standing over since about the month of August last. It has stood over, so far as the particular contest is concerned between the second mortgagees and the plaintiffs, for two or three weeks, and we are not now in a position to be informed as to how the plaintiffs can put their case in the present proceedings to justify a claim for a charge or equitable mortgage, or something of that character, upon the ship. It is clear to my mind that they cannot do it under the writ which they have served in this ca-e, which is confined to necessaries supplied, and at present I am not able to see, nor has counsel for the plaintiffs very clearly suggested to me, how any amendment of the writ can rectify that position. At any rate, such an amendment would have to be made upon this writ, if it can be made, in order to proceed in the proper way in this case, and, if I thought that I were in any way prejudicing the plaintiffs, I should not dispose of this matter finally until I had seen what kind of amendment they could propose; but, in my judgment, it does not prevent them, if they have got any claim, to get at these proceeds by virtue of a lien, charge, or hypothecation or equitable mortgage, making their claim against the fund in court by intervening in the suit by the second mortgagees, which they have already done, and by applying, when these proceeds are paid out, that they should be paid if they have any right to them or a part of them. Therefore I think I must deal with this case as it stands, and to my mind the plaintiffs have wholly failed to make out a case such as they started in this matter, and I am of opinion that their claim must be dismissed, and that, as regards the costs, the plaintiffs must bear their own costs, except so far as those costs have been necessary for the purpose of the sale of the ship, and they must pay the second mortgagees' costs from the time when the second mortgagees appeared. Solicitors for the plaintiffs, Stokes and Stokes. Solicitors for the interveners, Ince, Colt, and Ince. Tuesday, Jan. 24, 1905. Limitation of liability-Title of suit-Description of plaintiffs-Life claims-Bail in lieu of payment into court. 66 Where the owners of a vessel seek to limit their liability in respect of a collision under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 60), ss. 503, 504, it is not sufficient to describe the plaintiffs on the writ as The owners of the ship or vessel." The action is one for personal relief, and the names of the owners of the vessel at the time of the collision should be set out on the face of the writ. Where the owners of the vessel at fault institute a suit for the purpose of limiting their liability in respect of a collision which has caused loss of life, and in respect of which loss of life the claims made do not amount to the total limit of the owners' statutory liability, the court may grant a decree on the plaintiffs giving bail for an amount to be fixed by the court and an under(a) Reported by L. F. C. DARBY, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. [ADM. taking to give bail if required for the balance of their statutory liability instead of requiring them to pay into court the total amount of their statutory liability in respect of the life claims. LIMITATION SUIT. On the 9th Sept. 1904 a collision occurred between the steamship Inventor and the steamship Goolistan off the coast of Portugal. As the result of the collision the Goolistan sank, and her mate and six other members of her crew were drowned. In the damage suit brought by the owners of the Goolistan against the owners of the Inventor to recover their damage, the Inventor was on the 28th Nov. 1904 found alone to blame for the collision. On the 6th Dec. 1904 the Charente Steamship Company Limited, the owners of the sixty-four shares in the Inventor, instituted proceedings to limit their liability in respect of the collision under the provisions of sects. 503 and 504 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894. On the writ in that action the plaintiffs were described as "The owners of the steamship Inventor," and the writ was headed: Between the owners of the steamship Inventor, plain. tiffs, and the owners of the steamship Goolistan, the survivors of her crew, and the owners of her cargo, the legal personal representatives of those of her crew who lost their lives, and all and every other person and persons whomsoever claiming or being entitled to claim compensation in respect of loss of life or property, or of personal injury, or of damage to property occasioned by the collision between the steamship Inventor and the steamship Goolistan, defendants. The gross tonnage of the Inventor, less crew space, was 2220-07 tons. The amount of the plaintiffs' statutory liability in respect of property claims at 81. a ton was 17,760l. 11s. 2d., and in respect of life claims at 77. a ton was 15,5407. 9s. 9d. The case came before the court on motion for judgment. A. D. Bateson appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs seek to limit their liability in respect of this collision. In respect of the property claims they are ready to pay into court the sum of 17,760l. 11s. 2d. and 2667. 