« ForrigeFortsett »
5. That vessels and boats of less than 40 tons burden belonging to the Islands of Guernsey, Jersey, Alderney, and Sark, shall be limited only northward of the said Islands, in which direction they shall not exceed a distance of 4 leagues from the Caskets.
6. That vessels and boats of less than 40 tons burden, belonging to the Isle of Man, shall be limited to a distance of 8 leagues seaward from the coasts of that Island.
Exceptions.--The foregoing Regulations not to be applicable to any steam vessel what. ever, nor to boats belonging to vessels whilst employed as such, nor
to vessels and boats exclusively employed in pleasure, and not for hire, nor to vessels or boats bona fide employed in fishing, or in assisting ships in distress, beyond the prescribed limits, provided it shall appear to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs, or the Collector or Comptroller, that the vessels were so employed, and that the masters and owners are men of good character.
7. That no extension of the limits herein-before assigned will be allowed in respect of any vessels or boats, unless on special application from the owners thereof to the Commissioners, setting forth the ground of such application and the purposes and object thereof : whereupon if it appear to the satisfaction of the Commissioners, or to the Collector and Comptroller, that the grounds of such application are reasonable, and that (having regard to the general character of the owners and masters of such vessels or boats, and other special circumstances) any extension of the prescribed limits may properly be conceded, the Commissioners, or the Collector and Comptroller, will exercise the power vested in them of granting special licenses for such time, in such manner, and subject to such con. ditions as to them may seem expedient.
8. That when any vessel or boat is required in case of emergency to carry Government messengers and despatches to the opposite coasts of the Continent of Europe from the Ports of Dover and Folkstone, or such other Ports as may from time be approved by the Commissioners for that purposo, it shall be lawful for the Collectors and Comptrollers of such Ports or otlier Officers duly authorized to act for them, being first satisfied that such vessel or boat is bond fide required for carrying such messengers or despatches for Her Majesty's Service, to grant a Pass for that purpose, endorsing thereon the object of the voyage, the place of destination, and the intended time of departure of such vessel or boat, which Pass shall constitute a sufficient protection to such vessel or boat during the legitimate performance of such voyage and return, provided such voyage be performed within a reasonable time, and that the master of such vessel or boat, immediately upon his return, do deliver to the proper officer at the port of arrival, the Pass, with a certificate endorsed thereon under the hand of the messenger conveyed, or of the party to whom the despatch was delivered, certifying the time of landing or delivery of such messenger or despatch, as the case may be, at the place of destination, in order that such proper officer may be satisfied that the object of the voyage has been duly carried out within a proper and reasonable time.
9. That these regulations shall commence and take effect from and after January 5,
Thomas F. FREEMANTLE.
Any Fessel or boat which shall or may be found or discovered to have been used, armed, navigated, or employed beyond the limits assigned by the foregoing Regulations, in respect of such vessel or boat or in any manner contrary to the said
Regulations, such vessel or boat will be liable to seizure and forfeiture, unless such vessel or boat shall havo on board a Special Licence or Pass, as providcd by Regulations 7 and 8, authorizing such vessel or boat be so uzed, armed, navigated, and employed the time and place, and in the manner, when, where, and in which the same shall be so found or discovered to have been.
Deserters.- Whenever it is made to appear to Her Majesty that due facilities are or will be given for recovering and apprehending seamen who desert from British merchant ships in the territories of any foreign power, Her Majesty may, by order in council stating that such facilities are or will be given, declare that seamen, not being slaves, who desert from merchant ships belonging to a subject of such power, when within Her Majesty's dominions or the territories of the East India Company, shall be liable to be apprehended and carried on board their respective ships, and may limit the operation of such order, and may render the operation thereof subject to such conditions and qualifications, if any, as may be deemed expedient.
