Oakmore and Aras. The time, according to one side, was 1.49 a.m., and according to the other 130 a m. The Oakmore was bound from Antwerp to Boston with cargo, and was proceeding on a course of about N. 86 W. magnetic, at slow speed, because the weather was foggy. She was sounding her whistle, and those on board her were all at their proper stations. The Aras was on a voyage from Batoum to London with a cargo of petroleum, and was steering N.E. by E. E. easterly magnetic, also at slow speed because of the state of the weather. She also was sounding her whistle, and those on board her were at their proper stations. The case for the Oakmore is shortly this: That while proceeding in the way I have already stated they heard a long blast on the port bow; that it was reported by two lookouts, one forward and the other in the crow's nest; and that thereupon the engines were stopped. The master then stated that he took a bearing by compass of the sound, and made it out to be W. by S.-that is to say, a point and a quarter to a point and a half on his port bow. That is, of course, pure estimate, because it means that he took the direction in which he believed he had heard the whistle and endeavoured to make out where it was by compass. Then, according to his evidence, which substantially states the case for the plaintiffs, he kept the vessel stopped until her steerage way was lost, and during that time heard the whistle of the other vessel about three times, and it broadened out, and after he had lost steerage way and was falling off his course the whistle was bearing W.S.W. from him; that he put his engines ahead dead slow to get steerage way and bring the vessel back to her former course, and proceeded on for something like twenty minutes, during which time, although the whistle was heard getting closer, it was broadening on his port bow and not narrowing; and that when he saw the two masthead lights of the Aras 200 yards off they were bearing S. W. by W., while he was still on his course of N. 86 W. Then he stated that shortly afterwards he observed the Aras was rounding to port, as if way had just been given her, and that he put his engines full speed astern, gave three short blasts, and put his helm hard a-port, but the Aras struck him on the port side forward with her stem, with the result that both vessels were damaged. The case on the other side, stating it shortly and substantially from the master's evidence, is that while proceeding on the course I have mentioned, at one o'clock he stopped and took soundings and got 35 fathoms, small stones and sand; that at 1.10 he started the engines again dead slow ahead, giving a speed of two knots, and did not alter his course at all; that at 1.20 he heard a blast two points on his starboard bow-again that must, of course, be an estimate that he telegraphed to stop and the engines were stopped, and the whistle blown for several minutes; that he looked over the side to see whether the way was stopped and then blew the "stopped" signal of two iong blasts with a second's interval between; and that then he heard the whistle of the Oakmore closer to, and immediately rang the engines full speed astern and gave three short blasts, and when he saw, immediately afterwards, or practically at the same time, the masthead light of the Oakmore, he put the helm hard a-port, but without effect, the Oakmore being only a length off and a point and

[ADM.

a half on the starboard bow when he also saw the red light. He further stated that he hailed the Oakmore, and he was himself going full speed astern, but the collision took place. The parts of contact are not substantially in dispute, but the plaintiffs say the angle of the blow was a right angle, or, if anything, slightly leading forwardMr. Roscoe, the plaintiffs' surveyor, said it was a point leading forward-and the defendants say it was a two and a half to three point angle, but Mr. Lewis, their surveyor, says it is about a four point angle. That is the whole story as presented on the two sides. There is only one other matter to refer to. The place of the collision is not in agreement between the two sides, but both vessels were running by dead reckoning. The plaintiffs' vessel had run from the Goodwin Sands without making any fresh point of departure. That was a very long distance away. The defendants' vessel had made nothing for certain since the Burlings, which was a still greater distance away. So, although it is probable that the place is nearer what the plaintiffs say, because their point of departure is somewhat the nearer, still I do not know that it can with certainty be said that the exact spot is given by either side.

