq., Judge of the County Courts of Bristol and of Wells. Five large volumes, royal 8vo. 1870. 12iJ. 12s. (Continued Annually.) " Mr. Fisher's Digest is a wonderful -work. It is a miracle of human indnBtry."— ilfr. Justice Willes. ■,.,,,„ t "I think it would be very difficult to improve upon Mr. Fishers 'Common law Digest.' " — Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, on Codification. Leake. — Vide "Real Property" and "Contracts." Notanda Digest in Law, Equity, Bankruptcy, Admiralty, Divorce, and Probate Cases.— By H. TUDOR BODDAM, of the Inner Temple, and HARRY GREENWOOD, of Lincoln's Inn, Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law. The Notanda Digest, from the commencement, October, 1862, to December, 1876. In 2 volumes, half-bound. Net, 3Z. 10s Ditto, Third Series, 1873 to 1876 inclusive, half-bound. Net, II. lis. Qd. Ditto, Fourth Series, for the years 1877, 1878, and 1879, with Index. Each, net, 11. Is. Ditto, ditto, for 1880, Plain Copy and Two Indexes, or Adhesive Copy for insertion in Text-Books (without Index). Annual Subscription, payable in advance. .Net, 21s. *^* The numbers are issued regularly every alternate month. Each number will contain a concise analysis of every case reported in the Law Reports, Law Journal, Weikly Reporter, Laiu Times, and the Irish Law Reports, up to and including the cases contained in the parts for the current month, with references to Text-books. Statutes, and the Law Reports Consolidated Digest. An alphabetical INDEX of the sulgects contained in each number will form a new feature in this serie.s. Pollock. — Vide " Partnership." Roscoe's. — Vide " Criminal Law " and " Nisi Prius." DISCOVERY.— Hare's Treatise on the Discovery of Evidence. — Second Edition. Adapted to the Procedure in the High Court of Justice, with Addenda, containing all the Reported Cases to the end of 1876. By SHERLOCK HARE, Barrister-at- Law. Post 8vo. 1877. 12s. "The book is a useful contribution to our text-books on practice." — Solicitors' Journal. " We have read his work with considerable attention ani interest, and we can speak in terms of cordial praise of the manner in which the uew procedure has been worked into the old material. . . . AU the sections and orders of the new legislation are referred to in the text, a synopsis of recent cases is given, and a good index completes the volume." — Law Titnes. Seton.— Vide "Equity." *jf* AU standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings. 119, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C. 13 DISTRICT REGISTRIES.-Archibald.— Firfe "Judges' Chambers Practice." DIVORCE.— Browne's Treatise on the Principles and Practice of the Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes: — With the Statutes, Rules. Fees and Forms relating thereto. Fourth Edition. By GEORGE BROWNE, Esq., B.A., of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law, Recorder of Ludlow. Demy 8vo. 1880. 1^ 4s. Haynes. — Vide "Leading Cases." DOMICIL.— Dicey on the Law of Domicil as a branch of the Law of England, stated in the form of Rules.— By A. V. DIOEY, B.C.L., Barrister-at-Law. Author of " Rules for the Selection of Parties to an Action." Demy 8vo. 1879. 18«. " The practitioner will find the Vnok a tliorouL-hly exact and trustworthy summary of the present state of the law."— 7%e Spectator, August 9lh, 1879. Phillimore's(SirR.) Law of DomiciL— Svo. 1847. 9s. DUTCH LAW.— Vanderlinden's Institutes of the Laws of Holland.— 8vo. 1828. 1/. 18s, EASEMENTS.— Goddard's Treatise on the Law of Easements.-By JOHN LEYBOURN GODDARD, of the Middle Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Second Edition. Demy Svo. 1877. 16». "The book is invaluable: where the cases are silent the author has taken pains to ascertain what the law would be if brought iuto question. "—Law Journal. "Nowhere hae the sutjt-ct been treated so exhsustively. ami, we may add. so scientifi- cally, aa by Mr. Goddard. We recommend it to the moat careful study of the law student as well as to the library of the practitioner."— Z/aio Times. ECCLESIASTICAL. — Finiason's Folkestone Ritual Case. — The Judgment of the Judicial Committee in the Folkestone Ritual Case, with an Historical Introduction and brief Notes. By W. F. FINLASON, of the Middle Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Svo. 1877. ^'et, 2s, 6d. Phillinnore's (Sir R.) Ecclesiastical Law^.— The Ecclesiastical Law of the Chiurch of England. With Supplement, containing the Statutes and Decisions to end of 1875. By Sir ROBERT PHILLIMORE, D.C.L., Official Principal of the Arches Court of Canterbury ; Member of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council. 2 vols. 8vo. 1873-76. ^ 21. 7s. 6d. *^* The Supplement may be had separately, price 4s. 6d., sewed. ELECTIONS —Browne (G. Lathom.)—ricZe "Registration." FitzGerald.— Firfe "BaUot." Rogers on Elections, Registration, and Election Agency.— Thirteenth Edition, including Petitions and iluni- cipal Elections and Registration. With an Appendix of Statutes and Forms. By JOHN CORRIE CARTER, of the Inner Temple, Esq., and Midland Circuit, Barrister-at-Law. 12mo. 1880. II. 12s. "Petition has been added, setting forth the procedure and the decLsions on that subject ; and the statutes passed since the last edition are c.xpluinod down to the Parliameut.iry elections and Corrupt Practices Act (18SU)."— 2'Ae Tima, March 27th, 1«80. , , , , "We have no hesitation in commending the book to our readers as a useful and adequate treatise upon election law."— (S'o/iciYoro' Journal, April ;ird, ISSO. ENGLAND, LAWS OF,— Bowyer.— Ficfe "Constitutional Law." Broom and Hadley. — ricie " Commentaries." * „ * All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other Undinys. 14 STEVENS AND SONS' LAW PUBLICATIONS. EQUITY, and Vide CHANCERY. Seton's Forms of Decrees, Judgments, «nd. Orders in the High Court of Justice andCourts of Appeal, having especial reference to the Chancery Division, with Practical Notes. Fourth Edition. By R. H. LEACH, Esq., Senior Registrar of the Chancery Division ; F. G. A. WILLIAMS, of the Inner Temple, Esq. ; and the late H. W. MAY, Esq. ; suc- ceeded by JAMES RASTWIOK, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barristers- at-Law. 2 vols, in 3 parts. Royal 8vo. 1877—79. il 10s. *** Vol. IL, Parts 1 and 2, may be had separately, to complete sets, price each 1/. 10s. " Of all the editions of ' Seton ' this is the best. — Solicitors' Journal. " We can liardly speak too highly of the industry and intelligence which have been bestowftd on the preparation of the notes." — Solicitors' Jovrnal. •' Now the book is before us complete ; and we advisedly say complete, because it has scarcely ever been our fortune to see a more complete law book than this. Exten- sile in sphere and exhaustive in treatise, comprehensive in matter, vet apposite in details, it presents all the features of an excellent work . . . The index, extend- ing over 278 pages, is a model of comprehensiveness and accuracy." — Law Journal Smith's Manual of Equity Jurisprudence.— A Manual of Equity Jurisprudence for Practitioners and Slndents, founded on the Works of Story, Spence, and other writers, and on more than a thousand subsequent cases, comprising the Fundamental Principles and the points of Equity usually occurring in General Practice. By JOSIAH W. SMITH, B.C.L., Q.C. Twelfth Edition. 12mo. 1878. 12s. Qd. "There is no disguising the truth ; the propsr mode to use this book is to learn its pages by heart." — Law Magazine and Review. " It will be found as useful to the practitioner as to the staieat."— Solicitors' Journal. EXAMINATION GUIDES— Bedford's Guide to the Preli- minary Examination for Solicitors. — Fourth Edition. 12mo. 1874. Net, 3s. Bedford's Preliminary. — Containing the Questions and Answers of the Preliminary Examinations. Edited by E. H. BEDFORD, Solicitor (No. 15, May, 1871, to No. 48, July, 1879). {Discontinued). Seived, net, each. Is. Bedford's Digest of the Preliminary Examina- tion Questions on English and Latin, Grammar, Geography, History, French Grammar, and Arithmetic, with the Answers, 8vo. 1875. 18s. Bedford's Preliminary Guide to Latin Gram- mar.— 12mo. 1872. Net, 3s. Bedford's Intermediate Examination Guide to Bookkeeping. — Second Edition. 12mo. 1875. Net,2s.&d. Bedford's Intermediate. — Containing the Questions and Answers at the Intermediate Examinations. Edited by E. H. BEDFORD. Nos. 1 (Hilary, 1869) to 34 (Hilary, 1877). U. each. Nos. 35 (Easter, 1877) to 43 (Trinity, 1879). (Discontinued). \s. ea,ch. Net. Bedford's Student's Guide to Stephen's New- Commentaries on the La>Ars of England. Demy 8vo. 1879. 12s. " Here is a book which will be of the greatest service o students. It reduces the ' Commentaries ' to the form of question and answer . . . We must also give the author credit, not only for his selection of questions, but for his answers thereto. These are niodels of fulness and conciseness, and lucky will be the candidate who can hand in a paper of answers bearing a close resemblance to those in the work before us." — Law Journal. Bedford's Student's Guide to Smith on Con- tracts. Demy 8vo. 1879. 3s. M. %• All standard Law J^orkt are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings. 119, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C. 15 EXAMINATION G[J\OES. -Continued. Bedford's Final. —Containing the Questions and Answers at the Final Examinations. Edited by E. H. BEDFORD. Nos. 1 (Piaster, 1869) to 33 (Easter, 1877). dd. each. Nos. 34 (Trinity, 1877) to 42 (Trinity, 1879). Is. each. Net. {Discontinued.) Bedford's Final Examination Digest : containing a Digest of the Final Examination Question's in matters of Law and Procedure determined by the Chancery, Queen's Bench, ('ommoii Pleas, and Exchequer Divisions of the High Court of Justice, and on the Law of Real and Personal Property and the Practice of Conveyancing. In 1 vol. 8vo. 1879. 16s. " Will furiiLsh students with a large armoury of weapons with which to meet the attacks of the examiners of the Incorporated Law Society." — Laie Times, Nov. s, 1870. Bedford's Final Examination Guide to Bank- ruptcy. — Third Edition. 12mo. 1877. 6s. Bedford's Outline of an Action in the Chan- cery Division. 12mo. 1878. Net, 2s. 6d. Butlin.