CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRY. See Master, Nos. 1, 2. See Charter-party, Nos. 16, 17, 18, 19. CHARTERED FREIGHT. See Marine Insurance, Nos. 10, 11, 12. CHARTERERS. SUBJECTS OF CASES. See Carriage of Goods, No. 21-Charter-party— Practice, No. 20-Salvage, Nos. 18, 33-Wages, No. 1. CHARTER-PARTY. · page 496 1. Agent-Owner-Evidence of liability.-Where a charter-party is made between charterers and persons who sign "for owners of the ship, correspondence between the charterers and such persons is admissible in evidence to show that such persons are themselves the owners and not mere agents, and are liable under the charterparty. (C. P. Div.) Adams v. Hall 2. Cargo-Construction-Full and complete cargo. -Where a charterer agrees to load "a full and complete cargo, say about 1100 tons," these are words of contract, not expectation; and he does not contract to load any vessel that may be sent to her full capacity, but only to load as fully as can be done by providing about 1100 tons; hence he must load up to 1100 tons, but he need not fill the ship. (C. P. Div.) Morris v. Levison 171 3. Construction-Choice of different goods-Option of charterer-Reasonableness.-A charter-party containing the words "the ship to load the following cargo of lawful merchandise. ; a full and complete cargo of sugar in bags, hemp, or compressed bales, and (or) measurement goods not exceeding what the vessel can reasonably stow and carry over and above her tackles," gives the charterer the option in what form he will tender the cargo, provided he tenders some or all of the goods named and no others, and does not present a cargo of any kind, or of all kinds together, which is unreasonable as regards the nature of the goods he presents. (H. of L.) Stanton v. Richardson 4. Construction-Obligation of shipowner-Seaworthiness. A shipowner entering into a charterparty to carry such a cargo is bound to provide a ship which is reasonably suited to carry that particular cargo and is staunch and seaworthy for the purposes of that cargo, and must be kept so. Hence, if the charter-party allow wet sugar to be loaded and the ship is unfit to receive it, and her pumps become clogged by the moisture from the cargo, and she cannot be made fit to carry the cargo or seaworthy for that cargo in a reasonable time, the charterer may throw up the charterparty. (H. of L.) Id.... 5. Contract-Parties-Mistake-Name not struck out-Reforming contract.-Where a charterer sues on a charter-party and the shipowners answer that the charter-party was made between the defendant and a third party, not the plaintiff, it is a good reply to plead that the charter-party is made upon a printed form ordinarily used by and containing the name of the third party as a party thereto, and that the plaintiff and defen. dant had signed the document inadvertently omitting to alter or strike out the name of the third party. There is no necessity to reform the charter-party, as upon the facts being shown the court will treat it as reformed. (C. P. Div.) Breslauer v. Barwick 23 23 355 6. Contract-Specified time-Right of cancellation. -The charterer of a vessel chartered for a speci ..page 368 fied time commencing on a named day who can. not have the vessel on the day agreed on, is entitled to cancel the charter. (Ct. of App.) Tully v. Howling..... 7. Damages Action by shipowner — Breach of charter-party against charterer-Safe port-Costs of action brought by consignee.-In an action by a shipowner against a charterer for breach of contract in not naming a safe port to unload according to charter-party, the extra costs of an action brought by the consignee against the master for not unloading at the port named, and successfully contested by the master, are not (the taxed costs having been recovered from the consignee) recoverable as damages against the charterer, unless he has expressly authorised the shipowner to incur the costs on her behalf. (C. P. Div.) Evans v. Bullock and others. 552 8. Damages-Action by shipowner against charterer -Safe port-Port dues.-But in such case the shipowner is entitled to recover as damages the difference between the port dues at the port named and the port dues he actually paid (if they are in excess of the former) at the port where he discharged the cargo, and no more, under this head. (C. P. Div.) Evans v. Bullock and others. 552 9. Damages-Action by shipowner against charterer -Safe port-Demurrage-Insurance.-Where the shipowner has in such a case recovered for demurrage in respect of the delay so occasioned, he cannot recover for the cost of insurance from the port named to port of actual discharge (even if he could in any event), as such insurance, being an ordinary expense of the shipowner, must be taken to be included in the demurrage recovered. (C.P. Div.) Evans v. Bullock and others 10. Demurrage-Detention-Default of charterers -Bad weather.