Sidebilder
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

LONDON: HORACE COX, 10, WELLINGTON STREET, STRAND, W.C.

1878.

IL

221683

LONDON :

115

PRINTED BY HORACE Cox, WELLINGTON-STREET, STRAND, W.c.

INDEX

TO

NAMES OF THE CASES

REPORTED IN THIS VOLUME.

[blocks in formation]

ADAMS v. HALL

ADRIATIC, THE

16

ALLISON v. THE BRISTOL MARINE INSURANCE

COMPANY

178

ALLKINS AND ANOTAER v. JUPE, PEMBROKE,

OPPENHEIM, AND CHOISY

449

AMSTEL, THE ...

488
ANDERSON AND OTHERS V. MORICE

31, 290
ANEROID, THE

418
ANGLO-INDIAN, THE..
ANNA, THE..

237
ANNANDALE, THE......

383, 489, 504
ARTHUR AVERAGE ASSOCIATION, Re (DE WINTON
AND Co.'s CASE)..

245
ATWOOD (app.) v. CASE (resp.)

84

AUSTRALASIAN INSURANCE COMPANY, THE (apps.),

v. WILLIAM TOWNLEY JACKSON (resp.)

26

AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURAL COMPANY, THE v.

SAUNDERS

63

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

JAMES ARMSTRONG, THE

JENNIE S. BAKER, THE

JOHN BOYNE, THE

JONES BROTHERS, THE............

JONES v. ADAMSON AND ANOTHER

JULIA FISHER, THE

JULINA, THE

JUNO THE..

46

42

341

478

253

380

264

217

NAMES OF CASES.

KEITH AND ANOTHER v. BURROWS AND ANOTHER

page 280, 427, 481 KLEINWORT AND OTHERS v. THE CASA MARI. TIMA OF GENOA ..

358 KOPITOFF v. WILSON

163

RIVER WEAR COMMISSIONERS, THB v. ADAMSON
AND OTHERS

page 242, 521 ROBINSON V. PRICE AND OTHERS

321, 407 ROSARIO, THE

334 ROWENA, THE

506

LAKE MEGANTIC, THE

382 LAKE ST. CLAIR, THE, v. THE UNDERWRITER 361 LEASK v. SCOTT

352, 469 LEWIS v. GRAY

136 LIMERICK, THE

206 LISTER V. VAN HAANSBERGEN

145 LOCKHART v. FALK

8 LOHRE v. ATCHINSON AND ANOTHER

445 LUTSCHER V. COMPTOIR D'ESCOMPTE DE PARIS ... 209

MACKENZIE v. WHITWORTH.

81 MARIE CONSTANCE, THE...

505 MAUDE, THE

338 MCMILLAN AND SON v. LIVERPOOL AND TEXAS

STEAMSHIP COMPANY (LIMITED) AND C. GRIM.
SHAW AND CO

579 MEDINA, THE

219, 305 MEIKLEREID (app.) v. WEST (resp.)

129 METCALFE v. BRITANNIA IRONWORKS Com. PANY

313, 407 MEYER AND OTHERS V. RALLI AND OTHERS 324 MINTO, Ex parte

323 MIRABITA V. THE IMPERIAL OTTOMAN BANK...... 591 MOORE V. HARRIS

173 MORICE V. ANDERSON AND OTHERS..

290 MORRIS v. LEVISON

171 MOULD AND ANOTHER V. ANDREWS AND OTHERS 329 M. MOXHAM, THE

95, 191

ST. OLAF, THE

268, 341 SANGUINETTI v. THE PACIFIC STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY

300 SARAH, THE

542 SARPEDON, SPECIE, ex

509 SAUNDERS AND ANOTHER v. BARING AND ANOTHER 133 SCEPTRE, THE

269 SCHILLER, CARGO ex

226, 439 SCHUSTER AND OTHERS v. FLETCHER.

577 SCRUTTON v. CHILDS

373 SECRET, THE

337 SFACTORIA, THE

271 SHAND AND OTHERS v. BOWES AND OTHERS... 208, 367 SHEPHERD AND OTHERS V. KOTTGEN AND OTHERS 544 SIMPSON AND OTHERS v. THOMPSON AND OTHERS 567 SISTERS, THE...

122, 224 SKIBLANDER, THE....

556 SMITH AND OTHERS Re

259 SPECIE ex SARPEDON

509 SPINDRIFT, THE

42 STANTON v. RICHARDSON...

23 STAR OF INDIA, THE

261 STEEL AND ANOTHER V. THE STATE LINE STEAMSHIP COMPANY

516 STEEL V. LESTER AND LILEE

537 STONE AND OTHERS V. OCEAN MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY OF GOTHENBURG

152 STOREY Ex parte

549 STRATHNAVER, THE

113 STRIBLEY v. IMPERIAL MARINE INSURANCE COM. PANY

134 SWALLOW, THE

371 SWANSEA SHIPPING COMPANY (LIMITED) v. Dun. CAN FOX AND Co..

166, 342

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

540

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

PALMER V. ZARIFI BROTHERS
PARANA, THE..

