cause at the time she collided she had finished her turn and was at anchor; and there is the fact that the man who was at the wheel was sent away to get the anchor lights out. I have not to decide that, in my view, because, as I have said, assuming she is what she says she is, not a ship at anchor but a ship under way in turning, she has clearly broken Rule 23.

The F. W. Fischer must be to blame. She was not giving the Lovstakken any assistance or warning to which she was entitled. It was said that, because the bearing did not alter, those on the Lovstakken ought to have come to the conclusion that something was wrong on the F. W. Fischer. Well, whether the bearing altered or not-witnesses say they did not notice any alteration of bearing, and on that I am to infer there was no alteration-I am not prepared to accept that for the whole of the time she was with her anchor leading out and not moving her engines. There was a period during those five minutes in which she put her engines first half and then full speed ahead; and I am not prepared to say there was not a period during that time when she was moving somewhat.

I arrive at the conclusion that there was nothing which called upon those in charge of the Lorstakken to assume that the F. W. Fischer was otherwise than what she was. It follows that the Lovstakken cannot be blamed for porting and again porting to a ship whose duty, if she was under way, was to pass the Lovstakken by porting herself. The real case made against the Lorstakken was that the collision happened to the north of the channel, but in my view that rested only on the evidence of the pilot. I say that because, although the master said it was well to the north of the channel, it became apparent that he did not appreciate the difference between the navigable channel at this point in Gravesend Reach and the wider channel, a part of which is occupied by the anchorage ground. You have to rest therefore entirely on the pilot. The defendants had one good means of showing where their ship was, because their anchor was lost in the collision and it was recovered; and it would have been of great assistance to me if those who had recovered it and handed it over to the defendants had been sent to say where they had found it. Yet I am without that assistance.

I am advised that the manoeuvre which the F. W. Fischer took was calculated to bring her south of mid-channel, even though she started well over towards the north shore, because she went full ahead with hard-a-port helm, and at this point half the channel is not more than a cable and a quarter. The pilot was asked how far he came southward; and he said: "Some distance, about a cable "; and you get therefore almost over the middle line.

Mr. Stephens laid great emphasis upon the plaintiffs' pleading. He said they pleaded that they were anchored about two points to starboard off the down-river course, when they saw the other ship about abreast of Terrace pier and saw her two

or three points off the port bow. If you take those points and make them see the other ship three points on their bow, you do get the F. W. Fischer north of mid-channel; indeed, you get her on to the north land. The point made by Mr. Stephens is too good -it breaks down because it produces results that are absurd.

In all the circumstances I see no reason to doubt the plaintiffs' evidence; and I find the collision did in fact happen south of the river; and, that being so, the Lovstakken was free from blame.

Judgment was given for plaintiffs accordingly.

ADMIRALTY DIVISION.

Tuesday, Nov. 3, 1925.

THE "RUTH KAYSER."

Before Mr. Justice HILL.

Ships' necessaries—Appraisement and sale -Sale by Admiralty Marshal--Alleged interference by circulation of rumours as to private sale.

The circumstances with regard to this German ship again came before the Court to-day. It is now lying at Sunderland under arrest, and the matter arose on an application by the Admiralty Marshal for directions as to the sale of the vessel.

Previous proceedings in connection with the Ruth Kayser were reported at p. 24

ante.

Upon taking his seat Mr. Justice HILL said there had been an order for the sale of the vessel, which had been put into the hands of the Marshal's brokers, who had experienced great difficulty because there were persistent rumours that it was being sold privately. If that rumour continued to be circulated it would prevent people from coming to look at the vessel. The Marshal had given notice to everyone, the owners included, and he understood the owners had not entered any appearance. His Lordship asked if anyone appeared now.

A representative of Messrs. Botterell & Roche said he represented the master and

crew.

Mr. Justice HILL: Have you got your judgment? No, my Lord. His LORDSHIP added that when an order for sale had been made in that Court, and the owner chose to carry out some private negotiations of his own, he would land himself into difficulty, while anyone dealing with him would know he could not give a good title. If an owner in such circumstances got private information, his duty was to bring it to the attention of the Marshal so that everyone might benefit by it. He was not going to have private owners interfering with the orders of the Court when it gave an order that there was to be a sale. If anyone did

interfere, he would have to consider whether it was contempt of Court or not. If there were any private offers, let them be brought to the notice of the Marshal. The sale must go on by the Marshal without interference.

ADMIRALTY DIVISION.

Wednesday, Nov. 4, 1925.

THE "BORS."