-Where a ship by the default of the charterers, is prevented from loading according to the charter-party "in her regular turn," and is in consequence delayed several days, and during such days bad weather comes on so that she is still further delayed, the charterers are responsible in damages as demurrage for the detention of the ship during the bad weather as well as for the detention during the previous days consequent upon the default. (Ex. Div.) Jones v. Adamson and another..... 11. Demurrage-Detention at port of loading-Time of loading not fixed-Charterer's liability.-The word "demurrage" in a charter-party fixing the time for discharge and giving a lien for demurrage, does not include detention at the port of loading, unless the time of loading is fixed by or can be gathered from the charter-party; and if the charter-party contains a clause exempting the charterer from liability on the completion of the loading no action will afterwards lie in respect of such detention. (Ex.) Lockhart v. Falk.......... 552 253 12. Demurrage-Lay days-Sundays-Construction. -In a charter-party by which it is agreed "the loading and discharging of the said ship to be as fast as the steamer can work, but a minimum of seven days to be allowed the charterers, and ten days on demurrage over and above the said lying days at 251. per day," "lying days" mean working days, and do not include Sundays. (Q.B.) Commercial Steamship Company v. Boulton and another... 111 13. Demurrage-Part of day.-A ship detained part of a day on demurrage is entitled to be paid for the whole of the day. (Q.B.) Id....... 111 14. Demurrage-Lay days-Bad weather-Risk of charterer.-Where by a charter-party a given number of days is allowed to a charterer for un. 8 SUBJECTS OF CASES. ..page 147 loading, a contract is implied on his part that from the time when the ship is at the usual place of discharge he will take the risk of any ordinary vicissitudes, including bad weather, which may occur to prevent his releasing the ship at the expiration of the lay days. (Q.B. Div.) Thiis and others v. Byers....... 15. Demurrage-Loading-"Stiffening”—Construction. Where a charter-party provides that a ship is "to be loaded at the average rate of 75 tons per clear working day. Stiffening coal, if required, to be supplied at ship's expense at the rate of 40 tons per clear working day after written notice is given to the charterer's agent of its being required, but all days on which stiffening coal is taken on board, or the ship is detained for the same, to be excluded in the computation of the said working days allowed for loading;" the putting stiffening coal on board is "loading' within the charter-party, and demurrage is payable under a demurrage clause in respect of the neglect to supply stiffening coal, thus causing a detention of the ship. (Ct. of App.) Sanguinetti v. The Pacific Steam Navigation Company.. 16. Liability of charterer to cease unloading— Demurrage-Lien-Exemption of charterer.-But where the charter-party further provides that the master is "to have a lien on the cargo for all freight and demurrage due under this agreement," and that "all liability of the charterers shall cease as soon as the cargo is on board," the liability of the charterer for such demurrage ceases on the completion of the loading, and the shipowner's only remedy is by means of the master's lien. (Ct. of App.) Sanguinetti v. Pacific Steam Navigation Company... 17. Liability of charterer to cease on loadingDetention-Lien for freight, demurrage, &c.Exemption-Effect of.-Where a charter-party contains the words, "This charter being concluded by the said A. and B. for and on behalf of another party, it is agreed that all liability of the former shall cease as soon as the cargo is shipped, loading excepted, the owners and master of the vessel agreeing to rest solely on their lien on the cargo for freight, demurrage, and all other claims, which lien it is hereby agreed they shall have; the charterer is liable for all undue detention before the cargo is completely shipped, whether the shipowner has a lien on the cargo therefor or not. (Q.B. Div.) Lister v. Van Haansbergen 18. Liability of charterers to cease on loadingLien-Exemption-Effect of.-A charter-party containing the clause, "The liability of the charterers to cease as soon as the cargo is on board, provided the same is worth the freight at the port of discharge, but the owners of the ship to have an absolute lien on the cargo for all freight, dead freight, and demurrage, which they shall be bound to exercise," exempts the charterers from all liability after the ship is loaded even in respect of breach of contract for which the shipowner's lien would give no remedy. (Ct. of App.) French and another v. Gerber and others 19. Liability of charterer to cease on loadingCharterers also consignees-Bill of ladingExemption.