— Fic^e " Articled Clerks." Dickson's Analysis of Blackstone's Commen- taries. — In Charts for the use of Students. By FREDERICK S. DICKSON. 4to. lO.s. Gd. Haynes. — Vide "Leading Cases." Rubinstein and W^ard.— FiJe "Articled Clerks." Shearwood's Student's Guide to the Bar, the Solicitor's Interinediate and Final and the Universities Law Examinations. — With Suggestions as to the books usually read, and the passages therein to which attention should be paid. By JOSEPH A. SHEARWOOD, B.A., Esq., Barrister-at-law, Author of " A Concise Abridgment of the Law of Real Property," &c. Demy 8vo. 1879. 5s. 6d. ■' A work which will be very acceptable to candiitates for the various examinations, any student of average irneiligence who conscientiously follows the patii and ub-ys the instructions given him by the auth pr, need not fear to present himself a< a 'andiiUte for any of the examinations to wtucli this book is intended as a t;nid»'." — L'lio Jnurnal. EXECUTORS.— Williams' Law of Executors and Ad- ministrators.— By the Rt. Hon. Sir EDWARD VAUGHAN WILLIAMS, late one of the Judges of Her Majesty's Coyrt of Common Pleas. Eighth E.lition. By VVALT'']R V.\UaiIAN WILLIAMS and ROLAND VAUGHAN WILLIAMS, ISsqr.s., Barristers at-Law. 2 vols. Royal 8vo. 1879. 3L 16s. "A treatise which occupies a unique position and which is recognised by the Bench and the profession as having paramoiuit authority in the domain of law with which it deal.s." — Law Jouraal. EXECUTORY DEVIStS.— Fearne.— T/(Ze "Contingent Remainders." FACTORY ACTS.— Notcutt's Law relating to Factories and Workshops, with IiiLroduction and Ex- planatory Notes. Second Edition. Comprising the Factory and Workshop Act, 1878, and the Orders of the Secretary of State made thereunder. By GEO. JARVIS NOTCUTT, Solicitor, formeriy of the Middle Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 12mo. 1879. 9s. " The task of elucidating the provisions of the statute is done in a manner that leaves nothing to be desired." — Birmingham Dailu Gazette. FARM, LAW OF.— Addison ; Cookie.— Vide "Agricultural Law." Dixon's Law of the Farm — A Digest of Cases cimnected with the Law of the Farm, and including the Agricultural Customs of England and Wales. Fourth Edition. By HENRY PERKINS, i:sq., Barnster-at-Law and Midland Circuit. Demy 8"o. 1879. 1/. 6s. " It is impossible not to be struck witli th-^ extraordinary research that must have been used in the comjalation of such a book as thi.s." — Law Journal. *,* All standard Laiv Works are kevt in Stock, in law caff and other hindinys. 16 STEVENS AND SONS' LAW PUBLICATIONS. FINAL EXAMINATION DIGE5T.-Bedford.—7ide "Examination Guides." FIXTURES. -Amos and Ferard on Fixture?.-- Second Edition. Eoyal 8vo. 1847. 16*. FOREIGN JUDGMENTS.— Piggott's Foreign Judgments, their effect in the English Courts, the English Doctrine, Defences, Judgments in Rem, Status.— % F. T. PIGGOTT, M.A., LL.M., of the Middle Eoyal 8vo. 1879. los. " \ useful and welltimtd volume." — Law Magaziae, August, 1S79. "Mr. Pigeiitt writes under strong conviction, but he is always cai eful to rest hU arguments on autliority, aud thereby adds considerably to the value of his handy volume." Late Magazine ((ml Review, November, 1870. " M. I'Jggott dunne il I'etude de I'une des questions les plus complexes du droit intor- iia'ional pnve une forme tout nouvclle : il applique dans toute sa ritrueur la methode des sciences exactes, etue rectile pas devant I'emploi des formules algebriqu<=8. C'^tait la une tentative perilleuse dont le succfis pouvaic Berabler douteux ; mais il suffit d'indiquer la marolie snivie at les r&ultats obtenus par I'anteur pour cumprendre I'impor- tanct) et le merite de cette publication." — Journal Ju Droit International Prive, 1879. FORMS. — Archibald. — Vide " Jiidges' Chambers Practice." Chitty's Forms of Practical Proceedings in the Queen's Bench, Common Pleas and Ex- chequer Divisions of the High Court of Jus- tice : with Notes containing the Stututes, Pules and Practice relating thereto. Eleventh Edition. By THOS. WILLES CHITTY, Esqr. Demy 8vo. 1879. 11. 18s. Daniell's Forms and Precedents of Proceed- ings in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice and on Appeal therefrom ; ■with Dissertations and Notes, forming a complete guide to the Practice of the Chancery Division of the High Court and of the Courts of Appeal. Being the Third Edition of " Daniell's Chancery Forms." By WILLIAM HENRY UPJOHN, Esq., Student and Holt Scholar of Gray's Inn, Exhibitioner in Jurisprudence and Poman Law in the University of London, Holder of the First Senior Studentship in Jurisprudence, Roman Law and International Law, awarded by the Council of Legal Education in Hilary Term 1879. In one thick vol. Demy 8vo. 1879. 2?. 2s. "Mr. Upjobn has restored the volume of Chancery Forms to the place it held before the leceut changes, as a trustworthy and complete collection of precedents." — Solicitors' Journal. " We li.ive bad this work in practical use for some weeks, and so careful is the noting up of the authorities, so clearly and concisely are tlie notes expressed, that we have found It of us much value as the ordinary text books on the Judicature Acts. It will be as use- ful a work to] practitioners at Westminster as it will be to those in Lincoln s \m\."—Law Times. FRElNCH commercial law.— Goirand.— FicZe "Commercial Law." HIGHWAYS -Baker's Law of Highways. By THOMAS BAKER, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. {In the press.) Chambers' Law relating to Highways and Bridges, being the Statutes in full and brief Notes of 700 Leading Cases; to which is added the Law relating to the Lighting of Rural Parishes under the Lighting Act, 1833. By GEO. F. CHAMBERS, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Imperial 8vo. 1878. 18s. Shelford's Law of Highways.— The Law of Highways ; including the General Highway Acts for England and Wales, and other Statutes, with copious Notes of the Decisions thereon ; with Forms. Third Edition. With Supplement by C. MANLEY SMITH, Esq., one of the Masters of the Queen's Bench. 12mo. 1865. _ 15s. *^* All itandard Law Work* are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings. 119, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C. 17 INCLOSURES.— Fide "Commons." INDIAN LAW — Norton's Leading Cases on the Hindu Law of Inheritance.— 2 vols. Royal 8vo. 1870-71. INJUNCTIONS.-Seton.-rae "Equity." ^'*' ^^' ^^'" INSURANCE.— Arnould on the Law of Marine Insu- rance.— Fifth Edition. By DAVID MACLACHLAN, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 2 vols. Royal 8vo. 1877. 3/. "As a text book, ' Arnould ' is uow all the practitioner t-aa want, and we congratulate the editor upon the skill with which he has incorporated the new decisions."— Zata Times. Hopkins' Manual of Marine Insurance.— 8vo. 1867. i8s. INTERNATIONAL LAW — Amos' Lectures on Inter- national Law.— Delivered in the Middle Temple Hall to the Students of the Inns of Court, by SHELDON AMOS, M.A., Pro- fessor of Jurisprudence (including International Law) to the' Inns of Court, &c. Royal 8vo. 1874. 10s. 6iL Dicey. — F/cZe "Domicil." Kent's International Law. — Kent's Commentary on International Law. Edited by J. T. ABDY, LL.D., Judge of County Courts. Second Edition. Revised and brought down to the present time. Crown 8vo. 1878. 10s. 6d. " Altogether Dr. Abdy has performed his task in a manner worthy of his reputation' His book will be useful not only to Lawyers and Law Students, for whom it was primarilv intended, but also for laymen. It is well worththestudy of every member of an enlightened and civilized community." — Solicitors' Journal. Levi's International Coinmercial Law.— Being the Principles of Mercantile Law of the following and other Countries —viz. : England, Ireland, Scotland, British India, British Colonies, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Buenos Ayres, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hans Towns, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Prussia^ Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United States, and Wiirtemberg ' By LEONE LEVI, Esq., P.S.A., F.S.S., Barrister-at-Law, &c. Second Edition. 2 vols. Royal 8vo. 1863. U. 15s, Vattel's Law of Nations.— By JOSEPH CHITTY Esq' Koyal 8vo. 1834. ^ i;. i^. V/heaton's Elei-n.ents of International Law- Second English Edition. Edited with Notes and Appendix of Statutes and Treaties, bringing the work down to the present time. By A. C. BOYD, Esq., LL.B., J.P., Barrister-at-Law. Author of " The Merchant Shipping Laws." Demy 8vo. 1880. IZ. 10s. "Mr. BoyH, the latest editor, has added many useful notes; he has inserted in the Appendix public documcijis of )iermauent value, and there is the prospect that, as edited by Mr. Boyd, Mr Wheaton's volume will enter on a new lease of life It is all the more important that their works (AV/jf and ir/iea^o/i) should be edited by iutellifjeut and impartial Englishmen, such as Or. Abdy, the editor of Kent, and Mr. Boyd."— TVte Times. •' Both the plan aud execution of the work before us deserves commendation. Mr.' Boyd gives prominence to tho labours of others. The text of Wheaton is presented without alteration, and Mr. Dana's uumberiug of the sections is preserved. Mr. Boyd's notes, which are numerous, original, aud copious, are conveniently inturapersed through- out the text ; but they are in a distinct type, aud therefore the reader always knows whether he is reading Wheaton or Boyd. The Index, which could not have been com- piled without much thought and labour makes the book handy for reference, and, consequently, valuable to public writers, who in these days have frequently to refer to International Law." — Lain Journal. "Students who require a knowledge of Wheaton's text will find Mr. Boyd's volume very convenient."— Zau) Magazine. Wildman's International La^Ar.— Institutes of Inter- national Law, in lime of Peace and Time of "War. By RICHARD WILDMAN, Barri.ster-at-Law. 2 vols. 8vo. 1849-50. II 2» Qd JOINT OWNERSHIP.-Foster.— Vide " Real Estate." *^'' All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings. 18 STEVENS AND SONS' LAW PUBLICATIONS. JOINT STOCKS.— Palmer. — Vide " Conveyanciug " and "Company Law." Thring's (SirH.) Joint Stock Companies' Law.