13s., being interest at 4 per cent. from the date of the collision. With regard to the life claims, only one for 7501. has been made by the relations of the mate. It is submitted that the court may make a decree limiting the liability of the plaintiffs without requiring them to pay into court the further sum of 15,540l. 98. 9d. to meet any further claims which may be made in respect of any injury to or loss of life. The plaintiffs are ready to give bail for 3000l. in respect of the life claims, and to give an undertaking to put in bail for any further sum up to 15,540l. 98. 9d., which is the limit of their statutory liability with regard to life claims. H. C. S. Dumas for the owners of the Goolistan. L. Noad for the owners of certain cargo laden on the Goolistan. GORELL BARNES, J.-The decree may go on the plaintiffs paying into court in respect of the property claims the sum of 17,760l. Îls. 2d. and interest from the date of the collision, and, in respect of the life claims, on giving bail in 30007. and an undertaking to give bail for a further sum not exceeding 15,540l. 9s. 9d. With regard to the title of this action, I have, I think, before this drawn attention to the fact that it is not proper in these limitation suits to merely describe the plaintiffs as the owners of the ship. The right given to owners of vessels to limit their liability in respect of damage caused by collision is a statutory right to personal relief given to the owners individually, and so the names of the owners should be stated on the writ. Solicitors for the plaintiffs, Pritchard, Englefield, and Co., for Simpson, North, Harley, and Co., Liverpool. Solicitors for the defendants the owners of the Goolistan, Botterell and Roche. Solicitors for the defendants the owners of cargo on the Goolistan, Pritchard and Sons for A. M. Jackson and Co., Hull. Jan. 27, 31, and Feb. 1, 1905. (Before GORELL BARNES, J.) THE ORAVIA. (a) Fog signal Collision - Fog- Moderate speed forward of the beam-Duty of vessel hearing it to stop-Ascertained position-Right of vessel to proceed-Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1897, art. 16. The steamship O., while on a voyage from Liverpool to Monte Video, was off Lobos Island, River Plate, proceeding at ten knots on a course of W. N. The weather was fine with passing banks of fog, and shortly after entering the fog the O. came into collision with the N., a steamship which had been heard on the starboard bow of the O. after that vessel had entered the fog. The N. was on a course of E. by S. mag. netic, and, having first seen the O. on the port bow about three miles off in a position to pass all clear port to port, watched her broaden on the port bow, and saw her hidden by the fog which came on. Shortly afterwards those on the N. heard a short blast sounded on the whistle of the O. The N. answered it with a short blast, her helm was ported, and, as the fog was beginning to envelop the N., her engines were put to slow, and, on further signals being heard from the O., were put full speed astern, and shortly afterwards the collision occurred. Held, that the O. was to blame for not going at a moderate speed in the fog; and that the N. was not to blame for not stopping her engines on hearing the whistle of the O., as under the circumstances the position of the O. was tained. ACTION of damage. ascer The plaintiffs were the owners of the Italian steamship Nereus. The defendants and counter-claimants were the Pacific Steam Navigation Company, the owners of the steamship Oravia. The collision which gave rise to this action occurred early in the afternoon of the 9th Oct. 1904 off Lobos Island, at the entrance to the River Plate. (a) Reported by L. F. C. DARBY, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. [ADM. The case made by the plaintiffs was that the Nereus, a screw steamship of 4056 tons gross register, manned by a crew of twenty-seven hands all told, was about 1.55 pm. on the 9th Oct. off Lobos Island, on a voyage from La Plata to St. Vincent with a cargo of maize. The weather was fine and clear, the wind easterly light, and a current was setting about north-north-west at about one to one and a half knots. The Nereus, steering E. by S. magnetic, was making about eight knots an hour, and a good look-out was being kept on board her. In these circumstances, those on board her saw about three miles off, and about a point on the port bow, a steamship which proved to be the Oravia. The Nereus was kept on her course, and the Oravia, which was apparently on an opposite course, was approaching in a direction to pass the Nereus all clear port side to port side. Some time after the Oravia was sighted, and when that vessel had broadened on the port bow of the Nereus, she was suddenly hidden from view by fog which was apparently coming down the coast. Shortly afterwards what appeared to be one short blast was heard to be sounded on the whistle of the Oravia, and the whistle of the Nereus was sounded one short blast in reply, her helm was ported a little to give the Oravia a wider berth, and her engines were put to slow as the fog was beginning to envelop the Nereus.