This was a suit brought by the bark Orbona, of the burden of 292 tons, against the bark Actæon, of the burden of 599 tons, to recover the loss sustained in consequence of a collision which occurred between them on the 20th of January, last year, near St. Alban's Head, off the coast of Dorset. Both vessels were proceeding from London to Glasgow, the Orbona laden with wheat, and the Actæon in ballast. The Orbona was close hauled on the starboard tack, the Actæon on the larboard tack, and the former charged the latter with starboarding instead of porting her helm.

Dr. Addams and Dr. Twiss appeared for the Orbona; Dr. Bayford and Dr. Deane for the Acteon.

The learned JUDGE, without hearing counsel for the Orbona, inquired of the Elder Brethren whether the Actæon was justified in starboarding her helm.

The Elder Brethren considered that she was not, and
The Court pronounced against her.


WEDNESDAY, FEB. 1, 1854. (Before Lord Justice KNIGHT BRUCE, Lord Justice TURNER, Sir Johy

Dodson, and Sir EDWARD RYAN.) This was an appeal from the High Court of Admiralty. The bark Dachenhuden, of the burden of 360 tons, bound from Hamburgh to Australia, with a general cargo and 85 passengers, and the ship Eliza, of the burden of 942 tons, heavily laden, proceeding from London to Bombay, came into collision, near the Lizard Point, on the 29th December, 1852. The bark alleged that, being close hauled on the starboard tack, she descried the Eliza, distant about a mile on the port tack, going free. The bark was kept close to the wind, and, had the Eliza held her course, the vessels would have gone clear of each other, instead of which the Eliza put her helm to port as if to cross the bows of the bark, which she possibly might have done, but when close to her, she all of a sudden put her helm to starboard and ran into her. The Eliza pleaded that she was close-hauled on the larboard tack, and on perceiving the bark immediately showed a light and ported, so as to give way, but the bark, instead of keeping her course as she was bound to do, starboarded her helm, brailed up her spanker, and rapidly ran across the hawse of the Eliza. Cross actions were entered by the respective parties. The court below, assisted by the Elder Brethren of the Trinity-house, came to the conclusion that the Eliza alone was to blame, against which the present appeal was prosecuted.

After hearing Dr. Haggard and Dr. Twiss for the appellant,

Sir J. Dodson delivered the judgment of their Lordships without hearing counsel for the respondents, and having stated the facts of the case, said their Lordships were of opinion that the decision in the court below was correct. The appeal, therefore, must be dismissed with costs.


(Before Dr. LUSHINGTON.)


The schooner Margaret Roberts, of the burden of 116 tons, laden with wheat, bound from Galatz to London, and the bark Fortune, of the burden of 571 tons, laden with guano and silver, proceeding from Queenstown to London, having originally sailed from Valparaiso, came into collision between 5 and 6 a.m. on the 11th of December last, about 10 miles from the Lizard. The wind was south-east; the schooner was close hauled on the starboard tack, heading E.N.E.; the bark close hauled on the larboard tack, heading S.S.W. The schooner pleaded that she had a lantern burning brightly, that she had a good look out, and that she descried the bark about four points on her lee bow, distant from one to two miles. The bark continued to approach, the binnacle light was shown over the lee quarter, and the bark was hailed, but no notice was taken of either, and the helm of the bark was not altered until she was close to the schooner, when it was put to starboard, in consequence of which the schooner was struck amidships, and afterwards foundered." On the part of the bark it was alleged that the night was so dark that, although a vigilant watch was kept, the schooner could not be perceived until the vessels were in such close prosimity that a collision was unavoidable. Orders were immediately given to put the helm down to ease the blow, but before they could be executed the schooner ran into the bows of the bark. She attributed the accident to there being no light visible on board the schooner; if she carried one it was hidden by the sails. Cross-actions were entered by the respective parties.

Dr. Adams and Dr. Twiss were heard for the schooner; Dr. Deane for the bark.

The learned JUDGE inquired of the Elder Brethren, by whom he was assisted, whether, with reasonable vigilance, the schooner might not have been seen in time for the bark to have adopted proper measures to avoid the collision; and whether, if the bark, as soon as she descried the schooner, had ported her helm instead of doing nothing or starboarding it, the collision might not have been prevented.

The Elder Brethren were clearly of opinion that the Fortune alone was to blame.

The Court pronouncd accordingly.

MARINE INSURANCE. Insurance is a contract by which the insurer undertakes, in consideration of a premium equivalent to the hazard' run, to indemnify the person insured against certain perils or losses, or against some particular event. When insurance in general is spoken of by professional men, it is understood to signify Marine Insurance. It is in this light we are at present to consider it; and from the preceding definition, it appears to be a contract of indemnity against those perils to which ships or goods are exposed in the course of their voyage from one place to another. The utility of this species of contract in a commercial country is obvious, and has been taken notice of by very distinguished writers upon commercial affairs. Insurances give great security to the fortunes of private people, and, by dividing amongst many that loss which would ruin an individual, make it fall light and easy upon the whole society. It is clear that, wherever foreign commerce was introduced, insurance must have soon followed as a necessary attendant, it being impossible to carry on any very extensive trade without it, especially in time of war.Park.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, WESTMINSTER, Jan. 17, 1854. (Sittings in Banco, before Lord CAMPBELI, and Justices COLERIDGE and


This was a special case for the opinion of the Court.

