Sidebilder
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

the protection of the cargo than for the protection of the ship. Under these circumstances it is just as if the discharge of the cargo was prevented by something beyond the shipowner's control, and so, so far as the charterers are concerned, these days must be treated as whole days. Judgment accordingly.

Solicitors: Templer, Down, and Miller; Thos. Cooper and Co.

PROBATE, DIVORCE, AND ADMIRALTY DIVISION.

ADMIRALTY BUSINESS. Nov. 8, 18, 19, and Dec. 13, 1904. (Before GORELL BARNES, J.)

THE OLE BULL. (a)

Compulsory pilotage - Trinity House out-port district-Termination of compulsory employment of pilot-"Into and out of" Harwich Harbour-Definition of "into Harwich Harbour"-Merchant Shipping Act 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 60), ss. 622, 633.

A steam vessel, inward bound from a foreign port, was boarded outside Harwich Harbour by a pilot duly licensed to pilot" into and out of" Harwich Harbour, and was brought to an anchor by the pilot inside the harbour to wait until the tide had risen sufficiently to enable her to proceed to her discharging berth. The tide having risen, the pilot took her to her berth, and while she was being berthed she collided with and damaged another vessel.

Pilotage into the harbour was admittedly compulsory, but it was contended that the owners of the vessel entering the harbour were liable for the damage done, because the pilotage ceased to be compulsory when the vessel was anchored in the harbour, and because the work done by the pilot in taking the vessel to her discharging berth was a voluntary service performed in consideration of a fee paid by the shipowner in addition to the pilotage rate.

Held, that the owners of the vessel entering the harbour were not liable for the damage done, as the pilotage was compulsory until the vessel had reached the place in the harbour to which she was destined to go.

ACTION of damage by collision.

This case came before the court on an agreed statement of facts, and raised the question whether the Ole Bull was, under the circumstances mentioned in the case, compulsorily in charge of a pilot at the time of the collision. If the court was of opinion that the Ole Bull was in charge of a compulsory pilot, judgment was to be pronounced for the defendants with costs; if it was of opinion that the pilot was not compulsorily in charge, judgment was to be pronounced for the plaintiffs with costs, the amount of the damages to be assessed by the registrar.

The plaintiff was Thomas John Moran, the owner of the dredger Sliedrecht II.

The defendants were the owners of the Ole Bull of the port of Bergen.

[blocks in formation]

[ADM.

the Sliedrecht II. was lying moored at or near the west side of the West Quay at Harwich. While she was so moored she was run into and damaged by the Norwegian screw steamship Ole Bull, a vessel of 1640 tons gross and 1041 tons net register. The Ole Bull was, at the time in question, on a voyage from Apalachicola, in the United States of America, to Harwich with a cargo of sawn wood and deals.

John Green, a pilot duly licensed to conduct vessels from Sizewell Bank Buoy up the North Channel to Gravesend and into and out of Harwich Harbour, had boarded the Ole Bull about 8.30 a.m. on the 12th Sept. near the Sunk Light and took charge of her, and at 11.45 a.m. brought her to an anchor in the Stour at a spot about 180 yards to the northward of the north end of the West Quay within the port and harbour of Harwich.

That spot was a usual and proper place for vessels to lie at anchor and discharge cargo when unable to discharge at a quay.

The tide had not then flowed sufficiently to enable the Ole Bull to reach any quay berth at Harwich at which her cargo could be discharged.

While the Ole Bull was at anchor she was visited and cleared by the Customs, and a boat was sent ashore for orders as to the place at which she was to discharge her cargo, which were given for the west side of the West Quay.

John Green might have been properly paid off and discharged when the vessel came to an anchor, but he remained on board the Ole Bull after she was anchored, and about 1 p.m., the tide having flowed sufficiently, the anchor was under his orders hove up, and he proceeded to navigate the Ole Bull to the berth at which she was to be discharged.

In the course of such navigation and while in the act of going alongside the berth, one rope having been carried from the ship to the quay, the Ole Bull fell against the Sliedrecht II. and did the damage complained of.

The berth to which the Ole Bull was being navigated for the purpose of discharging her cargo is situate on the western side of the West Quay above mentioned, and to the southward of the place where the Sliedrecht II. was lying.