-Where a charter-party provides for the cesser of liability of the charterers on loading and payment of advance freight at the port of shipment, and the bills of lading make the cargo deliverable "unto order or assigns, he or they paying freight and other conditions as per charter-party," and the cargo is loaded, and 300 300 145 403 advances paid, and the charterers become consignees also, they are nevertheless exempted from the payment of freight, the bill of lading making no new contract. (P. C. Div.) Barwick v. Burnyeat, Brown and Co.... page 376 20. Lighterage-Contract-" Merchant's risk and expenses ""Cargo at A. as customary Custom.-Where a charter-party stipulates that a ship shall load a full cargo at one of several ports, including A., the cargo "to be brought to, and taken from alongside at merchants' risk and expense," and these words are in print, and the charter-party further contains the words cargo at A. as customary" in writing, the latter words work an exception to the former, and if the custom at A. is for the shipowner to repay to the charterer any reasonable lighterage paid by him, the charterer can recover the same from the shipowner. (Q.B. Div.) Scrutton v. Childs 873 66 21. Loading-Breach of charter-Foreign Govern. ment-Liability of shipowners.-Where a charter. party provides that a ship shall, after loading dead weight at a port, proceed to a first-class Spanish port where "a steamer with cargo from a foreign port can load at by Spanish law without risk of detention by Customs authorities," and the ship having, as known to the charterer when making the charter-party, loaded Government stores at the first port, is ordered to Valencia, and is there unable to load, by Spanish regulations prohibiting ships carrying stores from loading; the shipowner commits no breach of charter in not loading, and the charterer cannot recover against him. (Ct. of App.) Cunningham v. Dunn and another 595 22. Seaworthiness-Warranty-Time of sailing.The warranty of seaworthiness implied in a charter-party attaches at the time of the ship's sailing on her voyage and is not exhausted on her proceeding in a seaworthy condition to her loading berth. (Q. B. Div.) Cohen v. Davison... 374 23. Shipowner-Charterer-Demise of ship-Lia. bility of shipowner-Terms of contract.-Where a shipowner lets his ship to a charterer under a charter-party, by which the shipowner is to provide a full crew and pay them their wages, and to find all ship's and engine stores, and the charterer is to find coals for the engines, and to have the direction of the ship for the purposes of trading between certain ports, the shipowner remains responsible for the negligence of the crew who are his servants. (C. P. Div.) The Omoa and Cleland Coal and Iron Company v. Huntley 501 24. Warranty of class-Time-Duration-Insurance on cargo.-Where a charter-party describes a ship as newly classed "A 1, record of Amercan and Foreign Shipping Book," such description is only a warranty that she is so classed at the time of the making of the charter-party, but is not a warranty that she is rightly or will continue so classed. Hence, if shortly after the making of the charter-party the certificate of classification is cancelled and the charterers cannot insure on cargo, there is no action for breach of charter-party against the shipowner. (Ct. of App.) French and Sons v. Newgass and Co....... 574 See Carriage of Goods, Nos. 15, 21-Collision, No. 7-Marine Insurance, Nos. 10, 12-Wages, No. 1. COLLISION. 1. Assistance to injured vessels-Merchant Shippiag Act 1873.-The Merchant Shipping Act 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 85), s. 16, having imposed upon the master of every ship, in case of collision with SUBJECTS OF CASES. another ship, a duty, "if and so far as he can do so without danger to his own vessel, crew, and passengers (if any), to stay by the other vessel until he has ascertained that she has no need of further assistance, and to render to the other vessel, her master, crew, and passengers (if any), such assistance as may be practicable and as may be necessary to save them from any danger caused by such collision;" this duty is not discharged by a steamship, where, it being practicable and safe to lower a boat to render assistance, although possibly dangerous to stay by the injured ship, she continues her voyage without lowering her boat, and merely hails and signals for other vessels to go to the assistance of the injured ship. (Adm.) The Adriatic...page 16 2. Assistance to injured vessels-Merchant Shipping Act 1873-Onus of proof.-A ship failing to render assistance to another with which she has been in collision, and showing no reasonable cause for such failure, will be held to blame for the collision, unless proof be given to the contrary on her behalf, (Adm.) The Adriatic...... 3. Compulsory pilotage-Burden of proof-Contributory negligence.