220, 399 PEARSON v. THE COMMERCIAL UNION ASSURANCE COMPANY....

275 PECKFORTON CASTLE, THE.

511, 533 PETER DER GROSSE, THE..

195 PHILOTAXE, THE

512 POLYMEDE, THE

124 PRINCETON, THE

562

QUEEN'S AVERAGE ASSOCIATION, Re; Ex parte
LYNES

576

WATSON, parte; Re LOVE........

396 WETTERHORN, THE

168 WHITWORTH AND Co., Re; Ex parte BLACKBURN ; Eæparte GIBBS AND Co.

74 WILLIAMS AND OTHERS V. THE NORTH CHINA INSURANCE COMPANY

342 WILSON AND ANOTHER v. GENERAL SCREW COL. LIERY COMPANY

536 WINGATE, BIRRELL, AND Co., v. FOSTER

598 WOOSUNG, CARGO eX..

50, 239

RAFFAELLUCCIA, THE .......

505 RANKEN V. ALFARO

309 Rio GRANDE DO SUL STEAMSHIP COMPANY (LIMITED), Re THE

424

[blocks in formation]

REPORTS

OF

All

the Cases Argued and

Argued and Determined by the Supéčñor Courts

[blocks in formation]

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE

PRIVY COUNCIL. Reported by J. P. ASPINALL, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OP ADMIRALTY

OF ENGLAND,

April 28 and 29, 1875. (Present: The Right Hons. Sir J. W. COLVILE,

Sir BARNES PEACOCK, Sir MONTAGUE SMITH, Sir
R. P. COLLIER, and Sir H. S. KEATING.)

THE ANGLO-INDIAN.
Collision-Lights-Duty to show light astern to

following ship. It is prima facie the duty of an overtaking ship to

keep out of the way of a ship ahead of her, but if the latter ship sees another approaching her from a direction where her lights are not visible, and which vessel she has reason to suppose does not, in fact, whether keeping a good look-out or not, see her and is likely to come into collision with her, it is her duty to give some warning to the overtaking ship, not necessarily by exhibiting a light, but by some signal, such as the firing of a gun, the showing a light, or otherwise, which will indicale her whereabouts to the overtaking ship, and call the attention of that ship to the danger

of a collision. (a) This was an appeal from the decree of the Right Hon. Sir Robert Phillimore. Knight, Judge of the High Court of Admiralty of England, in a cause of damage promoted in that court by the respondents, the owners of the brigantine Excel and of the cargo laden on board her; and also by the personal representatives of her late master, and others of the crew of the Excel, against the barque Anglo-Indian, of which the appellants were owners, for the recovery of damages arising out of a colli. sion between the said two vessels.

The Excel was a brigantine of 210 tons register,or thereabouts. The Anglo-Indian was a barque of 440 tons register.

The collision happened about 2.30 a.m. on the 14th April 1874, in the Bay of Biscay, about fifty miles south by west of Cape Finisterre.

The wind at the time was blowing a gale from the north-north-west, and the night was dark and cloudy, with passing showers.

(a) See notes to The Earl Specer, post, p. 4.—ED.
VOL. III., N.S.

The case set up in the court below on behalf of the respondents, as stated in their petition, was, that the Excel,whilst in the prosecution of a voyage from Swansea to Barcelona, was hove to on the starboard tack, under double-reefed mainsail and mainstay sail, beading about west, and forereaching at the rate of between one and two knots an hour, making considerable lee way The regulation lights were said to be duly placed and burning brightly at the time. Shortly before 2.15 a.m. & green light-which afterwards proved to be that of the Anglo-Indian- —was observed astern of the Excel, and distant about 300 yards. The AngloIndian, it was alleged instead of keeping out of the way of the Excel, approached her in a direction which involved risk of collision, and exhibited her red light to those on board the Excel; and, as it was further alleged, although the Anglo-Indian was loudly bailed from the Excel, and a light was exhibited over the stern of the Excel, the AngloIndian ran into and struck the Excel upon the stern, and did her so much damage that she shortly afterwards foundered and was lost, together with her cargo and everything then on board her. Upon this occasion the master was unfortunately drowned.

The case on the part of the appellants was, that on the occasion in question the Anglo-Indian, bound from London to Jamaica, was close-hauled on the starboard tack under reefed upper topsails, foresail, and foretopmast staysail, heading about west, and making about five knots an hour. Her proper regulation lights were duly exhibited and burning brightly, and a good look-out was being kept.

Under these circumstances, about 2.30 a.m., on the 14th April, the hull of the Excel was made out a very short distance ahead and a little on the starboard bow of the Anglo-Indian. The helm of the Anglo-Indian was thereupon immediately put hard astarboard, but it was impossible to avoid a collision, and the stem of the Anglo-Indian struck the Excel on the port side of her stern.

The respondents alleged that the collision was caused by the negligence of those on board the Anglo-Indian, and by reason of their neglect to keep a proper look-out and to keep the AngloIndian out of the way of the Excel.

The appellants denied the statements of the respondents that a light was exhibited over the stern of the Excel and that the Anglo-Indian was

B

« ForrigeFortsett »