— The Law and Practice of Joint Stock and other Public Companies, in- cluding the Statutes, with Notes, a Collection of Precedents of Memoranda and Articles of Association, and all the other Forms required in Making, Administering, and Winding-up a Company. By Sir HENRY THRING, K.C.B., The Parliamentary Counsel. Third Edition. By G. A. 11. FITZGERALD, Esq., Barrister-at- Law, and Fellow of St. John's College, Oxford. 12mo. 1875. 11. "This, as the work of the original diaughtamaa of the Companies' Act of 1862, and well-known Parliamentarv counsel, Sir Ueury Thring is naturally the higheat authority on the subject." — TVie Times. Jordan's Joint Stock Companies. — A Handy Book of Practical Instructions for thr Formation and Management of Joint Stock Companies. Sixth Edition. 12mo. 1878. Net, Is. ^d. JUDGES' CHAMBERS PRACTICE —Archibald's Forms of Summonses and Orders, with Notes for use at Judges' Chambers and in the District Registries. By W. F. A. ARCHI- BALD, M.A., of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law. Royal 12mo. 1879. 12s. Qd. " The work is done most thoroughly and yet concisely. The practitioner will find plain directions how to proceed in all the matters connected with a common law action, interpleader, attachment of debts, mandamus, injunction — indeed, the whole jurisdiction of the common law divisions, in the district registries, and at Judges' chambers." — Laip Times, July 26, 1879. " A clear and well-digested vade n.ecum, which will no doubt be widely used by the profession.'' — Law Magazine. November, 1879. JUDGMENTS. — Piggott. — Vide "Foreign Judgments." "Walker's Practice on Signing Judgment in the High Court of Justice. With Forms. By H. H. WALKER, Esq., of the Judgment Department, Exchequer Division. Crown Svo. 1879. As. 6d. "The book undoubtedly meets a want, and furnishes information available for almost every branrh of practice." "We think that solicitors and their clerks will find it extremely useful." — Laic Journal. JUDICATURE ACTS.— Ilbert's Supreme Court of Judi- cature (Officers^ Act, 187y ; with the Rules of Court and Forms, December, 1879, and April, 1880. With Notes. By COURTENAY P. ILBERT, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Royal 12mo. 1880. 6s. (In limp leather, 9s. Qd.) *^* A LARGE PAPER EDITION (for marginal notes). Royal Svo. 8s. (In limp leather, 12s.) Forming a Suppilement to " Wiisons Judicature Acts." Leys' Complete Time-Table to the Rules under the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 187S. Showing all the periods fixed by the Rules within or after which any proceedings may be taken. By JOHN KIRKWOOD LEYS, M.A., of the Middle Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Royal Svo. 1875. Net, Is. Qd. Lynch's Epitome of Practice in the Supreme Court of Judicature in England. With References to Acts, Rules, and Orders. For the Use of Students. Fourth Edition. Royal Svo. 1878. Net, Is. Morgan. — Vide "Chancery." Stephen's Judicature Acts 1873, 1874, and 187S, consolidated. With Notes and an Index. By Sir JAMES FITZJAMES STEPHEN, one of Her Majesty's Judges. 12mo. 1875. .4s. 6d. *^* All standard Law WorTcs a/re kept in Stock, in law calf and other hindinys. 119, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C. 19 JUDICATURE \CTS. -Continued. Swain's Complete Index to the Rules of the Supreine Court, April, 1880, and to the Forms (uniforoi with the Official Fades and Forms). By EDWAKD SWAIN. Imperial 8vo. 1880. ^'e<. Is. Wilson's Supreme Court of Judicature Acts, Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, Rules of Court and Forms. With other Acts, Orders, Rules and Regulations relating to the Supreme Court of Justice. With Practical Notes and a Copious Index, forming a Complete Guide TO THE New Practice. Second Edition. By ARTHUR WIL- SON, of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law . (Assisted by HARRY GREENWOOD, of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law, and JOHN BIDDLE, of the Master of the Rolls Chambers.) Royal 12mo. 1878. (pp. 726.) 18s. {In limp leather for the pocket, 22s. 6d.) *^* A LARGE PAPER EuiTiON OF THE ABOVE (for marginal notes). Royal 8vo. 1878. (/» limp leather or calf, 30s.) 1^. 5s. " As reeard3 Mr. Wilson's notes, we can only say tliat they are indispensable to the prooer understanding of the new syste:n of procedure. They treat the iirinciples UDon which the alterations are based with a clearneis and breadth of view which have never been equalled or even approached by any other commentator." — Solicitor/ Journal. "Mr. Wilson has bestowed upon this edition an amount of industry and care which the Bench and the Profession will, we are sure, gratefully ackuowledge A conspicuous and important feature in this sec >ud edition is a table of cases prepared by Mr. Biddle, in which not only are cases given with references to two or three reports, but^ every place in wnich the cases are reported. Wilson's ' Judicature Acts, ' is now the latest, and wo think it is the most convenient of the works of the same class. . . . The oractitioner will find that it supplies all his wants."— iaw Times. JURISPRUDENCE.— Amos, Law as a Science and as an Art. — An Introductory Lecture delivered at University College at the commencement of the session 1874-5. By SH ELDON AMOS, Esq., M.A, Barrister-at-Law. 8vo. 1874. Net, Is. 6d. Phillimore's (J. G.) Jurisprudence.— An Inaiigural Lecture on Jurisprudence, and a Lecture on Canon Law, delivered at the Hall of the Inner Temple, Hihiry Term, 1851. By J. G. PHILLIMORE, Esq., Q.C. 8vo. 1851. Sewed. 3s. 6d. Piggott. — Vide " Foreign Judgments." JUSTINIAN, INSTITUTES OF.-Cumin.— FiVic "Civil Law." Greene. — Vide "Roman Law." Mears. — Vide "Roman Law." Ruegg's Student's " Auxilium " to the Institutes of Justinian. — Being a complete synopsis thereof in the form of Question and Answer. By ALFRED HENRY RUEGG, of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law. Post 8vo. 1879. 5s. " The student will be greatly assisted in clearing and arranging his knowledge by a work of this kind." — Late Journal. JUSTICE OF THE PEACE.— Burn's Justice of the Peace and Parish Officer. — Edited by the following Barristers, under the General Superintendence of JOHN BLOSSETT MAULE, Esq., Q.C. The Thirtieth Edition. Vol. I. containing titles "Abatement" to "Dwellings for Artisans;" by THOS. S. PRIT- CHARD, Esq., Recorder of Wenlock. Vol. II. containing titles " Easter Offering " to "Hundred;" by SAML. B. BRISTOWE, Esq., Q.C, M.P. Vol. III. containing titles " Indictment" to "Pro- missory Notes ;" by h. W. CAVE, Esq., Q.C. Recorder of Lincoln. Vol. IV. containing the whole title " Poor ;" by J. E. DAVIS, Esq., Stipendiary Magistrate for Stoke-upon-Trent. Vol. V. con- taining titles "Quo Warranto" to "Wreck;" by J. 13. MAULE,^Esq., Q.C, Recorder of Leeds. Five vols. 8vo. 1869. 71. Is. • ♦ All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law coif andolJur bindings. 20 STEVENS AND SONS' LAW PUBLICATIONS. JUSTICE OF THE PEf^CE -Continued. Paley. — Vide "Convictions." Stone's Practice for Justices of the Peace, Justices' Clerks and Solicitors at Petty and Special Sessions, in Summary Matters and Indictable Offences, with a List of Summary Convic- tions and of Matters not Criminal. With Forms. Eiarhth Edition. By THOMAS SIRRELL PRITCHARD, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, Recorder of Wenlock. Demy 8vo. 1877. II. 10s. Wiqrami's The Justices' Note Book. By W. KNOX WIGRAM, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, J.P. Middlesex. Royal 12rao., 1880. 10s. 6d. Tn the first portion, or 'Preliminary Notes,' the constitution of courts of Summary Jurisdiction, together with the whole course of ordinary procedure, as modified by the recent Act, are explained in a series of short chapters, under the following heads: — I. Justices — Jurisdiction — Divisions — Petty and Special Sessions. II. Summary Jurisdiction upon Information— Preliminary Proceedings. III. Summary Jurisdic- tion upon Information — the Hearing and Punishment. IV. Indictable Offences — Committal for Trial. V. Summary Jurisdiction as regards Indictable Offences ; (children-youngpersons— and adults). VI. Summary Jurisdiction upon Complaint. VII. Quarter Sessions and Appeal. VIII. Note on the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879. In the second part, entitled ' Notes of Matters and Offences alphabetically arranged.' will be found an account of most subjects which from time to time occupy the attention of Justices, either in Petty or Special Sessions. " We have nothing but praise for tlie bocik, wliicli is a justices' royal road to knowledge, and ought to lead tbem to a more accurate acquaintance with their duties than many of them have hitherto poa^esseii."— Solicitors' ./ournal. " This is altogether a capital book. Mr. Wigram is a good lawyer and a good justices' lawyer."— Law Journal. " We can thoroughly recoramend the volume to magistrates."— iaw Times. LAND TAX — Bourdin's Land Tax. — An Exposition of the Land Tax ; its Assessment and Collection, with a statement of the rights conferred by the Redemption Acts. By MARK A. BOLTR- DIN, of the Inland Revenue Office, Somerset House (late Registrar of Land Tax"). Second Edition. Crown 8vo. 1870. 4s. LANDLORD AND TENANT.— Woodfall's Law of Landlord and Tenant. — A Practical Treatise on the Law of Landlord and Tenant, with a full Collection of Precedents and Eorms of Procedure. Eleventh Edition. Containing an Abstract of Leading Propositions, and Tables of certain Customs of the Country. By J. M. LELY, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Iiaw. Royal 8vo. 1877. 1^. 