Now, the case presents some difficulties, but I do not think when it is carefully considered that those difficulties amount to

very much. I think that the case for the plaintiffs depends substantially upon their estab. lishing three points. The first is that the whistle of the defendants' vessel was broadening as the two vessels approached each other. The second is that it is impossible on the plaintiffs' story to make the collision occur unless the defendants' ship starboarded at the last from a position estimated to be four and a half points or thereabouts on the port bow of the Oakmore. The third, which is almost involved in the second, is that the Aras went at considerable speed at the close of the matter from the position which I have just stated, and estimated in regard to distance to be something like 200 yards away when seen. One has to consider whether those three points are made out. With regard to the latter two, it seems to me that they are not established. It is clear that if the vessels were in such a position that those on board the Oakmore could see, as they say they did, the Aras bearing S.W. from them at a distance of 200 yards or anything like it, they must make out that the defendants star boarded, and kept starboarding hard, too, without any really adequate reason for doing so; because in the position thus described it is almost obvious that the defendant vessel by a very slight port helm at that moment would have gone under the stern of the plaintiff vessel, and certainly would have no object whatever in coming at her at increased speed. With regard to one factor in the case which the plaintiffs rely upon as establishing what I think they have failed to establish -namely, the angle of the blow. I do not take the same view as was taken by the plaintiffs. I have said that they take the view, and endeavoured to prove, that the blow was at a right angle, or slightly leading forward. The defendants, on the other hand, say it was considerably less than a right angle. That is a point very much in dispute. Two very competent surveyors have been called on the respective sides, Mr. Roscoe on the

one and Mr. Lewis on the other, and they totally differ about it, and give their reasons, which are in complete conflict. When one has not seen the vessels it is very difficult to be certain which of them is right, but the view we take about it is that if there was reversing of the engines of the Oakmore only at the last moment she would probably have some speed still on her; that there was undoubtedly exceedingly little speed, if any, on the Aras; that the damage is more probably to be accounted for by the stem of the Aras being swept over to port by the contact which took place; and that the damage was done very much in the way the defendants contend for.

The result of that is that I cannot and do not accept the view that the defendant vessel starboarded and came at speed or increased speed just before the collision. Before leaving that point it is to be remembered that although the plaintiffs' witnesses spoke of a right-angle blow, yet the master of the plaintiff vessel admitted that the hard-a-port helm and reversing had canted his head somewhat more to the northward, and the increase of the angle may be accounted for in that way. Upon this part of the case I think there was one witness who was an extremely good one, and that was a lad whose evidence was very much criticised by the plaintiffs. He was the helmsman, for the time being, of the defendant vessel-an apprentice named Jeffrey Bedford, sixteen years old-an extraordinarily smart boy, perhaps rather more than a boy. He had not been at sea long, but evidently he had come on so much as to be trusted with the wheel of a large vessel like this. He certainly impressed both me and the Elder Brethren by the way he gave his evidence, and in face of that evidence and against the probabilities I cannot accept the view that the defendant vessel starboarded. I think she kept her heading, and was practically stopped in the water at the time of this disaster. I think it follows that the defendants' story is practically true, that they were doing what they could to keep a proper look-out, that they stopped on the whistle being heard, and that they had prac tically run their way off when the vessel was seen, and that they then reversed their engines, but there was no time to avoid the collision. The only difficulty about their part of the case is that they did not hear more than two whistles, one at the commencement and one almost immediately before the collision, but it must not be overlooked that sound, as is quite notorious, is a very difficult thing to be accounted for in a fog, and the wind was W.S.W., which was from the defendants towards the plaintiffs, and therefore adverse to the defendants hearing so well as the plaintiffs. I feel no difficulty in accepting the story of the defendants, and I cannot find that they were to blame in any way in this collision.

The case against the plaintiffs requires careful consideration. It depends, so far as their navigation is concerned, upon the first point which I have said it was necessary for them to establish. It depends upon whether the account given in court of the whistles of the defendant vessel broadening continually from a point and a little more to four points or a little more on the port bow is correct. I think it almost follows from what I have already said about the bearing when the vessels were first seen that it cannot be correct. It is quite obvious that when this

[ADM.

evidence was given a very strong attempt was made to make out this necessary feature of the plaintiffs' case. It is all very well to say that these sounds were gauged by compass with such certainty as those witnesses say, but that cannot possibly be accepted. One reason why I did not give my judgment yesterday was that I wished to see the two courses laid off with accuracy, in order to ascertain, knowing how the collision took place, whether that story could possibly be true. The Elder Brethren have been good enough to lay off for me the courses of the Oakmore and the Aras, and I have taken the position at which the plaintiffs state the whistle was first heard. It is almost obvious when the matter is thus laid out-I think it is quite obvious -that these two vessels must have kept almost upon the same bearing from first to last, approaching closer and closer, no doubt, but certainly not broadening. If there is any doubt about that, it ought to be resolved in the opposite direction-namely, in the direction of the conclusion that the Aras was getting narrower on the bows of the plaintiff vessel, rather than broader. That is made absolutely certain to demonstration by laying it off on the course a d bearings of the vessels. That leads me to the definite conclusion that it is impossible there can have been this broadening spoken to by the plaintiffs' witnesses in this case.