The action was brought by the owner of a vessel called the Eliza Cornish against the underwriters of a time policy. The plaintiff claimed as for a total loss, and the question was, whether he could claim for a total or only for a partial loss. It was stated that the insurance had been effected upon the vessel from the 22nd of April, 1851, to the 21st of April, 1852, inclusive; but that during that period the vessel had been seized by pirates on the coast of Chili. Intelligence of the capture was given to the commander of Her Majesty's ship Virago, who went and re-captured her, and sent her home to England to be adjudicated upon by the Court of Admiralty. The vessel sustained some damage on the voyage home, and was taken to the port of Fayal for repairs, but it was there, though improperly, abandoned and sold. As soon as intelligence of what had occurred arrived in England, the owner gave notice to the defendant, and claimed as for a total loss, treating the seizure by the pirates as the total loss. It was now argued on the part of the plaintiff, that where there had once been a total loss the owner could recover, unless before he brought his action the vessel was restored to his possession, or it was his own fault if he did not recover it. For the underwriter it was contended that the plaintiff could not claim as for a total loss, because when the vessel was re-captured by Her Majesty's ship Virago it was sent home to be adjudicated by the Court of Admiralty in this country, under the 13th and 14th of Victoria, chap. 26, which, by the 5th section, enacted that the Court of Admiralty, after setting apart one-eighth of the true value of the prize to the captors, should order the vessel to be restored to the owners.

Mr. J. Wilde argued the case for the owner, and Mr. Cowling for the underwriters. It was stated in the course of the argument that, in former times, cases of this description were very frequent in the courts, and it was to be feared that they might be so again.

Lord CAMPBELL.-Which may Heaven forefend !
After a short conference with the other judges,

Lord CAMPBELL said he was of opinion that, according to the principles of insurance law and the decided cases, the plaintiff was entitled to judgment. The action was brought upon a policy of insurance, in which the plaintiff conditioned for the safety of the ship from the 22nd of April, 1851, to the 21st of April, 1852. On the 1st of December, 1851, the vessel was taken by pirates. Upon that, in point of fact, a total loss accrued to the assured. The vessel was rescued from the pirates, but from that time to the present it had never been restored to the owner, nor had he had the opportunity of taking possession of it; so that de facto, by a sequence of events over which he had no control, he had lost his property. He had, therefore, not obtained that security which he proposed to himself as the object of his contract. According to the cases, this principle was laid down,--that when once there had been a total loss by capture the underwriters would be answerable as for a total loss, unless the assured had the property restored to him, or had the means of obtaining it. The question then was, had the ship been restored to the owner, or had he had the opportunity of taking possession of it! He (Lord Campbell) was of opinion in the negative. Here, therefore, had been a total loss by capture, and, when re-captured, the vessel was taken to Valparaiso by the captors, who kept possession of it. An objection had been made that notice had not been given to the underwriter within a reasonable time, but he (Lord Campbell) thought the notice was sufficient. It had been given on the 30th of April, 1852, soon after the plaintiff was made acquainted with the circumstances, and the mean circumstance that the notice was not given until after the policy had expired was immaterial. There was some inaccuracy in the facts set out in the notice, but, as the assured proceeded upon the facts which constituted a total loss, he was entitled to recover.

Mr. Justice COLERIDGE and Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN expressed themselves to the same effect.

Judgment for the plaintift.


Salvage is an allowance made for saving a ship or goods, or both, from the dangers of the sea, fire, pirates, or enemies; and it is also sometimes used to signify the thing itself which is saved ; but it is in the former sense only in which we are at present to consider it

The propriety and justice of such an allowance must be evident to every one; for nothing can be more reasonable than that he who has recovered the property of another from imminent danger by great lavour, or perhaps at the hazard of his life, should be rewarded by him who has been so materially benefited by that labour. Accordingly, all maritime states, from the Rhodians down to the present time, have made certain regulations, fixing the rate of salvage in some instances, and leaving it in others to depend upon particular circumstances.- Park.



This was a suit promoted by the yawl Dart to obtain salvage remuneration for services rendered to the brig Hendon, which on the 13th of September last went aground on the Hasborough sand. The value of the property salved was 3,9701.; a tender was made of 1801., and refused by the salvors.

Dr. Haggard and Dr. Jenner appeared for the salvors; Dr. R. Phillimore and Dr. Deane for the owners.

The learned JUDGE said, he was desirous of encouraging fishermen to engage in the rescue of vessels on the dangerous coast of Norfolk. He did not consider the tender sufficient; he would therefore overrule it, and decree 2601.