· Almost immediately afterwards the Oravia sounded two short blasts on her whistle, and thereupon the helm of the Nereus was put harda port, her engines were stopped, and her whistle was sounded a short blast. This signal was almost instantly repeated in answer to a second two-short-blast signal from the Oravia, and at the same time the engines of the Nereus were put full speed astern, and her whistle was sounded three short blasts. The Oravia then suddenly came in sight having great speed upon her, and acting apparently under a starboard helm, and with her stem she shortly afterwards struck the port side of the Nereus in the way of the forward part of the fore rigging, cutting right into her, causing her such damage that she began to make water rapidly. Three short blasts were heard from the Oravia just before the collision actually occurred. After the collision those in charge of the Nereus endeavoured to get their vessel into port, but the fog became and remained so dense, and the vessel made water so rapidly, that she bad to be beached to prevent her foundering in deep water. The Nereus was subsequently kalved, and taken to Monte Video. Those on the Nereus charged those on the Oravia with not sounding their whistle for the fog; with proceeding at an immoderate speed; with improperly starboarding; with attempting to cross ahead of the Nereus; and with failing to slacken her speed or stop or reverse her engines. The case made by the defendants was that shortly before 2.23 p.m. on the 9th Oct. 1904 the Oravia, a twin-screw steamship of 5321 tons gross and 3318 tons net register, manned by a crew of 145 hands all told, was, whilst bound from Liverpool to Monte Video with passengers and general cargo, to the southward and eastward of Lobos Island, at the entrance to the River Plate. The weather was fine and clear, but with passing banks of fog coming off the land on the starboard bow with the light north-westerly wind. The Oravia was on a course of W. N. magnetic, and, with engines working at reduced full speed, was making about ten knots. Her whistle was being kept duly sounded for fog at iegular intervals, and a good look-out was being kept on board of her. In these circumstances the fog signal of the Nereus was heard sounding in a bank of fog broad on the starboard bow. The starboard engine of the Oravia was at once stopped, and the port engine was stopped and put full speed astern, the helm was put harda-starboard, and two short blasts were sounded on the whistle in reply. Very shortly afterwards the Nereus came in sight out of the fog bank from three to four hundred yards off, and bearing about three points on the starboard bow. The starboard engine of the Oravia was at once put full speed astern, and the two-shortblast signal was repeated. The Nereus, however, came on at a high rate of speed, swinging rapidly under a port Lelm, and sounding a short blast on her whistle, and with her port side in the way of the fore rigging struck the Oravia a heavy blow on the stem and starboard bow, doing considerable damage. Immediately before the collision the Oravia sounded three short blasts on her whistle, to which the Nereus replied with three short blasts. The defendants alleged that the Nereus might have been safely taken into port, that she need not have been beached, and that the expenses incurred in salving her need not have been incurred. Those on the Oravia charged those on the Nereus with not sounding their whistle for the fog; with proceeding at an immoderate speed; with neglecting to stop their engines on first hearing the fog signal of the Oravia forward of their beam; with improperly porting; and with neglecting to stop and reverse her engines. Art. 16 of the Regulations for Preventing Col. lisions at Sea is as follows: Every vessel shall, in a fog, mist, falling snow, or heavy rainstorms, go at a moderate speed, having careful regard to the existing circumstances and conditions. A steam vessel hearing, apparently forward of her beam, the fog signal of a vessel, the position of which is not ascertained, shall, so far as the circumstances of the case admit, stop her engines, and then navigate with caution until danger of collision is over. Laing, K.C. and D. Stephens for the plaintiffs. Aspinall, K.C. and C. Dunlop for the defendants. During the progress of the case the following cases were mentioned: The Milanese, 45 L. T. Rep. 151; 4 Asp. Mar. Law The N. Strong, 67 L. T. Rep. 299; 7 Asp. Mar. Law The Bernard Hall, 86 L. T. Rep. 658; 9 Asp. Mar. GORELL BARNES, J.