I think the case then turns on a question of nautical skill, which is for the Elder Brethren to determine, because of the provisions of article 16. That article requires a steam vessel hearing, apparently forward of her beam, the fog signal of a vessel, the position of which is not ascertained, to stop her engines so far as the circumstances of the case admit, and then navigate with caution until danger of collision is over. In consequence of that rule I have asked the Elder Brethren this question: "When the Oakmore continued her course"-the explanation of that is that according to her evidence she stopped, and then, finding she was falling off, put her engines ahead again and brought herself on to her course and kept on for something like twenty minutes-" were the indications such as to show to her master, distinctly and unequivocally, that if both vessels continued to do what they appeared to be doing they would pass clear without risk of collision ?" The answer is "No." Then the Elder Brethren were asked by me, "What ought to have been done in those circumstances on board the Oakmore?" and their view is that she ought not to have continued on in the way she was doing, with that big steamer coming closer and closer and doing what I have already said; but that she ought to have stopped, it may be only from time to time, even at the risk of falling off somewhat, because recollect there is a sound signal to be given if a vessel is absolutely stopped; that even if it would not have been advisable to keep continually stopped, by a touch ahead from time to time she could have been kept sufficiently on her course and under control to to have avoided going on for something like twenty minutes at slow speed. The only other matter to consider in connection with that-it is not necessary, really, when one has found the facts as I have done, but it is worth while saying something about it-is the possibility that a man in the position of the master of the Oakmore might have been mistaken in the view he took of

ADM.]

the bearing and progress of the vessel, and the consideration of what his position would be then. I think it is exactly the same, because it is so well known-so absolutely well known-that it is impossible to rely upon the direction of whistles in a fog, that I do not think any man is justified in relying with certainty upon what he hears when the whistle is fine on the bows like this was undoubtedly, and is not justified in thinking it is broadening unless he can make sure of it. That is the view I entertain very strongly, because if it is well established that the direction of sound in a fog is a matter of uncertainty, it is no use trying to make it a certainty by saying you looked at the compass. That being so, I am of opinion that the plaintiffs' vessel broke the provisions of article 16, and that if she had not continued her course in the way she did throughout those twenty minutes there would have been no collision. The Oakmore therefore must be held to blame for the accident that has happened.

Solicitors for the plaintiffs, Rawle, Johnstone, and Co., for Hill, Dickinson, and Co.

Solicitors for the defendants, Thomas Cooper and Co.

Dec. 17 and 18, 1906.

(Before Sir GORELL BARNES, President, and Elder Brethren.)

THE KAISER WILHELM DER GROSSE (a) Collision-Entrance to harbour-Crossing ruleNarrow channel-Good seamanship - Regula tions for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1897Arts. 19, 21, 22, 25, 27.

Two vessels, one entering and one leaving Cherbourg, met just outside the entrance of the harbour, which is about half a mile wide. The vessel entering the harbour had the green light of the vessel leaving the harbour on her port bow, and ported and slowed to enter the harbour well to her starboard side of the entrance. The vessel leaving the harbour starboarded, and endeavoured to cross ahead of the vessel entering. Held, that good seamanship and local practice both demanded that vessels leaving and entering the harbour and navigating in the waters adjoining the entrance should keep to their starboard side of the channel and pass port to port. Semble, the waterway between the ends of the breakwaters at Cherbourg, together with so much of the adjacent water as is necessary for the navigation of the passage, is a narrow channel" within the meaning of art. 25. ACTION of damage by collision.

The plaintiffs were the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, the owners of the steamship Orinoco.

The defendants and counter-claimants were the North German Lloyd Steamship Company, the owners of the steamship Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse.

The collision which gave rise to the action took place about 7.30 p.m. on the 21st Nov. 1906, at the entrance of Cherbourg Harbour, half a mile W.N.W. of Fort de l'Ouest. The weather at the time was dark and overcast, the wind was W.S.W., a strong breeze, and the tide was ebb.

(a) Reported by L. F. C. DARBY, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. VOL. X. N. S.

[ADM.