-In cases of collision, if it be proved on the part of the defendants that the accident occurred through the fault of a pilot compulsorily employed, the burden of proving that the defendants have been guilty of contributory negligence lies on the plaintiffs, and they must show such negligence either by direct proof adduced by themselves or from facts proved in the defendants' evidence. The Iona (16 L, T. Rep. N. S. 158; L. Rep. 1 P. C. 426; 2 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 479) explained. (H. of L.) Clyde Navigation Company v. Barclay and others 4. Compulsory pilotage-Contributory negligence of defendants or their servants-Onus of proof.— When the defence of compulsory pilotage is relied upon in a collision cause, the onus of proving negligence on the part of the defendants or their servants causing or contributing to the collision, is on the plaintiff. Clyde Navigation Company v. Barclay (1 App. Cas. 790; 36 L. T. Rep. N. S. 379) followed. The Iona (L. Rep. 1 C. P. 432; 16 L. T. Rep. N. S. 158) disapproved. (Ct. of App.) The Daioz. 5. Compulsory_pilotage-Pilot-Duty of-Vessel dragging. Where a vessel under the charge of a pilot is at anchor and drags, it is the duty of the pilot to inform himself of the condition of affairs before taking steps to avoid damage arising from it, and not to wait till someone reports it to him. (Adm.) The Princeton 6. Compulsory pilotage - River Mersey Vessel coming from sea-Docking,- Where a vessel coming from sea into the river Mersey with a pilot on board is prevented from docking, in consequence of the violence of the wind, or want of water, and anchors, but is to be docked as soon as circumstances permit, the employment of a pilot is, under the Mersey Docks Acts Consolidation Act, compulsory. (Adm.) The Princeton...... 7. Compulsory pilotoge - Falmouth Harbour Trinity outport-Compulsion-Merchant Shipping Acts.-Falmouth Harbour being within a Trinity outport district for which pilots were licensed by the Trinity House prior to 1854, pilotage is, by the Merchant Shipping Act 1854, compulsory there for a vessel bound from a Mediterranean port to the port of Falmouth. (Adm. Div.) The Juno.... 8. Damages-Measure - Loss of charter-party— Deductions - Freight earned-Expenses-Wear 16 390 477 562 562 217 and tear.-In estimating the loss sustained by a ship in a collision, a charter-party, previously entered into contingent on the arrival of the ship on a fixed date at another place but cancelled by the charterers by reason of the delay occasioned by the collision, should be taken into consideration, the amount recoverable in respect thereof being the freight that would have been earned under the charter-party, less deductions for freight actually earned after repairs and for expenses and saving of wear and tear, &c., which would have been incurred in the performance of the charter-party. (Adm.) The Star of India..page 261 9. Damages-Measure - Demurrage.-In addition to such damages the shipowner is entitled to demurrage during the time he is detained for repairs at the usual rate allowed to ships. (Adm.) The Star of India .......... 10. Dock-Control of dockmaster-Duty of crew.— When a vessel enters dock with the permission and under the general directions of the dockmaster, and within the space over which his authority by statute extends, those on board of her are bound to use diligence and care to carry out the directions of the dockmaster in such a manner as to avoid doing damage to other vessels. (Adm.) The Cynthia........ 261 .... 378 No 11. Latent defect Absence of negligence liability. The owners of a vessel are not liable for damage caused to another vessel in a collision occasioned by the sudden breaking down of an apparatus in which there is an inherent latent defect, in the absence of any negligence in the user of the apparatus. The William Lindsay (ante, vol. 2, p. 118; L. Rep. 5 P. C. 338; 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 355) followed. (Adm.) The Virgo 285 12. Liability. Act causing collision-Must be 13. Liability-Dockmaster-Tug-Pilot.-A vessel 15. Lights-Overtaking vessel-Light astern— 122 348 371 SUBJECTS OF CASES. .page 1 to the overtaking ship, and call the attention of that ship to the danger of a collision. (P.C, from Adm.) The Anglo-Indian 16. Lights-Overtaking vessel· - Light astern— Signal Speed — Steamship · Sailing ship.Although a ship is, under some circumstances, bound to keep a look-out astern, and to show a light or give a signal to another ship overtaking her and evidently unable to see her, nevertheless where a steamer going at a high rate of speed in a fair way overtakes a sailing ship showing no light or signal, and does not see her until too near to avoid a collision, although keeping a good look-out, the steamer will be held alone to blame, if a lower rate of speed would have given the steamer time to have avoided the collision upon sighting the sailing ship. (P.C. from Adm.) The Earl Spencer 4 17. Light-Signal - Steamer coming to anchor— 19. Light-Signals-Overtaking vessels.-A vessel 21. Practice Admiralty - Interrogatories-Preli- 22. Practice-Appeal-Nautical assessors -Ques- 260 230 233 125 122 512 285 therein, they are entitled to their costs. (Adm. Div.) The Juno...... 26. Practice-Costs ..page 217 ·Compulsory pilotage.