« ForrigeFortsett »
NAMES OF THE CASES
REPORTED IN THIS VOLUME.
AMSTEL, THE ...
383, 489, 504
BAYLEY AND OTHERS v. CHADWICK
BOWES AND OTHERS v. SHAND AND OTHERS 461
CITY OF BERLIN, THE
JAMES ARMSTRONG, THE
JENNIE S. BAKER, THE
JOHN BOYNE, THE
JONES BROTHERS, THE............
JONES v. ADAMSON AND ANOTHER
JULIA FISHER, THE
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
RIVER WEAR COMMISSIONERS, THB v. ADAMSON
page 242, 521 ROBINSON V. PRICE AND OTHERS
321, 407 ROSARIO, THE
334 ROWENA, THE
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.
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
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..
PALMER V. ZARIFI BROTHERS
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
QUEEN'S AVERAGE ASSOCIATION, Re; Ex parte
WATSON, Eæ 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..
RAFFAELLUCCIA, THE .......
505 RANKEN V. ALFARO
309 Rio GRANDE DO SUL STEAMSHIP COMPANY (LIMITED), Re THE
the Cases Argued and
Argued and Determined by the Supéčñor Courts
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE
PRIVY COUNCIL. Reported by J. P. ASPINALL, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OP ADMIRALTY
April 28 and 29, 1875. (Present: The Right Hons. Sir J. W. COLVILE,
Sir BARNES PEACOCK, Sir MONTAGUE SMITH, Sir
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.
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