Recovery.- Upon such publication as herein-after mentioned of any such order in council, then, during such time as the same remains in force, and subject to such limitations and qualifications, if any, as may be therein contained, every justice of the peace or other officer having jurisdiction in the case of seamen who desert from British merchant ships in Her Majesty's dominions or in the territories of the East India Company shall, on application being made by a Consul of the foreign power to which such order in council relates, or his deputy or representative, aid in apprehending any seaman or apprentice who deserts from any merchant ship belonging to a subject of such power,and may for that purpose, upon complaint on oath duly made, issue his warrant for the apprehension of any such deserter, and upon due proof of the desertion, order him to be conveyed on board the vessel to which he belongs, or to be delivered to the master or mate of such vessel, or to the owner of such vessel or his agent, to be so conveyed; and thereupon it shall be lawful for the person ordered to convey such deserter, or for the master or mate of such vessel, or the owner or his agent, (as the case may require,) to convey him on board accordingly.
Harbouring.-If any person protects or harbours any deserter who is liable to be apprehended under this Act, knowing or having reason to believe that he has deserted, such person shall for every offence be liable to a penalty not exceeding £10, and every such penalty shall be recovered, paid, and applied in the same manner as penalties for harbouring or protecting deserters from British merchant ships.
WANT OF FUNDS.
ADMIRALTY COURT, TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 1853.
Dr. ADDAMS applied to the Court for a warrant of arrest against the Bravo, under the following circumstances :-Messrs. Bliedberg and Co., of Liverpool,, shipped a cargo of salt on board this Prussian vessel which was bound for Stettin. Having experienced bad weather, she sustained some damage, and a portion of the cargo was thrown overboard. She put into Inverness, and the captain wrote to Messrs. Bliedberg and Co., stating that he was without funds. They replied that he must act according to the laws of the country, if he could not obtain funds from his owner, living at a distance of three days' post, meaning that he should raise money on bottomry. He afterwards sold the cargo, and applied the funds to assist in paying the shipwrights and sailmaker's bills. The ship having returned to Liverpool, the present motion was made. The learned advocate suggested that the owners of the cargo might be considered as representing the material men who, under the act of Parliament, would have an undoubted right to proceed against the vessel. If not, their only remedy was to bring an action against the owner in Prusia, where, it was said, a suit always lasted 12 years. These cases, he added, were becoming of frequent occurrence, and it was necessary, if possible, to put an end to them.
The learned JUDGE said that it was a very hard case on the owners, but he had no jurisdiction. However reluctant he was to leave the parties without any other remedy than going to Prussia, he could not attempt to enforce the authority of the Court.
ADMIRALTY COURT, SATURDAY, JUNE 18, 1853.
Before Dr. LUSHINGTON.
THE ELIZA CORNISH, alias THE SEGREDO. Dr. LUSHINGTON delivered judgment in this case. The action, he said, was technically called a cause of possession ; but, in fact, the question for the court to try and decide was one of title. The vessel was originally a British vessel, and the property of a British merchant, who had instituted these proceedings. She was sent to the Pacific, and there occupied in various voyages. On the 7th of November, 1851, she was despatched from Valparaiso for Liverpool with a very valuable freight of specie, silver, and some other merchandize. In the course of that voyage she was taken possession of by the Magellan insurgents, or pirates, from whom she was rescued by Her Majesty's steam sloop Virago, commanded by Captain Stewart, who subsequently placed her under the command of Mr. Bawden, a master in the navy, her own master having been murdered. She again sailed for Liverpool, but in consequence of disasters at sea was compelled to put into Bahia for repairs, and afterwards into Fayal, where surveys were made, and, in the judgment of Mr. Bawden, it appeared inexpedient to repair her, and, with the consent of the superintendent of the customs in that island, she was sold by public auction and the cargo transshipped. She was purchased by a Portuguese, who repaired her at considerable expense, and freighted her to Bristol, where she was arrested at the suit of the original owner. He (the learned judge) apprehended that the law by which he was to be governed was the general maritime law prevailing among all states. In cases of necessity the master must be invested with power to sell a vessel. Mr. Bawden possessed the same power over the ship that the master himself would have done if alive. Several surveys were made of the vessel at Fayal, and it was reported that her hull was in good order, and that she would be navigable when certain repairs stated were done, the expense of which was estimated at 3001. Mr. Bawden, however, subsequently presented a petition, stating that he considered it for the interests of all concerned to sell the vessel, and the petition being granted she was disposed of and realized 1851. 