-The Admiralty Division will adhere to the practice of the High Court of Admiralty, as to costs in cases of compulsory pilotage. The Princeton 27. Practice- Costs - Complusory pilotage - Defence. A defendant in an action (not in Admiralty) of collision succeeding in his defence on the plea of compulsory pilotage is entitled to his costs, although the rule in the Admiralty Division is uniform not to allow costs in such case, except where it is the sole defence raised. (Ex. Div.) General Steam Navigation Company v. London and Edinburgh Shipping Company.... 28. Practice Costs-Compulsory pilotage-Defence. When a suit (instituted in the Admiralty Division) is dismissed, or an appeal succeeds on the ground that the defence of compulsory pilotage is established, no order will be made as to costs either below or on appeal. The Schwann (L. Rep. Ad. & Ecc. 187; 30 L. T. Rep. N. S. 237) followed. (Ct. of App.) The Daioz 29. Practice-Costs-Reference-Fishing vessel, Loss of fishing —Damages. - Where a plaintiff claimed unliquidated damages in respect of loss of the remainder of a season's fishing occasioned by a collision, and on a reference to the registrar and merchant, the defendants objected to the claim altogether, but the plaintiff recovered being awarded less than two-thirds of the amount claimed by him as damages, the court gave him costs in respect of the reference on the ground of the peculiarity of the plaintiff's claim, and without prejudice to the general rule as to costs of references. (Adm.) The Gleaner. 30. Practice-Costs-Court of Appeal-Varying of decree-Both ships to blame.-Where the Court of Appeal varies a decision of the judge of the Admiralty Division, by which he found one vessel that is wholly to blame for a collision, by finding that both vessels were to blame, each party will pay its own costs, both in the court below and in the Court of Appeal. The Agra and The Elizabeth Jenkins (2 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 532; L. Rep. 1 P.C. 501: 16 L. T. Rep. N. S. 755) followed. (Ct. of App.) The Corinna 562 454 477 582 307 31. Practice-Costs - Court of Appeal-Varying decree-Inevitable accident.-Where the Court of Appeal varied the decision of the judge of the Admiralty Division, by which he found one vessel that is wholly to blame for a collision, by finding that the collision was an inevitable accident, the practice of the Privy Council that each party should, except under very exceptional circumstances, pay their own costs, will be followed. The Marpesia (ante, vol. 1, p. 261; L. Rep. 4 P. C, 212; 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 333) followed. (Ct. of 307 App.) The City of Cambridge 32. Practice-Costs-Inevitable accident-It is the practice of the Admiralty Court in case of inevitable accidents that each party should pay its own costs. But if, from the circumstances of the collision, it must have been obvious that the collision was an inevitable accident, the court will use its discretion as to dismissing the suit with costs. (Adm.) The Innisfail; The Secret... 337 33.-Practice-Counter-claim-Security for costs of resident out of jurisdiction. A defendant in a collision cause making a counter-claim for the damage sustained by his own vessel must, if he be resident out of the jurisdiction, give security for the costs, not merely of his counter-claim, but of the whole action. (Adm.) The Julia Fisher 380 SUBJECTS OF CASES. 34. Practice-Counter-claim-Security for costsDefault.-If he make default in giving security for costs pursuant to order, he will have his counter-claim dismissed. (Adm.) Id.......page 380 35. Practice -Damage to cargo Ship carrying cargo Preliminary act. In an action for damage to cargo sustained in a collision between two ships where the action is brought against the ship carrying the cargo, the parties are not bound to file preliminary acts under the Rules of the Supreme Court, Order XIX., rule 30. (Adm.) The John Boyne 341 415, 433 36. Practice-Jurisdiction —Admiralty Division— Lord Campbell's Act-Action in rem.-The High Court of Justice (Admiralty Division) has jurisdiction to entertain an action in rem brought by the personal representatives of a deceased person killed by the negligence of those on board a foreign ship in a collision between that ship and a British ship on the high seas below high-water mark. (So decided in the Admiralty Division. On appeal the Court of Appeal was equally divided, and the appeal dismissed.) (Adm. and Ct. of App.) The Franconia...... 37. Practice-Inspection of documents-Compromise of action.-In an action by owner of cargo against shipowner for damage in consequence of collision with another ship, caused by the defendant's alleged negligence, the plaintiff has a right to inspect terms of compromise of crosssuits in the Admiralty Court, entered into by the respective owners of the two ships. (Q.B. and Ct. of App.) Hutchinson v. Glover 38. Practice-Joint action of ship and cargoSecurity for counter-claim-Dismissal of ship's action-Leave to cargo to proceed.