Before Mr. Justice HILL, sitting with Captain OWEN JONES, C.B.E., and Captain G. GREGORY, C.B.E., D.S.O., R.D., Elder Brethren of Trinity House.

Collision at entrance of Surrey Commercial Docks, River Thames-Negligent navigation on part of plaintiff vessel while crossing the river-Warning not given to defendant ressel-Plaintiff ship held alone to blame.

In this case the owners of the steel screw steamship P. N. Damm, of Copenhagen, claimed damages in consequence of a collision with the defendants' steel screw steamship Bors, of Oslo.

Mr. C. R. Dunlop, K.C. (instructed by Messrs. Thomas Cooper & Co.), appeared for the plaintiffs; while the defendants were represented by Mr. G. P. Langton, K.C. (instructed by Messrs. Ince. Colt, Ince & Roscoe).

The plaintiffs' case was that shortly before 510 p.m. on Dec. 31, 1924, the P. N. Damm, a steel screw steamship of Copenhagen, of 2281 tons gross and 1366 tons net register, 305 ft. long and 40 ft. beam, fitted with engines of 205-h.p. nom. and manned by a crew of 22 hands all told, 'was, while on a voyage from Kotka and Obo, Finland, to the Surrey Commercial Docks laden with a cargo of wood, in the River Thames near the Surrey entrance to the Surrey Commercial Docks, in charge of a Trinity House pilot. The wind was westerly, the weather was fine and clear, and the tide was the last of the flood of the force of about one knot. The P. N. Damm, which had been at anchor on the north side of the river, was working over to the Surrey entrance making about two knots. Her stem was about abreast of a dolphin which was near the upper pierhead of the entrance; and she was angled three or four points to the southward. It was intended to place the ship with her starboard side next to the dolphin. She carried the regulation two masthead lights, side lights and stern light, which were being duly exhibited and were burning brightly. A good look-out was being kept.

In these circumstances those on board the P. N. Damm observed the single masthead light and the red light of a steamship which proved to be the Bors, coming down the river at a distance of about three to

four cables and bearing about three to four points on the starboard quarter. The P. N. Damm continued to manœuvre with her engines working half speed ahead and stopping at intervals and her helm a-port, gradually getting more athwart river. The Bors came on, opening her green light and shutting out her red light, and was heard to sound one short blast on her whistle. The whistle of the P. N. Damm sounded two short blasts in reply and her helm was starboarded a little, but the Bors came on at considerable speed, sounded three short blasts on her whistle, let go both her anchors and with her stem struck the starboard quarter of the P. N. Damm near the stern, doing her considerable damage. The starboard anchor of the P. N. Damm was let go, forcing the starboard side of the P. N. Damm into collision with the dolphin, doing further damage.

Plaintiffs alleged that a good look-out was not being kept on board the Bors; that she was proceeding at an excessive rate of speed in the circumstances; that she improperly failed to keep out of the way of the P. N. Damm; that she improperly. ported her helm and improperly failed to starboard her helm or to do so sufficiently; that she improperly failed to slacken her speed or to stop or reverse her engines or to do so in due time; and that she improperly failed to comply with Arts. 37, 39, 41 and 42 of the Port of London River ByLaws, 1914.

According to the defendants' case, the Bors, a steel screw steamship of Oslo, of 1208 tons gross and 722 tons net register, 238 ft. in length, fitted with triple expansion engines of 116-h.p. nom. and manned by a crew of 17 hands all told, was in the Lower Pool, River Thames, on a voyage from London to Newport (Mon.) in ballast. The Bors, which was in charge of a duly licensed pilot, was on a down-river course, keeping to the south of mid-channel; and was proceeding at a speed of about four knots. The wind at the time was S.W., the weather fine and clear, and the tide flood of a force of about two knots. The Bors was exhibiting the regulation masthead (single) side and stern lights, which were burning brightly; and a good lookout was being kept.

In these circumstances those on board the Bors particularly noticed the white stern light of a vessel, which afterwards proved to be the P. N. Damm, at a distance of about a quarter of a mile, and bearing about two points on the port bow. The Bors, having sounded a short blast to a tug and tow coming up the river, continued on, keeping to the south side of the channel. The P. N. Dimm, however, after sounding two short blasts on her whistle, was observed to open her two masthead and green side lights. The engines of the Bors were at once stopped, but as the P. N. Damm appeared to be coming across the river rapidly, the engines of the Bors were immediately put full speed astern, three short blasts were sounded on her whistle, her helm was put hard-a-starboard, and both anchors were let go; but nevertheless the

P. N. Damm, coming on, with her starboard quarter struck the stem of the Bors. Defendants alleged that those responsible for the navigation of the P. N. Damm were negligent in that they failed to keep a good look-out; improperly and at an improper time attempted to cross the river; improperly and at an improper time came ahead and failed to ease, stop or reverse their engines in due time or at all; failed to sound the appropriate whistle signals and sounded an improper and misleading signal; and failed to comply with Nos. 23, 34, 39, 40 and 42 of the Port of London River ByLaws, 1914.