The entrance of the harbour at which the two vessels met is formed by the ends of two breakwaters. The entrance runs about east and west, and is about half a mile broad. The breakwaters which form the entrance end in forts, Fort de l'Ouest being on the western end of the eastern breakwater, and Fort Chavagnac being on the eastern end of the western breakwater. Fort de l'Ouest is lighted; Fort Chavagnac is not.

The case made by the plaintiffs was that the Orinoco, a screw steamship of 4571 tons gross and 2451 tons net register, 410ft. long, whilst bound from Southampton to the West Indies, viâ Cherbourg and Vigo, with passengers and general cargo, and manned by a crew of 131 hands all told, was approaching the western entrance into the port of Cherbourg. The Orinoco, in charge of a duly licensed Cherbourg pilot, was steering about south magnetic, and, with engines working at full speed under reduced steam, was making about twelve knots. The regulation two masthead and side lights and a stern light were duly exhibited and were burning brightly, and a good look-out was being kept on board of her. In these circumstances the masthead lights of the Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse were particularly noticed over the break water, about two miles distant, about one and a half to two and a half points on the port bow. The engines of the Orinoco were afterwards at 7.25 p.m. put half speed, to reduce her way before coming to the Fort Chavagnac break water. Shortly afterwards the Orinoco sounded one short blast, and ported the helm to keep well over on her starboard side of the passage. The Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse sounded one short blast, and the Orinoco sounded a second short blast. At 7.28 p.m. the Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse, whose green light came into view when she opened out the Fort de l'Ouest break water, instead of porting and keeping over to her starboard side of the entrance as she could and ought to have done, sounded two short blasts on her whistle. The engines of the Orinoco were at once put full speed astern and three short blasts were sounded on the whistle, and the helm was ordered to be steadied. The Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse came on, attempting with her great speed to cross ahead of the Orinoco, but, after sounding three short blasts on her whistle, she struck the Orinoco a very heavy blow on the stem with her starboard bow a little forward of the foremast, doing great damage.

Those on the Orinoco charged those on the Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse with not keeping a good look-out; with failing to keep clear of the Orinoco; with improperly attempting to cross ahead of the Orinoco; with failing to keep to the starboard side of the entrance; and with neglecting to ease, stop, or reverse her engines.

The case made by the defendants was that the Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse, a steel twin-screw steamship 649ft. long, of 14,349 tons gross and 5521 tons net register, was proceeding through the roadstead at Cherbourg, in the course of a voyage from Bremerhaven, via Southampton and Cherbourg, to New York, with passengers, mails, and general cargo, and manned by a crew of about 500 hands all told. The Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse, which had shortly before left her anchorage, was steering for the western entrance, keeping the Fort de l'Ouest light on her starboard bow, and was making about eight to ten knots 3 A

ADM.]

through the water. Her regulation two masthead lights, side lights, and fixed stern light, all electric, were being duly exhibited and were burning brightly, and a good look-out was being kept on board of her. In these circumstances those on the Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse observed over the breakwater, about three miles off and about six points on the starboard bow, the two masthead lights of the Orinoco, steaming towards the harbour. The lights of the Orinoco were carefully watched, and the Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse, gathering way under her engines, which were working at half speed, continued to make for the entrance, and, as she approached the Fort de l'Ouest light, her helm was ported in order to enable her to pass safely out of the entrance, and steadied on a course of N.W. N. magnetic. Directly afterwards her engines were set full speed ahead and her whistles were sounded two short blasts to the Orinoco, which was still broad on the starboard bow, with her masthead lights nearly in line. After a short interval, as there was no reply from the Orinoco, this signal was repeated, and immediately afterwards the masthead lights of the Orinoco were observed to be opening, indicating that she was porting, and at the same time her whistle was heard to be sounded one short blast. The engines of the Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse were instantly put full speed astern and her whistle was sounded three short blasts, but, notwithstanding these manœuvres, the Orinoco came on at great speed, showing her masthead lights and red light, and with her stem struck the starboard bow of the Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse a violent blow, doing her very heavy damage, killing four passengers and injuring others. Just before the collision the Orinoco sounded three short blasts on her whistle.

Those on the Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse charged those on the Orinoco with keeping a bad look-out; with improperly porting; with neglecting to keep her course; with neglecting to wait outside the harbour until the Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse had passed out; and with failing to ease or stop and reverse their engines; and counter-claimed for the damage they had sustained.