16s. " The editor has expended elaborate industry and pystematic ability in making the work as p>^rfect as possible ; and we doubt not that this eleventh edition will be a greater success than any of its predecessors." — Solicitors' Jour7ia.l. LAW LIST. — Law List (The). — Comprising the Judges and Officers of the different Courts of Justice, Counsel, Special Pleaders, Draftsmen, Conveyancers, Solicitors, Notaries, &c., in England and Wales ; the Circuits, Judges, Treasurers, Registrars, and High Bailiffs of the County Courts, District Registries and Registrars under the Probate Act, Lords Lieutenant of Counties, Recorders, Clerks of the Peace, Town Clerks, Coroners, Colonial Judges, and Colonial Lawyers having English Agents, Metropolitan and Stipendiary Magistrates, Law Agents, Law and Public Officers, Circuits of the Judges and Counsel attending Circuit and Sessions, List of Sheriffs and Agents, London Commissioners to Administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature in England, Conveyan- cers Practising in England under Certificates obtained in Scotland, &c., &c., and a variety of other useful matters so far as relates to Special Pleaders, Draftsmen, Conveyancers, Solicitors, Proctors and Notaries. Compiled by WILLIAM HENRY COUSINS, of the Inland Revenue Office, Somerset House, Registrar of Stamped Cer- tificates, and of Joint Stock Companies. Published annually. By Authority. 1880. {Net cash 9s.) 10s. 6d. ** All standard Law Wwks are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings. 119, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C. 21 LAW REPORTS. A large Stock of second-hand Reports. Estimates on application. LAWYER'S COMPANION.— Ficie" Diary.' LEADING CASES.— Haynes' Student's Leading Cases. Being some of the Priucipal Decisions of the Courts in Constitutional Law, Common Law, Conveyancing and Equity, Probate, Divorce, Bankruptcy, and Criminal Law. With Notes for the use of Students. By JOHN F. HAYNES, LL.D., Author of " The Practice of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice," "The Student's Statutes," &c. Demy 8vo. 1878. 16s. " We consider Mr Haynes" book to be one of a very praiseworthy class ; and we may say also that its editor appears to be a competent man. He can express himself with clearness, precision, and terseness." — SoUcitm-x' Journal. _ „, ,t ^ " Will prove of great utility, not only to Studer.ts, but Practitioners. The Notes are clear, pointed and concise."— i/aio 7i"ie«. ,,.,-• , , „ " We think that this book will supply a want .... the book is singularly well arranged for reference."— iaai /oif'iai. . o , • Shirley's Leading Cases made Easy. A Selection of Leading Cases in the Common Law. By W. SHIRLEY SHIR- LEY, M.A., Esq., Barrister-at-Law, North-Eastern Circuit. Demy 8vo. 1880. 14s. '' Mr. Shirlpy writes well and clearly, and evidently.understands what he is writing about."— Law Timet, April 10, 188U. LEXICON. — Vide "Dictionary." LIBRARIES AND MUSEUMS.— Cliambers' Public Libraries and Museums and Literary and Scientific Institutions generally, a Digest of the Law- relating to. Second Edition. By G. F. CHAMBERS, of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law. Imperial 8 vo. 1879. 8s. 6d. LICENSING.— Lely and Foulkes' Licensing Acts, 1828, 1869, 1872, and 1874; Containing the Law of the Sale of Liquors by Retail and the Management of Licensed Houses ; with Notes to the Acts, a Summary of the Law, and an Appendix of Forms. Second Edition. By J. M. LELY and W. D. I. FOULKES, Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law. Royal 12mo. 1874. 8s. " The notes are sensible aud to the point, and give evidence both of care and know- ledge of the subject."— Soliciiors' Journal. LIENS Cavanagh.— FicZe "Money Securities." LIFE ASSURANCE.— Scratchleys Decisions in Life As- surance Law, collated alphabetically according to the point involved ; with the Statutes. Revised Edition. By ARTHUR SCRATCHLEY, M.A., Barrister-at-Law. Demy Svo. 1878. 5s. LIGHTS.— \Voolrych's Practical Treatise on the Law of Window Lights. — Second Edition. 12mo. 1864. 6s. LOCKE KING'S ACTS.— Cavanagh.-Firfe "Money Securities." LORD MAYOR'S COURT PRACTICE.-Candy.— Kic/c "Mayor's Court Practice." LUNACY.— Elmer's Practice in Lunacy.— The Practice in Lunacy under Commissions and Inquisitions, with Notes of Cases aud Recent Decisions, the Statutes and General Orders, Forms and Costs of Proceedings in Lunacy, an Index and Schedule of Cases. Sixth Edition. By JOSEPH ELMER, of the Office of the Masters in Lunacy. Svo. 1877. 2l5. MAGISTERIAL LAW.— Burn.— Fide " Justice of the Peace." Leeming and Cross.— Vide " Quarter Sessions." Pritchard. — Vide " Quarter Sessions." Stone. — Vide " Petty Sessions." "Wigram. — Vide "Justice of the Peace." * * All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in laiv calf and other bindings. 22 STEVENS AND SONS' LAW PUBLICATIONS. MANDAMUS. — Tapping on Mandamus. — The Law and Practice of the High Prerogative Writ of Mandamus as it obtains both in England and Ireland. Koyal 8vo. 1848. Net, \l. !«. MARITIVIECOLLISION.— LoAA^ndes.— Marsden.— Fide "Col- lision." MAYOR'S COURT PRACTICE.— Candy's Mayor's Court Practice.— The Jurisdiction, Process.Practice, and Mode of Plead- ing in Ordinary Actions in the Mayor's Court, London (commonly called the " Lord Mayor's Court " ). Founded on Brandon. By GEORGE CANDY, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1879. 14s. "The 'oniiii.ary' practice of the Court is dealt with in its natural order, and is Biraply and clearly stated."— Z,aw Journal. MERCANTILE LAW.— Boyd.— Fk^c "Shipping." RusselL — Vide "Agency." Smith's Compendium of Mercantile La^^^.— Ninth Edition. By G. M. DOWDESWELL, of the Inner Temple, Esq., one of Her Majesty's Counsel. Royal 8vo. 1877. 1?. 18s. " We can Bafely say that, to the practising Solicitor, few books will be found more useful than the ninth edition of ' Smith's Mercantile Law.'"— /.aw Magazine. Tudor's Selection of Leading Cases on Mercan- tile and Maritime Law.— With Notes. By O.D.TUDOR, Esq.. Barrister-at-Law. Second Edition. Royal 8vo. 1868. IZ. 18s. METROPOLIS BUILDING ACTS-— Woolrych's Metropolis Building Acts, with Notes, Explanatory of the Sections and of the Architectural Terms contained therein. Second Edition. By NOEL H. PATERSON, M.A., Esq., Barrister-at-Law, 12mo. 1877. 8»- 6d. MINES.— Rogers' Lav^ relating to Mines, Minerals, and Quarries in Great Britain and Ireland; with a Summary of the Laws of Foreign States and Practical Directions for obtaining Government Grants to work Foreign Mines. Second Edition Enlarged. By ARUNDEL ROGERS, Esq., Judge of County Courts. 8vo. 1876. \l. lis. 6d. "The volume will prove invaluable asa work of legal reXtrence,."— The Mining J ouitial. MONEY SECURITIES.— Cavanagh's Law of Money Secu- rities. — In Three Books. I. Personal Securities. II. Securities on Property. III. Miscellaneous ; with an Appendix containing the Crossed Cheques Act, 1876, The Factors Acts, 1823 to 1877. Locke King's, and its Amending Acts, and the Bills of Sale Act, 1878. By CHRISTOPHER CAVANAGH,B.A.,LL.B. (Lond.), of the Middle Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. In 1 vol. Demy 8vo. 1879. 21s. "We know of no work which embraces so much that is of overy-day importance, nor do we know of any author vho shows more fan iliarity with his subject. The book is one which wc tball certainly keep near at Lai d, and we believe that It will prove a decided acqiiisiticn to tne practitioner."- Lnio Times. "The author has the gift of a pleasant style; there are abundant and correct references to decisions of a recent date : and, in the matter of newly-enacted statutes ; attempts are made, and, as we think, not without success, to ^-apple with points of nractice and interpretation which as yet remain judicially unsolved. An appendix, in which is embodied the full text of severtil important statutes, adds to the utility of the work as a book of reference ; and there is a good index." Solicilors' Jourval. "Jn the second book bills of sale extend over some sixty-three pages; and the treatise on thtm seems on the whole well written, especially with reference to the alterations made by 41 & 42 Vict. c. :n."-Zo«-./o«7W. „„„..< ' ' iV ay be the means of saving enormous laboiu- to thousands of readers. — JiuUtotitst. MORTGAGE.— Coote's Treatise on the Law of Mort- gage.— Third Edition. Roval 8vo. 1850. Net, 11. MORTMAIN.- Rawlinson's Notes on the Mortmain Acts ■ shewing their operation on Gifts, Devises and Bequests for Charitable Uses. By JAMES RAWLINSON, SoHcitor. Demy 8vo. 1877. Interleaved. ^et, 2s. 6d. ♦ * All standard Law Wm'ks are left in Stock, in law calf and other bindings. 119, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C. 23 NAVY.— Thring's Criminal Law of the Navy, with an Introductory Chapter on the Early State and Discipline of the Navy, the Rules of Evidence, and an Appendix comprising the Naval Discipline Act and Practical Forms. Second Edition. By THEODORE THRING, of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law, late Commissioner of Bankruptcy at Liverpool, and C. E. GIFFORD, Assistant-Paymaster, Royal Navy. 12mo. 1877. 12s. 6d. "A full series of forms i>f warrants, minutes, charges, ifcc, and a good Index, complete the utility of » work which should be in th-^ hauiis of all who have to deal with the regu- latiuii and governing of the Fleet." — Laiv Magazine. " In the new edition, the procedure, naval regulations, forms, and all matters con- nected wUh the praciical adiniuistration ot the '.aw have be^n clasaifie 1 and arranged by Mr. Gifford. so iliac tne work is in every way useful, complete, and up to date." Naval and Military Oaxelte. NISI PRIUS.— Roscoe's Digest of the Law of Evidence on the Trial of Actions at Nisi Prius.— Fourteenth Edition. By JOHN DAY, one of Her Majesty's Counsel, and MAURICE POWELL, Barrister-at-Law. Royal 12mo. 1879. 2?. {Bound in one thick volume calf or circuit, 5s., or in two convenient vols. calf or circuit, 9s. net, extra.) "The task of adapting; the old text to the new procedure was one requiring much patient lahoui , careful accuracy, and conciseness, a;* well as discretion in ihe omission of matter obsolete or unnecessary. An examiuitiou of the bulky volume betb'e us iff )rds good evidence of the possession of these qualities by the present editors, and we feel sure that the popularity of the work will continue unabated under their cjnscientious oare."^ Law Magazine. Selv/yn's Abridgment of the Law of Nisi Prius.— Thirteenth Edition. By DAVID KEANE, Q.C., Recorder of Bedford, and CHARLES T. SMITH, M.A., one of the Judges of the Supreme Court of the Cape of Good Hope. 2 vols. Royal 8 vo. 1869. (Published at 21. I6s.) Net 11 NOT ^tiO A.— Vide " Digests." NOTARY.— Brooke's Treatise on the Office and Prac tice of a Notary of England.— With a full collection of Precedents. Fourth Edition. By LEONE LEVI, Esq., F.S.A., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law. 8vo. 1876. i; 4s NUISANCES.