Harwich is one of the Trinity House out-port districts, and the limits of the district were, by a notice published in the Gazette of the 19th Nov. 1852, extended to include the river Stour, so that the pilotage district is now comprised within the following limits:

To and from the Wallet, Hoseley Bay, or the Sunk Light into and out of Harwich Harbour and up and down the river Stour to Manningtree and vice versa, and to and from all parts and places within the said limits. The agreed statement of facts also contained the following paragraphs:

8. Pilotage rates have been fixed by the Trinity House of Deptford Strond for the Harwich district as follows: (A) 1. From the sea or Orfordness to Harwich Harbour. 2. From the Rolling Grounds to Harwich Harbour. 3. From Harwich Harbour to the abovementioned places the rate varying in each case according to the distance and to size and character of the vessel. (B) There are certain rates for pilotage up and down the Stour. (C) Boarding money. A charge varying according to the size of the vessel for putting a pilot on board. No other rates have been fixed by the Trinity House.

[blocks in formation]

9. A payment of 10s. to 11. according to tonnage is by usage charged and paid for taking any vessel from an anchorage in Harwich Harbour to a quay berth and berthing her, or for mooring her with two anchors. A vessel may be so taken from such an anchorage to a berth and berthed by an unqualified pilot without infringing any regulations of the port or any orders which the harbour master is legally empowered to give. Vessels which arrive in Harwich Harbour in charge of com. pulsory pilots are in fact frequently left by compulsory pilots at their anchorage and then taken from anchorage to a berth and berthed or so moored at Harwich by unlicensed persons. Moneys earned by pilots under heads A, B, and C have to be accounted for to the Trinity House, and are paid into a common fund. Moneys earned as stated in pr. 9 hereof, when charged by and paid to pilots, are properly retained by them, and are not accounted for to the Trinity House or paid into a common fund.

10. The following sums were paid to the said John Green in respect of his services on the occasion in question, and he gave a receipt for the same in the following terms: "Received of Messrs. Groom and Son the sum of seven pounds six shillings for the pilotage of the s.s. Ole Bull from sea to Harwich and mooring : Pilotage (vessel exceeding 14ft. draft), 31. 38.; pilot cutter (vessel. over 1000 tons register), 31. 38.; mooring alongside berth, 11.; total, 71. 6s.”

The first-mentioned sum represents the pilotage rate chargeable under par. 8, A 1, hereof. The second sum represents boarding money, and the third sum is the charge for berthing the ship. If the Ole Bull had proceeded direct from sea to her discharging berth at the West Quay without anchoring to wait for water, the said sum of 11. would have been charged by the said Green for mooring her in her berth if she had been berthed by him.

The defendants, while reserving to themselves the right to object to the admissibility and to comment upon the value, effect, or relevancy of such evidence or the competence of the witness to speak to such matters as were not questions of fact, further admitted that William Groom, one of the sub-commissioners of pilotage for the Harwich district, would state "that it was open to the master of the Ole Bull to say to the pilot upon coming to an anchor that he did not require his services any further, and to pay him off there and then; that the pilot could have demanded his money in respect of the pilotage as soon as he dropped his anchor within the limits of the harbour; that in his opinion compulsory pilotage ceased as soon as the pilot brought his vessel to a safe anchorage within the limits of the harbour; and that any service that was performed afterwards was an additional service of a voluntary character for which the pilot was entitled to additional pay.

The following are the material parts of the sections of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 which were referred to during the progress of the

case:

582. Subject to the provisions of this part of this Act a pilotage authority may by by-law made under this part of this Act: (6) Fix the rates and prices or other remuneration to be demanded and received for the time being by the pilots licensed by them, and alter the mode of remuneration of those pilots in such manner as they think fit, so, however, that no higher rates or prices are demanded or received in the case of the Trinity House than those set out in the table contained in the twenty-first schedule to this Act, and in the case of any other pilotage authority than those which might bave been lawfully fixed or demanded by that authority

[ADM.

under any Act, charter, or custom in force immediately before the first day of May in the year one thousand eight hundred and fifty-five.

596. An unqualified pilot may, within any pilotage district, without subjecting himself or his employer to any penalty, take charge of a ship as pilot: (c) For the purpose of changing the moorings of any ship in port, or of taking her into or out of any dock, in cases where the act can be done by an unqualified pilot without infringing the regulations of the port, or any orders which the harbour master is legally empowered to give.

598 (1). If an unqualified pilot, whether within a district in which pilotage is compulsory or outside such a district, assumes or continues in the charge of a ship after a qualified pilot has offered to take charge of the ship, he shall for each offence be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.