The marine insurance companies connected with this case of the Condor, from which 88,0001. of gold was rescued off Pernambuco last June, have published a report of the trial. As, however, the case is likely to be a subject of further public inquiry, it is deemed unnecessary to give a further report of it here—especially as the one already printed contains 39 pages, octavo.


(Before Dr. LUSHINGTON.)


This also was a case of salvage, and was instituted by the steam-tug Friend of all Nations against the brig Kingaloch. On the 26th of August last the tug was running down Princes Channel, at the mouth of the Thames, when she observed the brig, of the burden of 143 tons, bound from Newfoundland to London with a cargo of oil and seal skins, with an ensign flying at her gaff. An agreement was made to tow her to London for 401., but after a short time the hawser broke; and it was then discovered that the vessel had sustained prior damage. The master of the tug then stated that the agreement must be considered as at an end, and, according to his account, he was subsequently engaged as though no agreement had been made. After great exertion, during which the steam-tug received, as alleged, considerable injury, the brig was brought safely to the London Docks on the evening of the 27th of August. On the part of the owners, it was contended that the original agreement was binding and valid, but a tender was made of 801, which the salvors rejected. The value of the property salved was 6,2001.

The learned JUDGE considered that, under the circumstances of the case, the salvors could not be bound by the agreement. He overruled the tender, and alloted 1501., with costs.


This likewise was a salvage suit, and was promoted by the steamer Mercator against the brig Elswick. The brig, coal laden, having been in collision with the Louise, was descried by the steamer about 14 miles from Whitby, on the 15th of October last. She took her in tow and conducted her to Shields, which occasioned her to diverge about 45 miles from her proper course.

The value of the property salved was 5,6001.

Dr. Haggard and Dr. Middleton were heard for the Mercator; Dr. Robinson and Dr. Twiss for the Elswick.

The learned JUDGE considered that a very meritorious service had been performed, and decreed 4001.


HOUSE OF COMMONS, FRIDAY, MARCH 3, 1854. Mr. SANDARS asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what orders were issued to the captains of Her Majesty's vessels in respect to the assistance to be rendered to British vessels in distress at sea ; and whether the masters or seamen who do render assistance to such vessels are allowed to make any charge beyond the expenses incurred by them in rendering that assistance.

Sir J. GRAHAM said, that the general orders of tho Board of Admiralty, upon the question of salvage, had been laid on the table of the House last session. Under those orders it was the duty of the officers and men of the Queen's ships to render every assistance in their power to distressed merchant vessels, without any claim for any loss which might be sustained in rendering that service. The officers and men of the Queen's vessels were not permitted to raise any claim for salvage in any court of law, without the permission of the senior officer of the station, confirmed by the Board of Admiralty, and this was sel. dom given, unless the service were really of great importance. A a proof of that, he might mention that a short time ago one of the Queen's vessels met a large steamer in distress off the coast of Africa, and towed her 1,200 miles. Yet, though that might be called a very important service, the Admiralty did not think that it would be right to allow a claim for salvage to be instituted.


(Before Dr. LUSHINGTON.)

THE ADVANCE. This was an action brought by the steamer Ocean, and by the crews of two boats—the Nabob and the Princess—to obtain salvage remuneration for services rendered to the ship Advance, on the 18th of June last, near Holyhead. The Advance, of the burden of 1,600 tons, bound from Mobile to Liverpool, ran, as alleged, on some dangerous rocks on the Welsh coast. The boatmen went to her aid, and, as they represented, by their advice she was got off and, for security, taken into Port Griffith Creek. Information having been conveyed to Holyhead, the steamer Ocean, which had just arrived from Dublin, went to her assistance, took her in tow, and cleared her from the rocks. The vessel then pursued her course, and reached Liverpool in safety. The services of the steamer lasted about two hours and a half. The value of the property salved was nearly 60,0001. A tender was made to the steamer of 3507., which she refused.

Dr. Addams and Dr. Twiss were heard for the steamer, Dr. Robinson and Dr. Bayford for the boatmen, the Queen's Advocate and Dr. Deane for the owners.

The learned JUDGE was of opinion that great praise was due to Captain Hurst for the activity he had displayed in sending the steamer from Holyhead to assist the Advance. Her services had been of great value in rescuing the vessel from a situation of considerable peril. He must, under the circumstances, overrule the tender, and decree 7001. The other salvors had rendered some aid, and he would allot them 801.


(Before Dr. LUSHINGTON.)

THE PARIS. This was an action brought by the steam-vessel Douro against the French steamship Paris to obtain salvage compensation for services rendered to her from the 1st to the 3rd of December last, in conducting her from the middle of the Bay of Biscay to Plymouth Sound. The Douro, while prosecuting her voyage from Constantinople to Southampton, fell in with the Paris proceeding in ballast from Havre de Grace to Marseilles, entirely disabled in consequence of injury sustained by her machinery. She took her in tow, and, after great


« ForrigeFortsett »