— FitzGerald.— Firfe "PubHc Health." OATHS. — Braithwaite's Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature. — A Manual for the use of Commissioners to Administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature in England. Part I. containing practical information respecting their Appoint- ment, Designation, Jurisdiction, and Powers ; Part II. comprising a collection of officially recognised Forms of Jurats and Oaths, with Explanatory Observations. By T. W. BRAITHWAITE, of the Record and Writ Clerks' Office. Fcap. 8vo. 1876. 4s. 6d. " Specially useful to Commissioners."— Z,aw Magazine. " The work wiU, we doubt not, become the recognised guide of commissioners to administer oaths." — Solicitors' Journal. PARTITION. -Foster.— r«;e "Real Estate." PARTNERSHIP.— Pollock's Digest of the Law of Part- nership. By FREDERICK POLLOCK, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Author of " Principles of Contract at Law* and in Equity." Demy 8vo. 1877. 8s. 6d. *** The object of this work is to give the substance of the Law of Partnership (excluding Companies) in a concise and definite form, "Of the execution of the work, we can speak in terms of the hijiesi praise. The' aiiguage is simple, concise, and clear ; and the general i)roposii ions may bear comparison with those of Sir James St^pheu." — Law Ma'jazine. " Mr. Pollock's work appears eminently satistactory . . . the book is praisewortbv n design, scholarly and complete in execution."— Sanirday Revieiv. " A few more books written as carefully as the ' Digest of the Law of Partnership ' will perhaps, remove some orawbacks. and render English law a pleasanier and easier Bubiect to study than it is at present."— TVie Bxamtner. *»* All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings. 24 STEVENS AND SO NS' LAW PUBLICATIONS. PATENTS.— Hindmarch's Treatise on the La>A^ rela- ting to Patents.— 8vo. 1846. IZ. Is. Johnson's Patentees' Manual; being a Treatise on the Law and Practice of Letters Patent, especially intended for the use of Patentees and Inventors.— By JAMES JOHNSON, Ban-ister-at-Law. and J. H. JOHNSON, Solicitor and Patent Agent. Fourth Edition. Thoroughly revised and much enlarged. Demy Svo. 1879. 10s. 6d. " A very excellent manual."— iatr Times, February 8, 1879. " The authors have not only a knowledge of the law, but of the workingr of the law. Be- sides the table of cases there is a copious index to subjects. ,'—/-ojf Journal, Marchl, 1879. Thompson's Handbook of Patent Law of all Countries.— Third Edition, re\nsed. By WM. P. THOMPSON, C E , Head of the International Patent Office, Liverpool. 12mo. 1878. Net 2s. 6d. PERSONAL PROPERTY.— Smith.— Firfe " Eeal Property." PETITIONS.— Palmer.— Firfe " Conveyancing." Rogers. — Vide "Elections." PETTY SESSIONS.- Stone's Practice for Justices of the Peace, Justices' Clerks and Solicitors at Petty and Special Sessions, in Summary Matters and Indictable Offences, with a List of Summary Convictions and of Matters not Criminal. With Forms. Eighth Edition. By THOMAS SIREELL PEITCHAED, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, Eecorder of Wenlock. In 1 vol. Demy 8vo. 1877. !?• 10s. " The book as a ■whole, is thorouehly satisfactory, and, having gone carefully throngh it, we can recom'mend it with confidence to the numerous body of our readers who are daUy interested in the subjects to which it Ye\a.te3."— Solicitors' Journal. POOR LAW.— Davis' Treatise on the Poor Laws.— Bemg Vol. IV. of Bums' Justice of the Peace. Svo. 1869. IZ. lis. 6rf. POWERS. Farwell on Powers. — A Concise Treatise on Powers. By GEOEGE FARWELL, B.A., of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 8vo. 1874. IZ- 1«. " We recommend Mr Farwell's book as containing within a small compass what wonld otherwise have to be sought out in the pages of hundreds of confusing reports."— T/ie Law. PRECEDENTS. — Vide " Conveyancing." PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.— Petgrave's Principal and Agent.— A Manual of the Law of Principal and Agent. By E C PETGEAVE, Solicitor. 12mo. 1857. 7s. 6d. Petgrave's Code of the Law of Principal and Agent, with a Preface. By E. C. PETGEAVE, Solicitor. Demy 12mo. 1876. Net, served, 2s. PRIVY COUNCIL. — Finlason's History, Constitution, and Character of the Judicial Cornmittee of the Privy Council, considered as a Judicial Tribunal, especially in Ecclesiastical Cases, with special reference to the right and duty of its members to declare their opinions. By W. F. FINLASON, Barrister-at-Law. Eemy Svo. 1878. 4s. 6d. Lattey's Handy Book on the Practice and Pro- cedure before the Privy Council.— By EOBEET THOMAS LATTEY, Attorney of the Court of Queen's Bench, and of the High Court of Bengal. 12mo. 1869. 6s. PROBATE. Browne's Probate Practice : a Treatise on the Principles and Practice of the Court of Probate, in Contentious and Non-Contentious Business, with the Statutes, Eules, Fees, and Forms relating thereto. By GEOEGE BEOWNE, Esq., Barrister- at-Law, Eecorder of Ludlow. 8vo. 1873. U. Is. "A cursory glance through Mr. Browne's work shows that it has been compiled with more than ordinary care and intelligence. We should consult it with every confidence." — Law Times. ^^ Haynes. — Hde " Leading Cases. * * All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law ccUf and other bindings. 119, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C. 25 PUBLIC HEALTH.— Chambeps' Digest of the Law re- lating to Public Health and Local Govern- ment.— With Notes of 1073 leadinsj Cases. Various official documents ; precedents of By-laws and Reflations. The Statutes in full. A Table of OfiFences and Punishments, and a Copious Index. Seventh Edition, enlarged and revised, with Supplement containing new Local Government Board Bv-Laws in full. Imperial 8vo. 1875-7. II. Ss. *»* The Supplement may be had separately, price 9s. FitzGerald's Public Health and Rivers Pol- lution Prevention Acts.— The Law relating to Public Health and Local Government, as contained in the Public Health Act, 1875, with Introduction and Notes, showing all the alterations in the ExistingLaw, with reference to the Cases, &c.; together with a Sup- plement containing "The Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876." With Explanatory Introduction, Notes, Cases, and Index. By G. A. R. EITZGERALD, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Royal 8vo. 1876. IZ. Is. " A copious and well-executed analytical index completes the work which we can confidently recommend to the officers aud members of sanitary authorities, and all interested in the subject matter of the new Act."— Law Magazine and ICeview. "Mr. FitzGerald comes forward with a special (lualitication for the task, for he was employed by the Ciovernment in the preparation of the Act of 1875; and, as he himself says, has necessiirily, for sorae time past, devoted attention to the law relating to public health and Inr.al government." — Law Journal. PUBLIC MEETINGS.- Chambers' Handbook for Public Meetings, including Hints as to the Summoning and Manage- ment of them ; and as to the Duties of Chairmen, Clerks, Secretaries, and other Officials; Rules of Debate, &c., to which is added a Digest of Reported Cases. By GEORGE F. CHAMBERS, Esq., Bar- rister-at-Law. 12mo. 1878. Net, 2s. 6d. QUARTER SESSIONS.— Leeming & Cross's General and Quarter Sessions of the Peace.— Their .lurisdiction and Practice in other than Criminal matters. Second Edition By HORATIO LLOYD, E.sq., Recorder of Chester, Judge of County Courts, and Deputy-Chairman of Quarter Sessions, and H. F. THURLOW, of the Inner Temple, Esq., BarrLster-at-Law. 8vo, " Tne present editors appear to have taken the utmost pains to make the volume com- plete, and, from our examinntion of it, we can thoroughly recommend it to all interested in the practice of quarter sessions."— iatc Timet Pritchard's Quarter Sessions.— The Jurisdiction, Prac- tice and Procedure of the Quarter Sessions in Criminal, Civil and AppeUate Matters. By THOS. SIRRELL PRITCHARD, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, Recorder of Wenlock. Svo. 1875. 21. 2s. "We can confidently say that it is written throughout with clearness and intellij^ence* and that both in legislation and in case law it is carefully brought down to the most recent date." — Solicitors' Journal. RAILWAYS.— Browne and Theobald's Law of Rail- ways. By J. H. BALFOUR BROWNE, of the Middle Temple, Registrar of the Railway Commissioners, and H. S. THEOBALD, of the Inner Temple, Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law. (In preparation.) Lely's Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1873.— And other Railway and Canal Statutes ; with the General Orders, Forms, and Table of Fees. By J. M. LELY, Esq. Post Svo. 1873. 8s. *,* All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other binding 26 STEVENS AND SONS' LAW PUBLICATIONS. RATES AND RATING.— Castle's Practical Treatise on the La^AT of Rating. By EDWARD JAMES CASTLE, of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1879. 1?. Is. "Mr. Castle's book is a coiTect, exha\istivo, clear and concise view of tbe law." — Law Times. "The book is a useful assistant in a perplexed branch of Law."— Law Journal. Chainber's La"w relating to Rates and Rating ; with especial reference to the Powers and Duties of Rate-levying Local Authorities, and their Officers. Being the Statutes in full and brief Notes of 550 Cases. By G. F. CHAMBERS, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Imp. Svo. 1878. 12s. REAL ESTATE. — Foster's Law of Joint O^A'ne^ship and Partition of Real Estate. By EDWARD JOHN POSTER, M.A., late of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law. Svo. 1878. 10s. &d. "Mr. Foster may be congratulated on having produced a very satisfactory vade mecum on the Law of Joint Ownership and Partition. He has taken considerable pains to make his treatise practically useful, and has combined within the fifteen chapters into which the book is divided, brevity of statement with completeness of treatment. " — Laio ilayazine. REAL PROPERTY.