622 (1). Subject to any alterations to be made by the Trinity House and to the exemptions under this part of this Act, pilotage shall be compulsory within the London district, and the Trinity House out-port districts. (2) If a master of a ship navigating within those districts, after a qualified pilot has offered to take charge of the ship, or made a signal for the purpose, either himself pilots the ship without possessing a pilotage certificate, or employs or continues to employ an unqualified person to pilot her, he shall for each offence be liable, in addition to any other penalty under this part of this Act, to a fine not exceeding five pounds for every fifty tons burden of the ship, if the Trinity House certify in writing, under their common seal, that the prosecutor may proceed for the same.

633. An owner or master of a ship shall not be answerable to any person whatever for any loss or damage occasioned by the fault or incapacity of any qualified pilot acting in charge of that ship within any district where the employment of a qualified pilot is compulsory by law.

Nov. 8.-Balloch for the plaintiff, the owner of the Sliedrecht II.-On the facts stated the Ole Bull was not at the time of the collision in charge of a compulsory pilot. It is admitted that after the Ole Bull anchored at 11.45 a.m. the pilot could have been properly discharged, and that an unlicensed person might afterwards have moored her. [GORELL BARNES, J.-It will, I think, be very difficult for the defendants to make out that their vessel was in charge of a compulsory pilot if the facts and the legal position of the parties are stated accurately.]

Bailhache for the defendants, the owners of the Ole Bull, asked for an adjournment to enable the defendants to call further evidence.

The adjournment was granted, the defendants paying the costs of and occasioned by the adjourn. ment.

Nov. 18 and 19.-The defendants called the principal clerk in the Pilotage Department of the Trinity House, London, who stated that at the time of the collision there was a usage that the pilots at Harwich should be paid a berthing fee, and they got it when they could.

On the 1st March 1904 the Trinity House for the Harwich district had issued a notice which gave the table of rates which might be charged by the pilots for piloting vessels, and which contained the following paragraph :

In addition to the above rates, the following charges for any of the under-mentioned services shall be paidnamely, for removing a vessel from her moorings or at anchor to any part of the barbour and leaving her berthed in safety, or for piloting into Felixstowe Dock,

[blocks in formation]

and berthing the vessel at the request of the master, for either of these services 10s. for vessels of 500 tons register and under, 15s. for vessels exceeding 500 tons and under 1000 tons, and 20s. for vessels above that tonnage.

Balloch for the plaintiff, the owner of the Sliedrecht II.-After the Ole Bull came to an anchor in Harwich Harbour there was no obligation on her master to employ a pilot, so when the collision happened the pilot was not compulsorily in charge. The pilot is licensed "to conduct vessels into and out of Harwich Harbour," and it is agreed that " he might have been properly paid off and discharged when the vessel came to anchor." He in fact remained on board, but he did so to perform a voluntary service for which he received additional pay which was distinct from the pilotage rate. Once the Ole Bull was anchored, no special knowledge was needed to navigate her to her berth; therefore the compulsory pilotage contemplated by sect. 633 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, in the course of which the owner is not responsible for damage occasioned by the fault of the pilot, had come to an end, and the pilot was not then doing the work of a "qualified pilot acting in charge within the meaning of that section, but was doing work which is admittedly often done by unqualified persons. The pilot would not be entitled under sect. 598 of the Act to supersede anyone engaged to berth the vessel, for the vessel could have been taken from her anchorage to her berth by an unqualified pilot without infringing the provisions of sect. 596, sub-sect. (c), of the Act-that is, without "infring. ing the regulations of the port or any orders which the harbour master is legally empowered to give." The notice of the 1st March confirms this view, for it recognises that the customary charge for berthing is something distinct from the compulsory pilotage rate levied under by-laws made by virtue of sect. 582 of the same Act. This extra charge is similar to the charge made by the Liverpool pilots for taking a vessel alongside a landing stage, which was a charge additional to the pilotage rates:

The Servia; The Carinthia, 78 L. T. Rep. 54; 8 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 353; (1898) P. 36. Bailhache for the defendants, the owners of the Ole Bull.-The Ole Bull was admittedly under compulsory pilotage up to the time she anchored in the harbour; it is submitted that the compulsory pilotage continued till the vessel reached her final place of discharge within the Harwich district. The pilot took charge of the Ole Bull by compulsion of law at the Sunk Light, and, having remained on board and continued in charge, was "acting in charge of the ship within a district where the employment of a qualified pilot is compulsory by law" within the meaning of sect. 633 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894. It is an admitted fact that, if the vessel had proceeded straight to her discharging berth, the pilot would still have charged the extra sum for berthing her, so that payment is not of itself any evidence that the pilotage ceased when the vessel was anchored. The temporary stoppage did not terminate the compulsory pilotage:

The Rigborgs Minde, 49 L. T. Rep. 232; 5 Asp.
Mar. Law Cas. 123; 8 P. Div. 132.