Thursday, Nov. 5, 1925.

JUDGMENT.

Mr. Justice BATESON, in giving judgment. said: In this case I find the P. N. Damm alone to blame. The two ships are the P. N. Damm, 305 ft. long, and the Bors, 238 ft. long; they were not very large ships. The Bors was in ballast and the P. N. Damm had a wood cargo.

The collision happened on Dec. 31 last year at 5 10 in the evening, in the River Thames near the entrance to the Surrey Commercial Docks. The P. N. Damm desired to enter the docks and was waiting in the Thames. Her stern was somewhere about abreast of a dolphin which is situated near the upper pierhead of the entrance; and the ship was angled about four points off the up and down-river course. There was a strong westerly wind. One of the pilots said it was almost a gale, but at any rate there was considerable strength in the wind. The tide was about the force of one knot. The P. N. Damm lay about 1700 ft. above the entrance and 150 or 200 ft. out from the shore. The P. N. Damm lay there while other vessels were going into the Surrey Docks; and when at last the way was clear she proceeded to go into the docks herself. She proceeded to get up anchor at about 55 p.m., according to the engineer's log book: and the collision took place at 510 p.m. I do not know that I should rely too much on the exact number of minutes the operation took. Having got up anchor the P. N. Damm had to go through an action which would throw her stern towards the north shore and her bow in the stream. There she had to wait while the Stanton-or at any rate some other such tug-passed to the south of her. One tug passed to the north; so that one passed to the south and one to the north. Not until these had got clear away was the P. N. Damm able to go to the Surrey entrance. Evidence has been given that she went at a speed of two knots. The speed could not have been very great because the distance that had to be crossed was only about 520 ft. of water. The P. N. Damm had only about 500 ft. of water for the stern to go across. It was a very

small space indeed. All these figures are purely estimates; and if they were gone into carefully they might be found to be on the generous side rather than the narrow.

In these circumstances the P. N. Damm was going across the river when the Bors was perceived about three cable's lengths away. I am content that the two vessels saw each other at much the same distance and at much the same time. The red light of the Bors showed her to be right over in her own proper water. The P. N. Damm did not wait and let the Bors go by but continued with her manoeuvres. These kept on going on until just before the collision, when those on board the P. N. Damm saw the green light of the Bors, showing that they had just crossed the bows of the Bors. The collision happened very shortly afterwards.

The signals were these: one short blast was sounded by the Bors and the P. N. Damm replied with two short blasts. The Bors, which was coming down, saw that the other ship was starting out on the north side and kept on going down on her proper side at no great speedabout four knots-and with a white light on the port bow. The Bors did not realise that anything was wrong until the P. N. Damm opened her two masthead and green side lights. That caused the Bors to stop her engines and reverse to full speed astern. Her helm was put hard-a-starboard and both anchors were dropped. She sounded three short blasts on her whistle, but a collision took place, the stem of the Bors striking the starboard quarter of the P. N. Damm, doing very little damage. The P. N. Damm also struck the dolphin; and this did further damage. It is most important to bear in mind that the damage was slight because the Bors took action so soon that it got four knots off by the time of the collision. The witnesses called for the P. N. Damm gave evidence that the Bors when 450 yds. away was taking action to avoid the collision. These are the facts as I find them.

What is the result? It seems to me that in this case the rules of the Thames provide, for a vessel crossing the river from one side or another, that it has to navigate so as not to do damage to other vessels. Care must be taken. The rule was altered in 1914 and the old rule done away with. It remains now that a crossing vessel must not cause obstruction, injury or damage to other vessels, and must not behave herself as though she had the right of way.

I think, therefore, that the action of these two ships was a sort of give and take, with this obligation on the crossing vessel that inasmuch as she was doing manœuvres less ordinary than going up and down the river she must give warning as to what her movements are, or if she cannot she must be careful. The P. N. Damm always presented a stern light to the down-coming ship. That stern light in the manoeuvres would be going to the north, and with vessels like this it is es

sential that they should do everything possible to warn the down-coming vessel. The P. N. Damm did nothing to warn the Bors. They did nothing to show what they were doing; and there was no warning, except that two blasts were sounded. These two blasts would have been most misleading if the pilot of the down-coming vessel had thought that they were nothing to do with him. If they were anything to do with him it meant that the other vessel was going to the north side out of his way. A long warning blast would have been better, or still better, a short blast. That short blast would have indicated I am coming across, so look out." Be that as it may, no warning was given. The Bors ought to have seen the stern light coming slowly towards her. But even if I thought that the Bors had delayed a little in taking action, I could not find her negligent in this case. I am satisfied that the small amount of damage and the amount of way she lost showed that she did take action. I have consulted the Elder Brethren on the point; and we all think that the time and space available for the P. N. Damm to get across made it most difficult for the Bors to realise what the manœuvres were.