— Green^wood's Recent Real Pro- perty Statutes. Comprising those passed during the years 1874-1877 inclusive. Consolidated with the Earlier Statutes thereby Amended. With Copious Notes, and a Supplement containing the Orders under the Settled Estates Act, 1878. By HARRY GREENWOOD, M.A., Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 8vo. 1878. 10s. " To students particulaily this collection, with the careful notes and references to previous legislation, will be of cousiHerable value." — Law Times. "Theauthor has added notes which, especially on the Vendor and Pvirchaser Act, and the Settled Estates Act, are likely to be useful to the practitioner ... so far as we have tested them, the statements appear to be generally accurate and careful, and the work will be found exceedingly handy for reference."- SuHcitnrs' Journal. " Mr. Greenwood's book gives such of the provisioiis of the amended statutes as are still in force, as well as the provisions of the new statutes, in order to show more clearly the effect of the recent legislation."— icw Journal. Leake's Elementary Digest of the Law of Pro- perty in Land. — Containing : Introduction. Part I. The Sources of the Law. — Part II. Estates in Land. By STEPHEN MARTIN LEAKE, Barrister-at-Law. 8vo. 1874. II. 2s. * * The above forms a complete Introduction to the Study of the Law of Real Property. Shearwood's Real Property. — A Concise Abridgment of the Law of Real Property and an Introduction to Conveyancing. Designed to facilitate the subject for Students preparing for Examination. By JOSEPH A. SHEARWOOD, of Lmcoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Demy Svo. 1878. 6s. 66^. "The present law is expounded paragraphically, so that it could be actually karned without understanding the origin from «hicL it has sprung, or the principles ou which it is \)&sed."— Law Journal. Shelford's Real Property Statutes.— Eighth Edition. By T. H. CARSON, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Svo. 1874. 1^. 10s. Smith's Real and Personal Property.— A Com- pendium of the Law of Real and Personal Property, primarily connected with Conveyancing. Designed as a second book for Students, and as a digest of the most useful learning for Practi- tioners. ByJOSIAH W.SMITH, B.C.L., Q.C. Fifth Edition. 2 vols. Demy Svo. 1877. 2/. 2s. "He has given to the student a book which he may read over and over again with profit and pleasure."— iaic 2'Jm«. •' The work before us will, we think, be found of very great service to the practitioner." —Solicilori^ Journal. ^,*AU standard Law Works are leptin Stock, in law calf and other Undings, 119, CHANCEKY LANE, LONDON, W.C. 27 REGISTRATION.— Browne's(G.Lathom)Parliai-nentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. cap. 26) ; with an Introduction, Notes, and Additional Foi-ms. By G. LATHOM BROWNE, of the Middle Temple, Esq., Barrister-at- Law. 12mo. 1878. 53. 6d. Rogers — Vide " Elections." REGISTRATION CASES.— Hopwood and Coltman's Registration Cases.— Vol. L (1868-1872). Net,2l.l8s. Calt. Vol. II. (1873-1878). Net, 2/. lO^'. Calf. RIVERS POLLUTION PREVENTION.— FitzGerald's Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 187S.— With Explanatory Introduction, Notes, Cases, and Index. Royal Svo. 1876. 3s. Gd. ROMAN LAW.— Cumin.— FiVif "Civil." Greene's Outlines of Roman Law. — Consisting chiefly of an Analysis and Summary of the Institutes. For the use of Students. By T. WHITCO.MBE GREENE, B.C.L., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law. Third Edition. Foolscap Svo. 1875. 7s. 6d. Mears' Student's Ortolan. — An Analysis of M. Ortolan's Institutes of Justinian, including the History and GeneraUzation of Roman Law. By T. LAMBERT MEARS, M.A., LL.D. Lond., of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law. Publishedby permission of thelateM. Ortolan. Post Svo. 1876. 12s. 6d. Rueag. — Vide "Justinian." SAUNDER'S' REPORTS.— Williams' (Sir E. V.) Notes to Saunders' Reports. — By the late Serjeant WILLIAMS. Continued to the present time by the Right Hon. Sir EDWARD VAUGHAN WILLIAMS. 2 vols. Royal Svo. 1871. 21. lOs. SETTLED ESTATES.— Middleton's Settled Estates Act, 1877, and the Settled Estates Act Orders, 1878, with Introduction, Notes and Forms, and Summary of Practice. Second Edition. By JAMES W. MIDDLETON, B.A., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law. 12mo. 1879. 4s. 6t/. "A complete work as a practical edition of the Settled Estates Act, 1877, and will be found exceedingly useful to legal practitioners." — Law Journal. ••The book is a well-timed and useful manual of the Act."— Solicitors' Journal. " The book is exceUently arranged, particularly ia the summary of })Ta.ctice."^iSaturJay Revieic. SHERIFF LAV7 — Churchill's Law of the Office and Duties of the Sheriff, with the Writs and Forms relating to the Office. By CAMERON CHURCHILL, B.A., of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law, assisted by A. CARMICHAEL BRUCE, B.A., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law. Demy Svo. 1879. 18s. "This is a work upon a subject of large iJiactioal imporrance, aud seems to h^ive been compiled with exceptional care There is an appendix of forms which will be I'ouDd useful."— iaw Tir.ies. " Under-Shenlts, and lawyers generally, wiil find this a useful book to have by them, both for perusal and relerence." — Law Magazine. SHIPPING, and vide " Admiralty." Boyd's Merchant Shipping Laws; being a Consolida- tion of all the Merchant Shipping and Passenger Acts from 1854 to 1876, inclusive ; with Notes of all the leading English and American C.ises on the subjects affected by Legislation, aud an Appendix containing the New Rules issued in October, 1876 ; forming a com- plete Treatise on Maritime Law. By A. C. BOYD, LLB., of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, and Midland Circuit. Svo 1876. II, 5s. " We can recommend the work as a very useful compendium ol shippiug law." — Law Timet. SIGNING JUDGMENTS.— Walker.— Fu/e "Judgments."' *,^'* All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindinr/s. 28 S TEVENS AND SONS' LAW PUBLICATIONS. SOLICITORS.— Cordery's La^^^ relating to Solicitors of the Supreme Court of Judicature.— With an Appendix of Statutes and Rules. By A. CORDERY, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Demy Svo. 1S78. 14s. "Mr. Cordery writes tersley and clearly, and displays iu general great industry and care in the collection of c.a,ses."— Solicitors' journal. " The chapters on liability of eoiicitors and on lien may be selected as two of the best iu the book." — Law Jnurnal. SOLICITORS' GUIDES — Vide "Examination Guides." STAMP LAWS.— Tilsley's Treatise on the Stamp Laws. — Being an Analytical Digest of all the Statutes and Cases relating to Stamp Duties, with practical remarks thereon. Third Edition. With Tables of all the Stamp Duties payable in the United Kingdom after the 1st January, 1871, and of Former Duties, &c., &c. By E. H. TILSLEY, of the Inland Revenue Office. Svo. 1871. IBs. STATUTES, and vide " Acts of Parliament." Biddle's Table of Statutes. — A Table of References to unrepealed Public General Acts, arranged in the Alphabetical Order of their Short or Popular Titles. Second Edition, including Refer- ences to all the Acts in Chitty's Collection of Statutes. Royal Svo. 1870. (Published at 9s. 6d.) Net, 2s. 6d. Chitty's Collection of Statutes. — A Collection of Statutes of Practical Utility ; with Notes thereon. The Third Edition, con- taining all the Statutes of Practical Utility in the Civil and Criminal Administration of Justice to the Present Time. By W. N.WELSBY and EDWARD BEAVAN, Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law. In 4 very thick vols. Royal Svo, 1865. {Published at 121. 12s.) Reduced to, net, 6Z. 6s. Supplements to the above. By HORATIO LLOYD, Esq., Judge of County Coiu-ts, and Deputy-Chairman of Quarter Sessions for Cheshire. Royal Svo. Part I., comprising the Statutes for 1873, 7s. 6d. Part II., 1874, 6s. Part IIL, 1875, 16s. Part IV., 1876, 6s. 6d. Part V., 1877, 4s. 6d. Part VI., 1878, 10s. Part VIL, 1879, 7s. 6d., sewed. *#* Continued Annually. " When he (Lord Campbell) was upon the Bench he always had this work by him, and no statutes were ever referred to by the Bar which be could not find in it." *The Revised Edition of the Statutes, a.d. 123B- 1868, prepared under the direction of the Statute Law Committee, published by the authority of Her Majesty's Government. In 15 vols. Imperial Svo. 1870-1878. 19Z. 9s. Vol. 1. — Henry III. to James II., „ 2.— Will. & Mary to 10 Geo. IIL, „ 3.— 11 Geo. III. to 41 Geo. III., „ 4.-41 Geo. IIL to 51 Geo. IIL, „ 5.-52 Geo. IIL to 4 Geo. IV., „ 6.-5 Geo. IV. to 1 & 2 Will. IV., „ 7.-2 & 3 Will. IV. to 6 & 7 Will. IV., „ 8.-7 Will. IV. & 1 Vict, to 5 & 6 Vict., 1837-1842 9.-6 & 7 Vict, to 9 & 10 Vict., „ 10.— 10 & 11 Vict, to 13 & 14 Vict., „ 11.— 14 & 15 Vict, to 16 & 17 Vict., „ 12,-17 & 18 Vict, to 19 & 20 Vict., „ 13.— 20 Vict, to 24 & 25 Vict., „ 14.-25 & 26 Vict, to 28 & 29 Vict., „ 15.— 29 & 30 Vict, to 31 & 32 Vict., and Supplement, *^* The above Work is now completed, '*^* All standard Law Works are kept in Stock inlaw calf and other lindinrjs. 1235-1685 , 1/. Is, . Od. 1688-1770 , 1 1770-1800 . 17 1801-1811 , 18 1812-1823 , 1 5 1824-1831 . 1 6 1831-1836 . 1 10 1837-1842 , 1 12 6 1843-1846 . 1 11 6 1847-1850 . 1 7 6 1851-1853 , 1 4 1854-1856 , 1 6 1857-1861 , 1 10 1862-1865 , 1 10 1866-1867-8 1 10 6 119, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON. W.C. 29 ST fiiTUTES.— Continued. •Chronological Table of and Index to the Statutes to the end of the Session of 1878. Fifth Edition, imperial 8vo. 1879. 14s. •Public General Statutes, royal 8vo, issued in parts and in comjjlete volumes, and supplied immediately on publication. * Printed by Her Majesty's Printers, and Sold by Stevens & Sons. Head's Statutes by Heart; being a System of Memoria Technica, applied to Statutes, and embracing Common Law, Chan- cery, Bankruptcy, Criminal Law, Probate and Divorce, and Convey- ancing. By FREDEPaCK WILLIAM HEAD, of the Inner Temple, Student-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1877. Net, Is. 6d. SUMMARY CONVICTIONS— Paley's Law and Practice of Summary Convictions under the Sum- mary Jurisdiction Acts, 1848 and 1879 ; including Proceedings {preliminary and subse(iuent to Convictions, and the responsibility of convicting Magistrates and their Officers, with Forms. Sixth Edition. By W. H. MACNAMAEA, Esq., Bar- rister- at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1879. 