The facts in this case are not the same as in the case of The Maria (16 L. T. Rep. 717; L. R. 1

[ADM.

A. & E. 358). In that case the Maria had finished her voyage and discharged her cargo, and then, in moving to another dock, had collided with another vessel. The fact that a vessel anchors to wait for the tide does not of itself put an end to the compulsory pilotage:

The Mercedes de Larrinaga, 90 L. T. Rep. 520; 9
Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 571; (1904) P. 215.

The statement that the pilot might have been properly paid off and discharged when the vessel came to an anchor does not conclude the legal position; it only indicates that at Harwich, when à vessel bas temporarily anchored, other persons than the pilot who brought the vessel in may berth her. As to the extra payment, the case of The Servia; The Carinthia (ubi sup.) is not analogous, for in that case the pilot did something which was outside his duty; in this case the pilot only did what it is admitted he would have done if the Ole Bull had not anchored. The pilot, being in charge in a district for which he was licensed, was not in the position of a servant of the shipowner :

General Steam Navigation Company v. British
and Colonial Steam Navigation Company, 20
L. T. Rep. 581; 3 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 237;
L. Rep. 4 Ex. 238;

The Charlton, 73 L. T. Rep. 49; 8 Asp. Mar. Law
Cas. 29.

Balloch in reply.-The principle laid down in General Steam Navigation Company v. British and Colonial Steam Navigation Company (ubi sup.) does not apply, for in that case the shipowner was paying a rate which covered the pilot's services to a point beyond that at which the collision occurred:

The Sussex, 90 L. T. Rep. 549; 9 Asp. Mar. Law
Cas. 578, at p. 583; (1904) P. 236.

Here there is evidence of a fresh contract between
the pilot and the master, after the vessel had come
to anchor, to do work which it was unnecessary
for a qualified pilot to be engaged to do. In The
Rigborgs Minde (ubi sup.) the question turned on
an Act of Parliament which does not refer to this
district. In The Mercedes de Larrinaga (ubi sup.)
the pilot was to take the vessel to Eastham Locks
and was charging one sum for doing so; the
pilotage rate there covered all the work done by
the pilot, but in this case there is a rate for
bringing the vessel into the harbour and a
charge for berthing her, which might be done
by an unqualified person, and it was while the
Ole Bull was being berthed that the accident
happened.
Cur. adv. vult.

Dec. 13.-GORELL BARNES, J.-There has been a statement of facts in this case, in the nature of a special case, which raises a point as to compulsory pilotage in the port of Harwich. The plaintiff is Mr. T. J. Moran, the owner of the dredger Sliedrecht II.; the defendants are the owners of the Norwegian steamship Ole Bull. On the 12th Sept. 1903 the Sliedrecht II. was lying moored at or near the west side of the West Quay at Harwich. That quay is to the westward of the railway terminus at Harwich, and there is a small inlet to the west of that quay shown on the chart. The case stated shows that" the foreshore to the west of the quay has been dredged out in the manner shown on the chart." The Sliedrecht II., while lying moored in that place

[blocks in formation]