-The collision in this case took place between the Nereus and the Oravia on the 9th Oct. 1904 in the early afternoon; there is a difference in the time given by the one side and the other, but that is probably due to the ships' times not being the same. The collision took [ADM. place off the coast of Uruguay, near Lobos Island, which is off the entrance to the estuary of the River Plate. The Nereus is an Italian steamship of 4056 tons gross register, and was manned by a crew of twenty-seven hands: She was on a voyage from La Plata to St. Vincent for orders with a cargo of maize. The Gravia is a twinscrew steamship of 5321 tong gross register, belonging to the Pacific Steam Navigation Company, and was bound from Liverpool, via Rio Janeiro, to Monte Video, with passengers and a general cargo, manned by a crew of 125 hands all told. The case is one of considerable magnitude, partly because of the damage done immediately by the collision, and partly because the Nereus was so much injured that an attempt had to be made to beach her, and unfortunately, in makingfor a spot to beach her, she touched on the Monarch Rock in Maldonado Bay and sustained further injuries, and I gather the damage is extensive. The damage to the Oravia is also considerable. The plaintiffs' case is that the weather before the occurrence, and up to shortly before it, was fine; that the Nereus was steering E. by S. magnetic, making about eight knots an hour; and that they saw the Oravia on the port bow at a distance of about three miles before she was lost sight of in the fog that came on. There is a very remarkable difference in the plaintiffs' case and that made by the defendants, who say that no vessel was in sight before the fog came down. The plaintiffs' say that in that locality the only courses which the ships could practically be on were nearly opposite ones, because there was nowhere else to go from, or come to, except the River Plate. So that, seeing this vessel on their port bow, if both vessels kept their course they would pass all right. evidence shows that they must have been nearly right, and the locality shows that they would be keeping on an E. by S. course, the other vessel possibly being not quite on a directly opposite course-the defendants say they were on a W. N. course. The plaintiffs say that the Oravia broadened on the port bow of the Nereus, while still visible, and that she was then hidden from view by the fog which came down from the coast, and that when this short blast, or what was taken for it, was heard, the helm of the Nereus was ported a little and her engines were put to slow, as the fog was beginning to come towards them too. The Oravia then sounded two short blasts on her whistle, the helm of the Nereus was put hard-a-port, her engines stopped, her whistle sounded a short blast, and the two-short-blast signal from the other ship was repeated immediately, and the engines of the Nereus were put full speed astern, and her whistle sounded two short blasts; but the Oravia came into sight, swinging round under a starboard helm, and struck her a blow, which I think is agreed at somewhere about a six or seven-point blow leading forward. The complaint made against the Oravia is that she improperly starboarded into the Nereus. The The Oravia's case is that while proceeding on this W. N. magnetic course, with her engines working at reduced full speed, making ten knotsthough I think there is some confusion as to that, because the reduction of steam does not seem in the evidence quite in accord with that in the logand sounding her whistle for fog, she heard the fog whistle of the Nereus on her starboard bow that the starboard engine of the Oravia was stopped, that the port engine was stopped and put full speed astern, and the helm hard-astarboarded, and two short blasts sounded on her whistle. In fact, action was taken at once for a vessel not seen, but heard, or supposed to be heard, on the starboard bow, and never seen before the fog settled down. It is said that shortly afterwards the Nereus came in sight out of the fog bank three or four hundred yards off, and bearing three to four points on the starboard bow, and that then the starboard engine of the Oravia was put full speed astern and the two short-clast signals repeated. But the collision bappened with the Nereus swinging under port helm and sounding her short blast, the Oravia lso giving three short blasts when she had got both engines going astern. The blow was, as I have said, a six or seven-point blow, the stem of the Oravia hitting the port side of the Nereus in the way of the fore rigging, or somewhere about it. The defendants' case substantially is that their vessel was acting properly for a ship on their starboard side, and that they acted because they heard a fog signal, and that the Nereus ported into them. The remarkable feature in the case is that the plaintiffs say they saw the Oravia on the port bow when, if neither vessel had acted at all, they would have gone clear, whereas the defendants' witnesses say they never saw the Nereus at all until she appeared out of the fog close to them, and that then she was porting hard towards them. It does not require more than a statement of the case to show that, whatever view one takes of the important points of conflict between the parties, the Oravia is clearly to blame. Counsel for the defendants was prac tically driven into the unpleasant position of having to admit that, when it was pointed out that, on the evidence of the master of the Oravia, that vessel was going at ten knots at least-it may have been a little more-in a fog, which was so thick that he could not see more than three or four hundred yards, and the case of the Oravia is hopeless for that reason. At that time the vessel was going ten knots an hour, without