48. 11d. The sale was not justified by the official surveys, and it appeared that money could have been raised on bottomry, or, if not, recourse might have beep had to the specie on board, as had already been done at Bahia. That Mr. Bawden acted according to the best of his judgment the court did not doubt; but it was abundantly clear that the vessel was repaired by the new purchaser and reached this country. Under those circumstances the sale was not absolutely necessary. It was said that the sale was legal according to the law of Fayal, but he had come to the conclusion that he could not receive that law; he was, therefore, bound to hold the sale invalid, and to direct possession to be delivered over to the original British owner, with costs.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, WESTMINSTER, Nov. 16, 1853. (Sittings in Banco, before Lord CAMPBELL and Justices COLERIDGE, WIGHTMAN,
COUCH V. STEELE.
The Court had taken time to consider their judgment in this case. The question was whether, when a shipowner contracted with a seaman to sail on board a particular vessel to a foreign port, there was an implied warranty on the part of the owner that the vessel was seaworthy, so as to entitle the seaman to recover damages in an action for the consequences of unseaworthiness in the ship.
Lord CAMPBELL NOW, after stating the facts alleged in the declaration, said it seemed to him that there was no contract or duty disclosed by the declaration which could be the foundation of the complaint contained in the first count. For anything that appeared the defendant might have been ignorant of any defects in the ship, and the plaintiff himself might have examined the ship, and become perfectly aware of her condition before engaging himself as a seaman on the voyage in question. Even if both parties were aware of the unseaworthiness, it might have been the intention that the plaintiff, undergoing greater hardships and labour in such a vessel, should be remunerated by higher wages. If the doctrine contended for was correct, the defendant, though free from any blame, would be liable to an action at the suit of every seaman on board in Case a butt happened to start while the vessel was going out of Plymouth Sound. There was no instance of such an action being brought, there was no decision authorising the doctrine now contended for, nor had any principle been urged upon which such an action could be maintained. The only authorities cited were certain dicta of the learned judges in the case of “Gibson v. Small," but it was not the intention of those judges to lay down the law that in all these contracts there was an implied warranty that the ship was seaworthy, as in the case of a policy of insurance, or that such an action as the present could be maintained. That case therefore was no authority. The authorities were rather the other way, for, if the principle involved in “ Seymour v. Maddox” and “Priestley v. Fowler" were applied to the present case, it would show that the action could not be maintained,
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE and Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN expressed themselves to the same effect.
Judgment for the defendant.
ROLLS' COURT, CHANCERY-LANE, Dec. 9, 1853.
(Before the MASTER of the Rolls.)
ALEXANDER V. SIMMS AND ANOTHER. This suit was instituted for the purpose of establishing the rights of the parties, relative to their respective shares in a ship which had been chartered to Patagonia for guano, and the cargo of which was to be delivered in Liver. pool. The plaintiff, it appeared, had one eighth share in the ship, and the defendant Simms owning the remaining seven-eighths, had become insolvent, and executed a deed of assigument in favour of his creditors, previously to which, however, he had mortgaged his shares in the vessel to a gentleman of the name of Taylor. The cargo had been sold under an arrangement to abide the decision in the suit. The plaintiff Alexander not having been a party to the negotiation relative to the last voyage of the ship to Patagonia, Taylor claimed, as mortgagee of Simms, seven-eighths of the gross profits on the cargo, whereas the plaintiff contended he was only entitled to that amount of the net profits, and ought to be held liable, in common with himself, to bear his proportion of the expenses attendant on the undertaking.