was run into and damaged by the steamship Ole Bull, which was at that time on a voyage from Apalachicola to Harwich with a cargo of sawn wood and deals. The defendants in par. 3 of the statement of facts admit "that if the Ole Bull was not compulsorily in charge of a pilot at the time when the Sliedrecht II. was so damaged, the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages from the defendants in respect of the said collision." The Ole Bull appears to have been brought into the port of Harwich by a man named John Green, who was a pilot, and who was licensed to pilot, among other places, into and out of Harwich Harbour. His certificate is dated the 14th June 1882, and so was granted to him prior to the time of this disaster. I do not know whether the certificate is renewed from year to year, but he is treated in this case as holding the Trinity House licence to pilot into and out of Harwich Harbour. He had boarded the Ole Bull about 8.30 a.m. on the 12th Sept near the Sunk Light and took charge, and at 11.45 a.m. he brought the Ole Bull to an anchor in the Stour. That is a little to the northward of the inlet into which she was to be moved, and is within the port of Harwich, The statement of facts sets out that that spot "is a usual and proper place for vessels to lie at anchor and to discharge cargo when unable to discharge at a quay." Then follows this important statement: "The tide had not then flowed sufficiently to enable the Ole Bull to reach any quay berth at Harwich at which her cargo might be discharged. While the Ole Bull was at anchor there she was visited and cleared by the Customs authorities, and a boat was sent ashore for orders as to the place at which she was to discharge her cargo, which were given for the west side of West Quay. At 1 p.m., the tide having flowed sufficiently, the anchor was under the pilot's orders hove up, and he proceeded to navigate the Ole Bull to the place at Harwich where she was to be discharged, and in the course of such navigation and while in the act of going alongside a berth at the said quay, one rope having been carried from the ship to the quay and made fast thereon, and while navigating over the part of the foreshore so dredged out, the Ole Bull fell against the Sliedrecht II. and did the damage complained of." The only question I have to determine is whether the pilotage is compulsory or not. If it is, the defendants are not to be treated as responsible for the damage done; but if the pilotage is not compulsory, then the defendants are responsible. The point is a short one, and the main question raised is: Whether the pilotage ceased to be compulsory when the Ole Bull came to an anchor, or whether it continued to be compulsory until she was moored to the quay. The plaintiff says it ceased when the ship dropped her anchor; the defendants say it continued until the vessel got to the quay. The plaintiff puts the case in this way: He says that this pilotage is into or out of the port of Harwich-"into" is the point here-and that the pilot gets a certain rate, set out in par. 8 of the statement of facts, for piloting from sea or Orfordness to Harwich Harbour, and from the Rolling Grounds to Harwich Harbour, and that that rate covers what he has got to do to bring her to the anchorage; and that afterwards, if the ship moves from the anchorage to a berth for discharging at the quay, she has to pay, by usage, 108. or ll., according to her tonnage, for the

[ADM.

pilot taking her from the anchorage to the quay berth and mooring her. The plaintiff then points out that it is admitted in the statement of facts that "A vessel may be so taken from such an anchorage to a berth and berthed by an unqualified pilot without infringing any regulations of the port or any orders which the harbour master is legally empowered to give. Vessels which arrive in Harwich Harbour in charge of compulsory pilots are, in fact, frequently left by compulsory pilots at their anchorage and then taken from anchorage to a berth and berthed or so moored at Harwich by unlicensed persons." Shortly stated, the plaintiff says that this ship was compulsorily piloted to the anchorage, and that then the pilot's duties ceased to be compulsory, and that from the anchorage to the quay the pilot was voluntarily employed at a slight additional remuneration of 10s. or 11. The defendants say that the pilot was compulsorily employed right through from first to last until he got to the quay, and that the temporary anchoring to wait for the tide makes no difference. I thought at the time this case was first presented to me that the statement of the legal position of the parties, or those concerned in such matters as this-the pilots, for instancewas so worded as to state the law in such a form as to put the defendants out of court, because par. 6 commences with this statement: "The said John Green might have been properly paid off and discharged when the vessel came to an anchor as aforesaid, but he remained on board." That, and other passages which it is not necessary to go into, led, in my mind, to the conclusion that as this case was drawn it was in fact stating that the compulsory pilotage legally determined at the anchorage, and that after that there was a voluntary agreement to proceed on. The matter being of some importance outside this particular case because it affected the question of pilotage at Harwich generally, the case was on the application of the defendants' counsel adjourned that evidence might be given as to how this matter was dealt with and how it arose. The case has now to be treated as if those statements of legal effect were not in it, and one must apply the law applicable to the facts partly upon the evidence given and partly on the statement of facts. Taking those facts together, there is nothing in this case to show that anything took place between the master and the pilot which had the effect of making a distinct new bargain between them. The pilot went on from the anchorage to the quay, and, whatever the legal position is, apart from any special contract that was made between the parties, they seem to have gone on in the ordinary course of business What does that ordinary course amount to? It seems that the ordinary course leaves the matter open to decision as to what the real legal obligation and duty of the two parties is-that is to say, whether pilotage into Harwich means pilotage to the place where the ship is destined to be discharged, or means pilotage to any spot in the harbour where she may chance to be brought to for temporary purposes. I say that because all the evidence and the agreed facts show that, as a matter of fact, pilots have been paid their pilotage rate for proceeding to an anchorage, and have obtained a payment afterwards of some small sum for taking a vessel from an anchorage to her proper place of discharge. The impression which is left on my