any deduction of speed specifically for it, and at what is called a reduced speed for an earlier time. To say that this is a moderate speed is really hopeless, and one must say that, notwithstanding the long experience and high character of the master of the defendants' ship. I am afraid this part of the case is simply an example of taking the risk of going too fast in the expectation that there is nothing in the way, and that, if there is anything, their whistles will be heard in time to stop and reduce speed. But that does not dispose of this case because the question arises whether the plaintiffs are to blame for porting or not stopping, slowing speed and not reversing in time. That depends, and so also does the blame on the defendants' ship, mainly upon the view one takes as to the original positions of the ships. With the assistance of the Elder Brethren I have considered this matter with great care, and, upon the whole, I have come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs' version of the position of the ships is the correct one. It is deposed to positively that the Oravia was in fact seen, and that no other vessel was seen prior to the fog coming down— [ADM. that she was seen somewhat on the port bow; and I think that fits in with the manœuvres of the ships afterwards, because it is quite clear that the Oravia hard-a-starboarded and reversed the port engine when this other vessel was first heard, and it was not until the vessel was seen that both engines were put astern. Although it is said that at the time of the collision the head of the Oravia was west-south-west, I think that is a mistake. It is much more probable that, if that evidence is correct at all, that was the heading of the vessel when the Nereus was seen, and when the Oravia was swinging under the hard-a-starboard helm, and that from then up to the time of the collision she continued to swing on; and I think it more than probable, and it is the fact, that the reason why the witnesses for the defendants say that the other vessel was on their starboard hand is that they had acted for a vessel in a fog before they saw her, and that by the time they did see her she had got on their starboard bow by their own motion. No one could tell in that fog, unless they were looking at the compass, whether the ship was altering, or how much she was altering. I believe that is the reason why the impression had been produced with regard to the earlier period, and altered to, that the vessel was on the starboard hand to begin with. That leaves the plaintiffs, in my view, originally in the position practically which they contend for-namely, that the vessels were port to port. Then the only question is whether there is any blame on the part of those on board the plaintiffs' ship for acting in the way they did. What was done, according to the master, was this: He went on to the bridge after being called by the mate, who told him that there was a steamer coming on the port bow, and he could then see about a mile. The Nereus was not yet in the fog, and he did nothing. Then, when the chief officer indicated the direction of the Oravia-that is to say, the direction in which he thought she was from having seen her before-he says he heard a blast on the port bow, a short blast, and put the engines slow. It was not a regular blast of the length of a fog signal. He understood she was porting. He thought it was two or three points on the port bow, but he could not see her then. He gave the order a little to port and one short blast on the whistle, and ordered the engines to slow. The Oravia gave two short blasts, and he stopped, giving one short blast on his whistle and hard-a-porting his helm, and immediately afterwards there was a two-blast signal in reply. He replied with a one-blast signal, and went full speed astern, there being barely time to try to stop before the full speed astern, it being practically one order. I think the engineer's and other evidence is practically to the effect that slow, stop, and full speed astern were all so near that there was little or no more time than was necessary to carry out the one order as it followed the other. In that state of things I think it is exceedingly difficult to see what blame can be put upon the plaintiffs. I think, therefore, that the conclusion of fact to come to is-and this is the view which the Elder Brethren take-that, taking the plaintiffs' evidence to be correct, nothing wrong was done on board their ship. There was no danger at all at first; they had indications beforehand to show that this other ship was in such a position that they were not in a sense obliged strictly to stop at once. They knew where she was; they knew where they might expect her, having regard to the locality, and when they heard any signalling from her they took instant action. The only other matter to dispose of is the question of the damage which occurred afterwards. That is a matter upon which the advice of the Elder Brethren is of great importance and great assistance to me. I think it is clearly proved that there is no fault to be found with the plaintiffs' vessel for not attempting to proceed to Monte