11. 4s. " We gladlj- welcome this good edition of a good book." — Solicitor' Journal. Templer's Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879. — Kules and Schedules of Forms. With Notes. By FKEDERIC GORDON TEMPLEE, of the Inner Templer, Esq., Barrister-at- Law. Demy 8vo. 1880. 5s. " We think this edition everything that could be desired." — Sheffield Post, Feb. 7, 1880. Wigram. — Vide "Justice of the Peace." SUMMONSES AND ORDERS.— Archibald.— HWe "Judges' Cham- bers Practice." TORTS.— Addison on Wrongs and their Remedies.— Being a Treatise on the Law of Torts. By C. G. ADDISON, Esq., Author of "The Law of Contracts." Fifth Edition. Re-written. By L. W. CAVE, Esq., M.A., one of Her Majesty's Counsel, Recorder of Lincoln. Royal 8 vo. 1879. 1?. 18«. "Since the last edition of this work was published, by the operation of the Judi- cature Acts, great changes have been effected in practice and pleading. ... In the present edition the nature of the right infringed has been taken as the basis of the arrangement throughout. . . . Every effort has been made, while assimilating this edition in form to the companion treatise On Contract!', to maintain the reputa- tion which the work has already acquired." — Extract frorii Preface. " As now presented, this variable treatise muse prove highly acceptable to judges and the profession."— Zf(i« Times, February 7th, 1S80. "Cave's 'Addison ou Torts' will be rpcoguized as an indispensable addition to every lawyer's library."— /,««j Magazine and Review, February, 1880. TRADE MARKS— Rules under the Trade Marks' Re- gistration Act, 1875 (by Authority). Sewed. Net, Is. Sebastian on the Law of Trade Marks.— The Law of Trade Marks and their Registration, and matters connected there- with, including a chapter on Goodwill. Together with Appendices containing Precedents of Injunctions, &c. ; The Trade Marks Regis- tration Acts, 1875 — 7, the Rules and Instructions thereunder; The Merchandise Marks Act. 1862, and other Statutory enact- ments; and The United States Statute, 1870 and 1875, and the Treaty with the United States, 1877 ; and the New Rvdes and Instructions issued in February, 1878. With a copious Index By LEWIS BOYD SEBASTIAN, B.C.L., M.A., of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 8vo. 1878. 14s, " The book cannot fail to be of service to a large chibs ol lawyers." — Solicitors' Journal. " Mr. Sebastian has written the fullest and most methodical book on trade marks which has ai]i)eared in England since the passing of the Trade Marks Kegistratioa Acts." — Trade Marks. '' Viewed as a compilation, the book leaves little to be desired. Viewed as a treatise on a subject of growing importance, it also strikes us as being well, and at any rate carefully executed." — Law Journal. '' Mr. Sebastian's book is a carelul statement of the law," — Late Timet. * ^* A U Standard Law Works arc kept in Stock, in law calf and Other bindings. 30 STEVENS AND SONS' LAW PUBLICATIONS. TRADE MARKS -Continyed. Sebastian's Digest of Cases of Trade Mark, Trade Name, Trade Secret, Goodwill, &c., de- cided in the Courts of the United Kingdom, India, the Colonies, and the United States of America. By LEWIS BOYD SEBASTIAN, B.C.L., M.A., of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, Author of "The Law of Trade Marks." Demy 8vo. 1879. ll. Is. " A digest which will be of very great value to all practitioners who have to advise on matters connected with trade marks." — Solicitors' Journal, July 2(3, 1S79. Trade Marks' Journal. — 4to. Sewed. {Issued fortnightly.) Nos. 1 io 192 are now ready. JSlet, each Is. Index to Vol. I. (Nos. 1 — 47.) Net, 3«. Ditto, „ Vol. IL (Nos. 48—97.) Net, 3s. Ditto, „ Vol. IIL (Nos. 98—123.) Net, 3s. Ditto, „ Vol. IV. (Nos. 124—156.) Net, 3s. Ditto, „ Vol. V. (Nos. 157—183.) Net, 3s. Wood's Law of Trade Marks. — Containing the Mer- chandise Marks' Act, 1862, and the Trade Marks' Registration Act, 1875 ; with the Rules thereunder, and Practical Directions for ob- taining Registration ; with Notes, full Table of Cases and Index, By J. BIGLAND WOOD, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 12mo. 1876. 5s. TRAMWAYS.— Palmer.— Fide " Conveyancing." Sutton's Tram^A^ay Acts.— The Tramway Acts of the United Kingdom, with Notes on the Law and Practice, and an Appendix containing the Standing Orders of Parliament, Rules of the Board of Trade relating to Tramways, and Decisions of the Referees with respect to Locus Standi. By HENRY SUTTON, B.A., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law. Post 8vo, 1874. 12s. TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES— Godefroi's Digest of the Principles of the Law of Trusts and Trus- tees.— By HENRY GODEFROI, of Lincohi's Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Joint Author of '"Godefroi and Shortt's Law of Railway Companies." Demy 8vo. 1879. \l. Is. " No one who refers to this book for information on a question within its range is, we think, likely to go away unsatisfied." — So.turday Review, September 0, 1S79. " Is a work of great utility to the practitioner." — Law Mcigazme. " As a digest of the law, Mr. Godefroi's work merits commendation, for the author's statements are brief and clear, and for his statements he refers to a goodly array of authorities. In the table of cases the references to the several coutemporaneous reports are given, and there is a very copious index to subjects." — Law Journal. USES.— Jones (V^,''. Hanbury) on Uses.— 8vo. 1862. 7s. VENDORS AND PURCHASERS — Dart's Vendors and Pur- chasers. — A Treatise on the Law and Practice relating to Ven- dors and Purchasers of Real Estate. By J. HENRY DART, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq.. one of the Six Conveyancing Counsel of the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division. Fifth Edition. By the AUTHOR and WILLIAM BARBER, of Lincohi's Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 2 vols. Royal 8vo. 1876. Zl. 13s. 6rf. " A standard work like Mr. Dart's is beyond aU praise." — The Law Journal. WATERS, — "Woolrych on the La-w of Waters. — Including Rights in the Sea, Rivers, Canals, &c. Second Edition. 8vo. 1861. Goddard. — Ficte " Easements. " Net, 10s. WATERWORKS— Palmer.— Vide " Conveyancing." WILLS.— Rawlinson's Guide to Solicitors on taking Instructions for Wills.— 8vo. 1874. 4s. STEVENS & SONS, 119, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C. STEVENS AND SONS' LAW PUBLICATIONS. 31 V^ ILLS. —ContmvM. Theobald's Concise Treatise on the Construc- tion of Wills.— With Table of Cases and Full Index. By H. S. THEOBALD, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, and Fellow of Wadham College, Oxford. 8vo. 1876. 11. "Mr. Theobald has certainly given evidence of extensive investigation, conscientioriB labonr, and clear exposition." — Law Magazine. "We desire to record our decided impression, after a somewhat careful examination, that (his is a book of great ability and value. It bears on every page traces of care and sound jndcment. It is certain to prove of great practical usefulness, for it suppUes a want which was beginning to be distinctly felt." — Solicitors' Journal. "His arrangement being good, and his statement ot the effect of the decisions being clear, his worlt cannot fail to be of practical utility, and as such we can commend it to the attention of the profession." — Law Ti/Jies. •'It is remarkably well arranged, and its contents embrace all the principal heads on the subject" — Law Journal. WRONGS.— Firfe "Torts." :refob,ts. — j^ large stock new and second-hand, Estimates on application. BI.TnTIDII^G-- — Executed in the best manner at mode- rate prices and with dispatch. The Law Reports, Law Journal, and all other Reports, bound to Office Patterns, at Office Prices. F^RT-^j^rn :b acts — The Publishers of this Cata- logue possess the largest known collection of Private Acts of Parliament {including Public and Local), and can supply single copies commencing frorn a very early period. other purposes. -For Probate, Partnership, or STEVENS AND SONS, 119, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C. HEW WOEKS AED lEW EDITIOIfS. Archibald's Handbook of the Practice in the Com- mon Law Divisions of the High Court of Justice; with Forms for the use of Country Solidtors. By W. F.A. Archibald, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, Author of " Forms of Summonses and Orders, with Notes for use at Judges' Chambers, &c. ( hi the press). Baker's Law of Highways in England and Wales, induding Bridges and Locomotives. Comprising a sucdnct code of the several provisions under each head, the statutes at length in an Appendix ; with Notes, Forms, and complete Index. By Thomas Baker, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. (Nearly ready.) Ball's Short Digest of the Common Law; being the Principles of Torts and Contracts, chiefly founded upon the works of Addison, with Illustrative Cases, for the use of Students. By W. Edmund Ball, LL.B., late " Holt Scholar " of Gray's Inn, Barrister-at- Law and Midland Circuit. [Nearhj ready.) Browne and Theobald's Law of Railways. By /. H. Balfour Broivne, of the Middle Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, Eegistrar to the Eailway Commissioners, and H. S. Theobald, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Bullen and Leake's Precedents of Pleading. Fourth Edition. By T. J. Bullen, Esq., Special Pleader, and Cyril Dodd, of the Inner Temple, Esq , Barrister-at-Law. {In the press.) Coote's Treatise on the Law of Mortgage. Fourth Edition, thoroughly revised. By William Wyllys Mackeson, Esq., one of Her Majesty's Counsel. [In the -press.) Daniell's Chancery Practice.— Sixth Edition.