The following are the Collision Regulations which were referred to during the course of the

case:

19. When two steam vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, the vessel which has the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way of the other.

21. Where by any of these rules one of two vessels is to keep out of the way, the other shall keep her course and speed.

22. Every vessel which is directed by these rules to keep out of the way of another vessel shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid crossing ahead of the other.

25. In narrow channels every steam vessel shall, when it is safe and practicable, keep to that side of the fairway or mid-channel which lies on the starboard side of such vessel.

27. In obeying and construing these rules, due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision, and to any special circumstances which may render a departure from the above rules necessary in order to avoid immediate danger.

Aspinall, K.C. and Dunlop for the plaintiffs.The evidence of the pilot on the Orinoco shows

[ADM.

that the practice is for vessels coming into the harbour not to wait for vessels coming out, but to pass port to port. The crossing rule does not apply; but, even if it did, the outgoing vesse! ought to avoid crossing ahead of the incoming vessel, and so would have to port to pass under her stern. Art. 25, which directs each vessel to keep to the starboard side of the fairway, applies to this case:

The Knaresboro, Shipping Gazette, Nov. 10, 1900. Somewhat similar facts were proved in that case, and the court inclined to the view that the crossing rule did not apply, and that the narrowchannel rule did. Good seamanship and a due regard for the dangers of navigation demanded that the vessels should pass each other port to port.

Pickford, K.C. and H. C. S. Dumas (D. Stephens with them) for the defendants.-The plaintiffs now admit that the defendants' vessel did not sound one short blast as alleged in the pleadings, but sounded two short blasts twice, and the porting on the Orinoco was the only thing which prevented the defendants' vessel from successfully crossing ahead of her. Art. 25 does not apply to such a case as this. Good seamanship in a place such as this requires the incoming vessel to wait until the outgoing vessel has got clear. It would have been bad seamanship on the part of the Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse to port and attempt to go out port to port, for she would have then crossed the course of the Orinoco twice. The Orinoco starboarded when approaching the entrance, and, if she had not at the last moment ported, she would have passed clear under the stern of the Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse. The Orinoco should have followed art. 21 and kept her course, for those on board saw the green light on the plaintiffs' ship, and must have realised she was crossing ahead; to port was therefore the worst thing that could be done,

Aspinall, K.C. in reply.-It does not follow that because a green light is seen on the port hand the crossing rule applies; that depends to some extent on the locality. Before the rule applies, there must be opportunity to comply with it, and time to appreciate the situation:

The Theodore H. Rand, 56 L. T. Rep. 343; 6 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 122; 12 App. Cas. 247. Even if this is not a narrow channel, the observations in The Knaresboro (ubi sup.) apply, for the adjacent water is to be considered part of the narrow channel for the purposes of the rule, just as some of the open water outside the pierheads at the mouth of the Tyne is within the ambit of rule 20 of the By-laws for Preventing Collisions in the Tyne:

The John O'Scott, 76 L. T. Rep. 222; 8 Asp. Mar.
Law Cas. 235; (1897) P. 64.

The PRESIDENT.-This is a case of collision which took place on the 21st Nov. 1906 near the entrance to Cherbourg, between the steamship Orinoco and the steamship Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse. The Orinoco, with her bowsprit, figurehead, and stem, came into contact with the starboard bow of the Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse, and considerable damage was done to both vessels. I think, though we have heard no evidence about it, there was some loss of life. The Orinoco is a screw steamer of 4571 tons gross, belonging to

ADM.]