Video. I think it was reasonable, and the Elder Brethren do also, for them to attempt to get into Maldonada Bay. The circumstances were critical, and I think they were acting rightly in trying to get the vessel into a place of safety. Unfortunately, owing to the state of the weather, they got on to the northern shoal or bank of the Monarch Rock, not on the rock itself, not its pinnacle, because her depth was too great. That was an unfortunate accident, due to the thick fog, which happened at a time when they were trying their best to get into safety, and when soundings in a direction at right angles to that in which they were originally proceeding were of very little assistance in discovering the exact position of the rock. Upon the whole, I am satisfied that no case of negligence has been made out against the plaintiffs justifying them in being deprived of a claim for the damage which was consequent upon this collision. The decision of the court, therefore, must be that the Oravia is alone to blame for this collision, and that her owners are liable for the consequences of it. Solicitors for the plaintiffs, Thomas Cooper and Co. Solicitors for the defendants, Parker, Garrett, Holman, and Howden. Thursday, Feb. 23, 1905. (Before BARGRAVE DEANE, J.) THE GLENGARIFF. (a) Collision-Queenstown Harbour-Narrow channel -Meaning of "fairway"-Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1897, art. 25. Queenstown Harbour is a narrow channel within the meaning of art. 25 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, and, although vessels need not necessarily navigate in the buoyed part of the channel, they should on entering or leaving the harbour keep to their starboard side of the middle of the buoyed part of the channel. ACTION of damage by collision. The plaintiffs were the Lough Fisher Steam Shipping Company Limited, owners of the Lough Fisher. [ADM. west-south-west a strong breeze, the weather was fine and clear, and the tide was ebb of the force of about two knots an hour. The case made by the plaintiffs was that the Lough Fisher, a screw steamship of 418 tons gross and 168 tons net register, manned by a crew of eleven hands all told, was, whilst on a voyage from Ellesmere Port to Queenstown with a cargo of coal, proceeding up Queenstown Harbour. The Lough Fisher was proceeding about N.N.E. magnetic up the entrance channel, to the westward of the buoyed fairway, making about eight knots, and a good look out was being kept on board of her. In these circumstances those on the Lough Fisher saw the Glengariff about two miles off broad on the port bow. The Glengariff was carefully watched, and as the two vessels approached the Bar Rock Buoy the Lough Fisher's helm was ported a little, and one short blast was sounded on her whistle. Glengariff, however, appeared to take no notice, so the helm of the Lough Fisher was ported a little more, and her engines were slowed, but almost immediately afterwards reversed full speed, her helm being put hard-a-port, and three short blasts sounded on her whistle; but the Glengariff, instead of keeping clear of the Lough Fisher as she could and ought to have done, came on, and with her starboard bow struck the port side of the stem of the Lough Fisher, doing her considerable damage. The The plaintiffs charged those on the Glengari with failing to keep out of the way of the Lough Fisher; with attempting to cross ahead of her; with neglecting to slacken their speed or stop or reverse; and with not keeping to the starboard side of the channel. The case made by the defendants was that the Glengariff, a steel screw steamship of 1285 tons gross and 487 tons net register, manned by a crew of thirty-one hands all told, was proceeding through Queenstown Harbour in the course of her voyage from Cork to Liverpool with general cargo, cattle, and thirty passengers. The Glengariff was heading straight down the roads, keeping on the southern side of the fairway, and was making about twelve knots. A good lookout was being kept on board her. In these circumstances those on the Glengariff observed at a distance of rather over two miles and broad on the starboard bow the Lough Fisher coming up the harbour. The Glengariff was kept on her course, heading to pass immediately to the southward of the Bar Rock Buoy, but when the Lough Fisher, which was coming up to the westward of the fairway and on the wrong side of the channel, sounded one short blast on her whistle and appeared to be acting under port helm as if intending to cross the bows of the Glengariff and caused danger of collision, the engines of the Glengariff were immediately stopped and reversed full speed astern, three short blasts were sounded on her whistle, and her helm was put hard-a-port; but, notwithstanding these manoeuvres, the Lough Fisher came on, still acting under port helm and at high speed, and with her stem struck the starboard bow of the Glengariff, doing her considerable damage. Just before the collision the Lough Fisher sounded three short blasts on her whistle. The defendants charged the plaintiffs with not keeping on the starboard side of the channel; with failing to pass port to port; and with not |