I find that the Bors did take the right action; and I cannot see anything for which I can blame the Bors at all. I think they kept a good look-out. I was not impressed at all by the evidence of the waterman. I think he saw a great deal too much. I cannot see how I can possibly blame the pilot of the Bors. Possibly the pilot of the P. N. Damm thought he had the right of way and was entitled to blow two blasts, answering the blast from the Bors and to show he was not accepting the position of the Bors. But I do not think that that is said. He gave his evidence fairly, I think. I have found that there was not great headway on the P. N. Damm at the time of the collision; and I think she looked to be going faster than she really was. The boatman says that the rope was out; but that only shows that he picked the rope off the bow.

Perhaps I ought to say this. I think that to ask a ship, going down the river in its own proper water like the Bors, to starboard at this spot and with nearly a high tide would be very dangerous-especially if he was going to starboard to a white light on his port bow.

I give judgment for the defendants.

ADMIRALTY DIVISION.

Thursday, Nov. 5, 1925.

THE ABERDALE" AND THE
"ATSUTA MARU."

Before Mr. Justice HILL, sitting with
Captain O. P. MARSHALL, C.B.E., and
Captain A. H. RYLEY, Elder Brethren
of Trinity House.

Double collision in River Thames in broad daylight-Cross allegations of negligent navigation by three ships.

In this action, the owners of the Frej sought to recover for damage done to their vessel in a collision which OCcurred in the Lower Hope Reach of the Thames on June 6 last, owing to the alleged negligent navigation of one of the defendants, which was denied.

Mr. C. R. Dunlop, K.C., and Mr. R. H. Balloch (instructed by Messrs. Thos. Cooper & Co.) appeared for plaintiffs; Mr. W. N. Raeburn, K.C., and Mr. Harold Stranger (instructed by Messrs. Downing, Middleton & Lewis) were for the Aberdale; Mr. G. P. Langton, K.C., and Mr. H. C. S. Dumas (instructed by Messrs. Walters & Co.) represented the Atsuta Maru.

These were two actions tried together, and in the first one, against the Aberdale, the latter said that her collision with the Frej was the result of her (the Aberdale's) collision with the Atsuta Maru, and that the Atsuta Maru was to blame for the collision. In these circumstances the plaintiffs joined the Atsuta Maru as co-defendants.

a

According to the plaintiffs' case, shortly before 3 p.m. B.S.T. on June 6, 1925, the Frej, an iron screw steamship of Helsingborg, of 2160 tons gross and 1214 tons net register, 280 ft. long and 40 ft. beam, fitted with engines of 272-h.p. nom. and manned by a crew of 24 hands all told, was, while on voyage from Gefle to Rochester laden with a cargo of wood pulp, in the Lower Hope Reach, River Thames, in charge of a duly licensed pilot. The wind was between S.E. to E. light; the weather was fine and clear, and the tide was ebb of a force of about two knots. The Frej was proceeding up the Reach on the starboard side of the channel making about eight knots; and a good look-out was being kept on board of her.

In these circumstances those on board the

Frej observed a large steamship which proved to be the Atsuta Maru coming down river above the Ovens Buoy, bearing ahead or on the port bow and distant about 2 to three miles. The Frej continued her course up river at the same speed. When the Atsuta Maru had drawn nearer, her head was observed to be coming to port; one short blast was sounded on the steam whistle of the Frej and her helm was ported and afterwards steadied. The Atsuta Maru was observed to be porting; as she did so a steamship which proved to be the Aberdale was observed close under

the stern of the Atsuta Maru distant about 200 to 300 yds. and bearing about four points on the port bow with the starboard side of her stem open. Very shortly afterwards the Aberdale sounded three short blasts on her whistle and her head fell more to port; and, although the engines of the Frej were kept working full speed ahead as the best means of avoiding a collision or of lessening its effect and shortly before the collision the helm was hard-a-starboarded in an endeavour to throw the quarter clear, the Aberdale with her stem and port bow struck the starboard side of the Frej aft, doing her so much damage that she had to be beached with the assistance of a tug.