-Where the owners of a ship which has sunk, and the owners of the cargo laden on board her, join as plaintiffs in an action against another ship for damages sustained by collision, the court will order the claim by the owner of the ship to be dismissed, unless securities for a counter-claim made by the defendants is given, but will allow the owner of cargo to proceed without security. The Carnarvon Castle.-.. ....85, 120 39. Practice-Particulars of claim.-Where a ship was totally lost in a collision, the court (Admiralty Division), contrary to the practice of the High Court of Admiralty, made an order, in an action by the shipowners against the vessel doing the damage, for particulars of the plaintiff's claim to be delivered to the defendants. (Adm. Div.) The N. P. Neilson 40. Practice-Vice-Admiralty Courts-Preliminary acts.-The form of preliminary acts now in use in the High Court of Justice in collision cases should be used in similar cases in the ViceAdmiralty Courts. (P.C.) The Norma...... 41. Practice-Vice-Admiralty Courts-Vivá voce examination of witnesses.-In collision causes in the Vice-Admiralty Courts witnesses should, as far as possible, be examined vivâ voce before the court, not upon written interrogatories before an officer of the court prior to the hearing. (P.C.) The Norma 42. Regulations for preventing collision-Infringement not contributing to collision-Liability— Merchant Shipping Act 1873.-A vessel, though infringing the "regulations for preventing collisions at sea," will not be "deemed to be in fault" within the meaning of sect. 17 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1873, for a collision caused exclusively by the negligence of the other colliding vessel, if the infringement of the regulations could not, under the circumstances of the case, have contributed to the collision. Hence where a 607 169 272 272 43. Regulations for preventing collisions (Art. 5)— Lights-Fishing vessels-Stationary and moving. -Decked fishing vessels are bound to carry the coloured lights prescribed by Art. 5 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea so long as they are actually under weigh, and are only justified in substituting the white mast-head light, prescribed by the 2nd cl. of Art. 9, when their nets are over, and they are kept stationary by them. The Esk and The Gitana (L. Rep. 2 A. & E. 350; 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 587; 3 Mar. Law. Cas. O. S. 242) followed. (Adm.) The English man 44. Regulations for preventing collisions (Art. 12, 19, 20)-Sailing ships-Crossing.-A vessel on the starboard tack close hauled approaching another, apparently on the port tack, is, nevertheless, bound to keep out of the way, so soon as she ascertains that the other vessel is unmanageable and unable to obey the ordinary rule of the road at sea. (P.C.) The Lake St. Clair v. The Underwriter. 45. Regulations for preventing collisions (Art. 18) -Sailing ship― Steamship.-A sailing vessel, meeting a steamer, is bound to keep her course, and it is not the rule of the road that she should port her helm on nearing the steamer, such a deviation from the rules being allowed only under circumstances of immediate danger. (P.C.) The Norma...... 506 361 272 46. Regulations for preventing collisions (Arts. 12, 17)-Sailing ships - Overtaking — Crossing. — When a close-hauled ship is on the lee-quarter of and sailing faster than one on the same tack having the wind free, and is consequently gaining on her, and their courses are such as to occasion risk of collision, Art. 12 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at sea applies, and not Art. 17; and it is the duty of the ship having the wind free to keep out of the way of the closehauled ship. (Adm.) The Peckforton Castle..... 115 47. Regulations for preventing collisions (Arts. 12, 17) Sailing ships — Overtaking — Crossing. — Semble, the proper manoeuvre for the ship having the wind free to adopt is-if the vessels have the wind on the port side, to port; and if on the starboard side, to starboard the helm. (Adm.) Id. 611 48. Regulations for preventing collisions (Art. 12, 17)-Sailing ships-Crossing-Overtaking.-Sailing ships on converging courses are crossing ships within Art. 12, and the faster-sailing vessel is not an overtaking ship within Art. 17, if at no time was she abaft the beam of the slower vessel. Quare, what is the proper definition of an overtaking ship or steam-vessel. The Franconia (L Rep. 2 P. Div. 8: 35 L. T. Rep. N. S. 360; 3 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 295) doubted. (Ct. of App.) Id. 533 49. Regulations for preventing collisions (Arts. 12, 17) Sailing ships Crossing — Overtaking— Close-hauled.-Semble, it is a well-recognised and useful rule of navigation that in all cases a sailing vessel going free should give way to one closehauled. (Ct. of App.) Id...... 533 |