— By L. Field and E. C. Dunn, Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law. Assisted by W. H. Upjohn, Esq., Student and Holt Scholar of Gray's Inn, &c.. Editor of the Third Edition of "Daniell's Forms." Jepson's Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts; with Decisions, Forms, and Table of Costs. By Arthur Jepson, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. (In the press.) Jervis on the Office and Duties of Coroners; with Forms and Precedents. Fourth Edition. By B. E. Melshcimer, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. (In the press.) Morgan and Davey's Treatise on Costs in Chan- cery. Second Edition. By George Osborne Morgan, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., one of Her Majesty's Counsel; assisted by E. A. Wurtzburg, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. With an Appendix, con- taining Forms and Precedents of Bills of Costs. Smith's Treatise on the Law of Negligence. By Horace Smith, B.A., of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, Author of "The Law of Landlord and Tenant," Editor of "Eoscoe's Criminal Evidence." (Nearly riady.) ^ Stone's Practice for Justices of the Peace, Justices' Clerks, and Solicitors at Petty and Special Sessions, &C. Ninth Edition. By F. G. Templer, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, Editor of " The Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879." STEVENS AND SONS, 119, CHANCEEY LANE, LONDON, W.C. Hee also Catalogue at end of this Volume. STEVENS AND SONS, 119, CHANCERY LANE, W.C. Bedford's Guide to Stephen's New Commentaries on the Laws of Engl&nd. Seventh Edition. By QUESTION AND ANSWER. 8vo. 1879. Price 12s. cloth. '■ Here is a book which will be of the greatest service to students." — Law Journal. Bedford*s Final Examination Digest. — Containing a Digest of the Pinal Examination Questions in matters of Law and Procedure determined by the Chancery, Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer Divisions of the High Court of Justice ; and on the Law of Real and Personal Property ; and the Practice of Conveyancing. By EDWARD HENSLOWE BEDFORD, SoUcitor. Author of " The Guide to Stephen's Commentaries," &c. 8vo. 1879. Price 16s. cloth. Haynes' Student's Leading Cases.— Being some of the Principal Decisions of the Courts in Constitutional Law, Common Law, Conveyancing and Equity, Probate and Divorce, Bankruptcy, and Criminal Law. With Notes for the use of Students. By JOHN F. HAYNES, LL.D. Demy Svo. 1878. PriceUs. cloth. " Will prove of prreat utility, not only to Students, but Practitioners. The Notes are clear, pointed aud concise. " — Law IKmes. Greenwood's Manual of Conveyancing, — A Manual of the Practice of Conveyancing, sliowing the present Practice relating to the daily routine of Conveyancing in Solicitors' OflSces. To which are added Concise Common Forms and Precedents in Conveyancing, Conditions of Sale, Conveyances, and all other Assurances in constant use. Fifth Edition. By H. N. CAPEL, B.A., LL.B., Solicitor. Demy 8vo. 1877. Price 15s. cloth. " The information under these heads is just of that ordinary practical kind which is learned from experience, and is not to be gathered hoin treatises. A careful study of these pages would probably arm a diligent clerk with as much useful knowledge as he might otherwise take years ot desultory questioning and observing to acnuire.' — Solicitors' Journal. Smith's Ileal and Personal Property. — A Compendium of the Law of Ileal and Personal Property, primarily connected with Conveyancing. Designed as a second book for Students, and as a digest of the most useful learning for Practitioners. By JOSIAH W. SMITH, B.C.L., Q.C. Fifth Edition. 2 vols. Demy 8vo. 1877. Price 21. 2s. cloth. " tie has given to the student a book which he may read over and over again with profit aud pleasure." — Law Times. Pollock's Principles of Contract at Law and in Equity- Being a Treatise on the General Principles concerning the Validity of Agreements, with a special view to the comparison of Law and Equity ; and with references to the Indian Contract Act, and occasionally to P^oman, American, and Continental Law. Second Edition. By FREDERICK POLLOCK, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister-at- Law. Demy 8vo. 1878. Price II. 6s. cloth. " He has succeeded in writing a book on Contracts which the working lawyer will find as use- ful for reference as any of its predecessors, and which at the same time will give the student wliit he will .seek ior in vain elsewhere, a complete rationale of the law." — Law Magatine. Wharton's Law Lexicon, or Dictionary of Jurisprudence, Kxplaining the Technical Words and Phrases employed in the several Departments of English Law ; including the various Legal Terms used in Commercial Busmess ; with an Explanatory as well as Literal translation of the Latin Maxims contained in the Writings of the Ancient and Modem Commentators. Sixth Edition. Revised in accordance with the Judicature Acts, by J. SHIRESS WILL, of the Middle Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Super-royal 8w. 1876. Price 21. 2s. cloth. ■' As a work of reference for the library, the handsome aud elaborate edition of ' Wharton s Law Lexicon ' which Mr. Shire.ss Will has produced, must supersede all former issues of that well- known work." — Laio Magazine and Review. Wheaton's Elements of International Law. — Second English Edition. Edited with Notes and Appendix of Statutes and Treaties, bringing the work dowTi to the present time. By A. C. BOYD, Esq., LL.B., J.P., Barrister- at-Law. Author of "The Merchant Shipping Laws." Demy 8vo. 1880. Price II. 10s. cloth. . ™ . ^ f " Hoth the plan and execution of the work before us deserves commendation, ine text oi Wheaton is ijresented without alteration." — Law Journal. Wilson's Supreme Court of Judicature Acts, Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, Rules of Court and Forms, with other Acts, Orders, Rules, and Ke^Tilations relating to the Supreme Court of Justice, with Practical Notes. Second Edition. By AllTHUR WILSON, of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law. Assisted by HARRY GREENWOOD, of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law, aud JOHN BIDDLE, of the Master of the Rolls Chambers. Royal l2mo. 1878. Price 18s. cloth (or limp leather for the pocket. Price 22s. 6d.) \* A Large Paper Edition of the above (for Marginal Notes), Royal 8uo. Price 11. 5s. cloth {or limp leather, price 30s.). ; " The practitioner will find that it supplies all his wants."— Law Timet. ** AH. Standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings. UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY See also Catalogue at STEVENS AND SONS, 119, CHANCERY LANE, W.C. Godefroi's Digest of the Principles of the Law of Trusts and Trustees.— By HENRY GODEFROI, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister- at-Law. Joint Author of " Godefroi and Shortt's Law of Railway Companiea." Demy Sco. 1879. Price 11. Is. cloth. " Is a work ot great utility to the practitioner."— Law Magazine. Chalmers' Digest of the Law of Bills of Exchange, Promissory Notes, and Cheques. By M. D. CHALMERS, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1S78. Pnce I2s. 6d. cloth. "A-i a handy book of reference o.i a difficult and important branch of the law, it i3 most valuable." — Saturday Review. m • t Jf Roscoe's Digest of the Law of Evidence on the Trial or Actions at Nisi Prius. Fourteenth Edition. By JOHN DAY, one of Her Majesty's Counsel, and MAURICE POWELL, Barrister-at-Law. Royal l2mo. 1879. Price 21. cloth. (Bound in one thick volume calf or circuit, 5s., or in two convenient vols, calf or circuit, 9s. net extra.) Archibald's Forms of Summonses and Orders, with Notes for use at Judges' Chambers and in the District Registries. By W. F. A. ARCHI- BALD, M.A., of the Inner Temple, Barristsr-at-Law. Royal 12mo. lb/ 9. Pnce 12s. 6(i. cloth. -,1 c J 1 • "The work is done most thoroughly and yet concisely. The practitioner will bnd plain directions how to proceed in all the matters connected with a common law action, interpleader, attachment of debts, mandamus, injunctiou-indeed, the whole jurisdiction of the common law divisions, in the district registries, and at Judgei' chambers." — Laio Times. Cordery's Law Relating to Solicitors of the Supre ne Court of Judicature, with an Appendix of Statutes and Rules. By A.CORDERY, of the InnerTemple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1878. Price Us. cloth. Dixon's Law of the Farm. — A Digest of Cases connected with the Law of the Farm, including the Agricultural Customs of England and Wales. Fourth Edition. By HENRY PEUKINS, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1879. Price 11. 6s. cloth. "The book is now more complete and valuable than ty^r."— Marie Lane Exoress. Archbold's Pleading and Evidence in Criminal Cases.— With the Statutes, Precedents of Indictments, &c., and the Evidence necessary to support them. Nineteenth Edition, including the Practice in Criminal Proceedings by Indictment, ily WILLIAM BRUCE, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, and Stipendiary Magistrate for the Borough of Leeds. Royal 12/no. 1878. Price 11. lis. M. cloth. Sebastian's Digest of Cases of Trade Mark, Trade Name, Trade Secret, Goodwill, &c.. decided in the Courts of the United Kingdom, India, the Colonie.s, and the United States of America. By LEWIS BOYU SEBASTIAN, B.C.L., M.A., of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., iiarrister-at-Law, .>Luthorof " The Law of Trade -Marks." Demy Svo. 1879. Price 11. Is. cloth. " A digest which will be of very great value to aU practitioners who have to advise on matters connected with trade marks." — Solicitors' Journal. Roscoe's Digest of the Law of Evidence in Criminal Cases. —Ninth Edition. By HORACE SMITH, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at- Law. Royal 12mo. 1878. Price 11. lis. 6d. cloth. ^ Roscoe's Admiralty Practice.— A Treatise on the Jurisdic- tion and Practice of the Admiralty Division of the High Court of Justice,^ and on Appeals therefrom, &c. With an Appendix containing Statutes, llules as to Fees and Costs, Forms, Precedents of Pleadings and Bills of Costs. By E. S. ROSCOE, Ksq., Barrister-at-I.aw, and Northern Circuit. Demi/ Svo. 1878. Price 11. cloth. "llr. Koscoe nas performed his task Will, .supplying in tlie most convenient .shape a clear digest ol tlie law and practice of the Admiralty Courts." — /Jverpool Courier. Templer's Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879.— Rules and Schedules of Forms. With Notes. By FREDERIC GORDON TE.M'.'LER, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Demy Svo. 1880. Price 5s. cloth. " We think this edition everj'thing that could be desired."—