Plaintiffs alleged that a good look-out was not being kept on board the Aberdale; that she improperly failed to keep to her starboard side of mid-channel and to pass the Frej port side to port side; that her head was improperly allowed to fall to port; that her engines were not reversed or stopped; and that she failed to indicate by signal the course she was taking. Plaintiffs also alleged that the Atsuta Maru was negligent in that she did not keep a good look-out and so keep out of the way of the Aberdale; that she attempted to pass to the southward of the Aberdule at an improper time; and that she did not give warning of the course she was taking.

According to the first defendants, shortly before 36 p.m. on June 6, 1925, the Aberdule, a screw steamship of 621 tons gross and 264 net register, 175 ft. in length and manned by a crew of 14 hands all told, was entering Lower Hope Reach, River Thames, on a voyage from London to Sunderland, in water ballast. The weather was fine and clear, the wind was easterly light air and the tide was ebb of about one to two knots force. The Aberdale on her own starboard side of the channel was on a down-river course; and the Atsuta Maru was overtaking the Aberdale on the starboard quarter. The Aberdule was making about ten knots; and a good look-out was being kept on board of her.

In these circumstances a steamship which proved to be the Frej was observed about 11⁄2 miles distant and bearing on the port bow. The Aberdale kept her steady down-river course to pass through Lower Hope Reach on the starboard side of midchannel and she kept her speed, but as the Atsuta Maru overtook the Aberdale on the starboard side she closed her; and although the Aberdale starboarded the Atsuta Maru continued to approach, and although the Aberdale starboarded more, shortly afterwards the Atsuta Maru with her port side from about amidships to her quarter struck the starboard broadside of the Aberdale doing damage. Immediately afterwards a short blast was heard and the head of the Atsuta Maru went off to starboard; and her port quarter remaining in contact with the Aberdale forward of amidships forced the Aberdale's head more to port. As the Atsuta Maru had angled towards the Aberdale she had shut out the view of the Frej,

but as her head went off to starboard she disclosed the Frej on the starboard bow of the Aberdule. The Aberdule at once reversed her engines and sounded three short blasts and as soon as practicable put her helm hard-a-port; but this was just at the moment of collision with the Frej which with her port side aft struck the stem of the Aberdule, doing damage.

Defendants alleged that plaintiffs or their servants in charge of the Frej were negligent in not keeping a good look-out; not keeping to her own starboard side of the channel; not porting sufficiently and not giving the Atsuta Maru and the Aberdale more room; and in attempting to cross ahead of the Aberdale without giving warning of the course she was taking.

In the alternative these defendants said that the collision with the Frej was caused or contributed to by the negligence of the Atsuta Maru in not keeping out of the way of the Aberdale and in attempting to pass the Aberdale at an improper time and without giving the necessary signal.

According to the second defendants, shortly before 32 p.m. on June 6, 1925, the Atsuta Maru, a steel twin-screw steamship of Tokio, of 7893 tons gross and 4959 tons net, fitted with triple expansion engines of 793-h.p. nom., and of the length of 473 ft. with a beam of 54 ft., was in the Lower Hope Reach, River Thames, on a voyage from London to Japan, with a general cargo, manned by a crew of 150 hands all told, and in charge of a duly licensed Trinity House pilot. The weather at the time was slightly hazy, the wind was about E.N.E. a light breeze, and the tide was about 11 hours ebb, of the force of about two knots. The Atsuta Maru was proceeding on a downriver course of N.E. N. mag., keeping well to the southward of mid-channel, and with engines working at full speed ahead was making about 12 knots over the ground. The Atsuta Maru had for some time been overtaking the steamship Aberdale, which when first particularly noticed had been distant about half a mile and bearing on the port bow of the Atsuta Maru. At the time in question the Aberdale was about 100 ft. distant from the Atsuta Maru and was bearing on the port side of the Atsuta Maru. A good look-out was being kept on board the Atsuta Maru.

In these circumstances, and as the Atsuta Maru was drawing ahead of the Aberdale, those on board the Atsuta Maru observed that the helm of the Aberdale was being put to port and that the head of the Aberdale was falling to starboard and towards the Atsuta Maru. The engines of the Atsuta Maru were thereupon immediately stopped and her pilot loudly and repeatedly blew on his pocket whistle, and the Aberdale was waved to and loudly hailed to starboard her helm and to keep clear of the Atsuta Maru, but the Aberdale, continuing to swing in towards the Atsuta Maru, with her starboard bow came against the port quarter of the Atsuta Maru in the way of the aft main rigging, doing herself the damage complained of.