The Master of the Rolls decided that Taylor, as mortgagee of Simms, was only entitled to the share that Simms could have claimed, and being therefore liable, in common with the plaintiff, to contribute towards the expenses of the voyage, he could only claim his proportion of the net, and not of the gross profits of the same.
Mr. Roupell, Mr. R. Palmer, Mr. Follett, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Prior, Mr. Bevir, and Mr. Jones appeared in the case.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, WESTMINSTER, Jan. 12, 1854. (Sittings in Banco, before. Lord CAMPBELL, and Justices COLERIDGE, WIGHTMAN,
DOWELL AND OTHERS V. THE GENERAL STEAM NAVI
Sir F. THESIGER moved for a rule, calling upon the plaintiffs to show cause why the verdict which had been given in their favour should not be set aside and a new trial granted, upon the ground that the verdict was against the
evidence. The action was brought by the owners of a collier brig named the Harewood to recover damages from the General Steam Navigation Company for the loss of the Harewood, which it was alleged was sunk at the mouth of the river Thames on the night of the 4th of October last, in consequence of the negligence of the defendants' servants while navigating one of their steamers named the Trident. The two vessels came into collision on the night in question near the Mouse Light and about seven miles below the Nore, and the consequence was that the Harewood, after striking the Trident upon the starboard bow, sank almost immediately. The master and one out of the seven seamen on board the collier were saved and taken on board the Trident. The learned counsel now contended, upon an examination of the evidence, that the verdict ought to have been the other way.
Lord CAMPBELL.—You may take a rule.
NICHOL V. OLIVER.
This was one of four actions brought by different parties against the defendant, a shipowner at Liverpool, to recover various sums for work done and stores supplied to a vessel named the Progress, at the latter end of the year 1852. At the trial which took place at Guildhall
, before Lord Campbell
, at the sittings after last term, the plaintiff obtained a verdict.
Mr. BRAMWELL, Q.C., now moved for a rule nisi for a new trial, upon the ground that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
Lord CAMPBELL said, the learned counsel might take a rule, and inquired whether he (Mr. Bramwell) intended to move in the other cases?
Mr. BRANWELL said, he had not yet had an opportunity of consulting with his client upon that subject. Subsequently, the matter was again mentioned, when it was understood rules were granted in all the cases,
Rule nisi granted.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, WESTMINSTER, FEB. 15, 1854. (Sittings at Nisi Prius, after Term, in London, before Lord Chief Justice JERVIS
and Common Jurics.
SWIFT V. POOLEY.
In this case the plaintiff and defendant are both iron merchants in the city of London, and the plaintiff brought the present action to recover 1,1451. 2s. 8d., damages which he alleged he had sustained in the purchase of a ship called the Glasgow from the defendant, the condition of which he alleged the defendant had misrepresented.
Mr. Serjeant Byles and Mr. Petersdorff appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Watson, Q.C., and Mr. Prentice for the defendant.
It appeared that the vessel in question was formerly the property of a Mr. Oliver, of Liverpool, of whom the defendant purchased it for 3,5001., on a representation that 1,0001. had been spent upon her in repairs, and that she had been new coppered. The defendant then chartered the vessel from London to Cardiff, and thence for a foreign voyage. Before the vessel sailed the defendant sold her to the plaintiff for 5,0001., taking payment in bills, and representing the vessel to the plaintiff as she had been represented to him by Oliver. On the arrival of the vessel at Cardiff it was discovered that she was not seaworthy, and she was obliged to be sent back to Bristol to refit. The cost of the repairs and the demurrage she incurred under the charter-party amounted to the damages the plaintiff now sought to recover.
For the defence it was contended that the representation which had been made to the plaintiff as to the condition of the vessel had been made bond fide; and that the defendant was not therefore responsible for the unsoundness of the ship, which was not disputed.
His LORDSHIP, in summing up, left it to the jury to say whether the vessel was unsound within the defendant's knowledge when he made the representa