the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, and was bound from Southampton to the West Indies, via Cherbourg and Vigo, with passengers, general cargo, and a crew of 131 hands all told She was approaching, in the course of that voyage, the entrance called the west entrance to the harbour at Cherbourg. The Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse is a twin-screw steamship, belonging to the port of Bremen, 649ft. long, and 14,349 tons gross register. She was proceeding from Bremerhaven, via Southampton and Cherbourg, to New York, with passengers, mails, general cargo, and a crew of 500 hands all told. She bad put into Cherbourg in the course of that voyage, and was proceeding out again. She had passed the Orinoco in the course of the afternoon as she went towards Cherbourg, and the Orinoco was coming into Cherbourg with the same sort of object—namely, to get passengers and go out again. Now, the case presented on the part of the Orinoco is that she had been approaching the port originally on a course of south by west; that she had a French pilot on board, who had been taken on at Southampton to pilot her into Cherbourg; that at seven o'clock the course was altered to south magnetic ; that that course was kept until nearly the time when the collision took place; and that at 7.25 p.m. her engines were put at, half speed, to reduce her way in going in between the two break waters. On her port hand as she went in would be the Fort de l'Ouest break water, and on her starboard hand Fort Chavagnac breakwater. Now, the case near the time of the collision is to this effect: that as the Orinoco was approaching the entrance the masthead lights of the Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse were particularly noticed over the breakwater. That would be because the Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse had been at anchor a little to the eastward of the western line of anchorage inside the harbour of Cherbourg, and the Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse would have to come out in a westerly and northerly direction to get to the entrance. At 7 25 p.m. the engines of the Orinoco, it is said, were put at half speed, a short blast was sounded on her whistle, and her helm was ported to keep well over to the starboard side of the passage. I understand, however, from the evidence, that at first she was heading 8) as to pass more or less towards the middle of the passage, and that was because the break water on the starboard hand has no light on it, and as she got near to it and could make out the end of the breakwater it would be possible to see where it was, and therefore she could, and did, keep a little more to the westward, so as to give an open passage, as far as possible, on the port hand. Then the case of the plaintiffs proceeds to aver that the Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse sounded one short blast and the Orinoco sounded a second short blast; that at 7.28 p.m. the Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse, whose green light came into view when she opened out the Fort de l'Ouest breakwater, instead of porting and keeping over to her starboard side of the passage, and, of course, passing the Orinoco port side to port side, sounded two short blasts on the whistle; that the engines of the Orinoco were thereupon put full speed astern, and three short blasts were sounded on the whistle, and the helm was ordered to be steadied; but the Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse came on, attempting with her great speed to cross ahead of the Orinoco, and the collision happened.

[ADM.

The case on the other side is that the Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse, which had left the anchorage to which I have referred, was steering to the western entrance, keeping the light of the Fort de l'Ouest on her starboard bow, and making about eight to ten knots through the water; that the two masthead lights of the Orinoco were seen about six points on the starboard bow over the breakwater, about three miles away; that when the Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse gathered way her engines were put to half speed as she approached the entrance, and then, she having been up to that time on a W.N.W. course, her helm was ported to enable her to pass safely out of the entrance, and steadied on a course of N.W.N.; that directly afterwards her engines were set full speed ahead and her whistle sounded two short blasts, and, as no reply was received from the Orinoco, this signal was repeated; that immediately afterwards the masthead lights of the Orinoco were observed to be opening, indicating that she was porting, and at the same time her whistle was heard to be sounded a short blast; and that thereupon the engines of the Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse were put full speed astern and her whistle was sounded three short blasts, but still the collision happened.

That is the outline of the story told on the two sides. Broadly speaking, it comes to this: that the plaintiffs say the defendants' vessel ought to have ported or waited and passed them port to port, either by slowing, if necessary, or porting enough to do so, and that she did not do so, but tried to cross ahead of the Orinoco whereas the defendants' case is that they had the Orinoco broad on the starboard hand all the time, and they were in a position to go right across her bows without any difficulty at all if she had not ported. That is the broad issue between the parties. There is a small matter to dispose of first. There is no charge in the pleadings of the defendants that the lights of the plaintiffs' ship were in any way not in accordance with the regulations, but in the course of the evidence for the defendants it was suggested that there was some obstruction of the port light of the Orinoco which prevented its being properly seen by another vessel when nearly ahead, and that that may have accounted for the defendants' witnesses not noticing the light, as they say they did not, though the real reason they gave was that they were paying more attention to the masthead lights than to the side lights. The master of the Orinoco, however, said there was no obstruction, and I do not see any reason, after hearing his evidence, for differing from him. I do not think there is any thing in that point at all. The next point I wish to refer to is that the place of the collision is agreed, and appears to have been at five cables, half a mile W.N.W. of Fort de l'Ouest. Therefore, if one glances at the chart, one sees it is well over to the west side of the entrance, somewhere about N.N.E. of the end of Fort Chavagnac, and very much nearer to it than to Fort de l'Ouest.

The first thing to consider in this case is what rule of navigation is to be observed by these two vessels going in and out of this place. The plaintiffs contend that the proper and seamanlike navigation of the locality is for each vessel to keep on her starboard hand and pass the other vessel port to port. Also they