1

[blocks in formation]

mind by these matters is that the pilots have succeeded in getting this extra payment because of the fact that they are delayed when they come to an anchorage, and have to waste time waiting till the ship can be moved into the place to which she is destined to be moved. They have, rightly or wrongly, succeeded in getting that sum, and since the matter has been brought out more prominently the Trinity House have made an alteration. A circular put in evidence before me, dated the 1st March 1904, deals with the Harwich district, and contains the rates from the sea to Harwich Harbour, and gives the figures. Then it contains the following paragraph: [The learned judge then read the paragraph set out above, and continued:] Substantially, this circular, in a sense, authorised what had been going on for some time-namely, a rate charged into the harbour and an extra charge if the vessel is removed from moorings or an anchorage to any part of the harbour and berthed. That really gives the go-by to the question in the case, which is, What is the duty of the pilot on the one hand, and the obligation of the shipowner on the other, with regard to the termination of the compulsory employment? Even if there is an extra rate now to be paid, or an extra sum was in former times asked for and obtained, for taking the vessel from the spot at which she has anchored to the berth, that is not at all conclusive of what the compulsion is and when the compulsion ceased. The duration of the compulsion seems to turn upon the true construction of the Acts of Parliament coupled with the licence as to what is to be done. It is admitted, for the purpose of this case, that the pilotage is compulsory into and out of Harwich Harbour, and so the question comes to be, What is pilotage into Harwich Harbour? Does it mean that the ship is to be brought to any point in Harwich Harbour at which she is compelled to stop, and then the pilotage ceases to be compulsory? Or does it mean compulsory as long as she is still proceeding to the destination in the port to which she has to go?

The exact point to be decided is not. as far as I can ascertain, covered by any distinct authority, and the only observations which I can find which seem to me directly to bear upon it are observations which I myself made in the case of The Mercedes de Larrinaga (ubi sup.). That case is reported, and the observations to which I refer are to be found on pp. 230-232 of the report appearing in the Law Reports. This case may be considered, first of all, from the point of view as to what would have been the position if the vessel had been brought straight from the sea to the mooring berth, without any interruption at all. It seems to me that in that case the pilotage would be compulsory from first to last. It would be pilotage into the harbour, and pilotage to a point which was already fixed upon. Then the question arises, Can it make any difference whether the ship is anchored, compulsorily but temporarily, because of the state of the tide ? I cannot see that it makes any difference at all. If it did, it would be sufficient to anchor a ship at any spot within the limits of the harbour, and then say the pilotage ceased. I can see no difference between the two positions. It seems to me that the meaning of pilotage into a harbour, where the words are general, must be determined by the place in the harbour to which

[ADM.

the vessel is intended and destined to go, and if for any temporary purpose she is interrupted in getting there, by tide, wind, or fog, she is none the less in itinere to the place to which she has to go. I take the general view of this case which is presented by some of those Mersey cases which deal with inward-bound ships, and are practically on the same lines. Those cases are referred to in the judgment I gave in the Servia and Carinthia (ubi sup.). Therefore I do not think it would have made any difference if there had been any independent arrangement for payment from the anchorage to the berth; but there was not, in fact, any such arrangement, and it was left open, on the footing of what was usually done in port. I think, therefore, that, notwithstanding the fact that extra payment has been asked for and seems now to be regularly made, it makes no diffence to the compulsion, but only fixes the rate of payment. The result, in my judgment, is that the Ole Bull was compulsorily in charge of a pilot at the time of the said collision, and I understand from the statement of facts that, as the court is of that opinion, judgment is to be pronounced for the defendants with costs.

Solicitors for the plaintiff, Rawle, Johnstone, and Co.; for the defendants, Thomas Cooper and Co.

Dec. 13 and 14, 1904.

(Before GORELL BARNES, J.)

THE ASHTON. (a)

Collision Crossing ships Narrow channel Regulations for Preventing Collisions at SeaArts. 19, 21, 22, 23, 25.

A collision took place in the river Humber close to Clee Ness Buoy between a steam trawler coming up river from the North Sea to Grimsby and a steamship proceeding down river from Grimsby to Hamburg. The trawler had the steamship's green light open to her red light.

Held, that arts. 19, 21, and 25 of the collision regulations applied, and that the trawler was to blame for porting and so not keeping her course, and for being on the wrong side of the channel; and that art. 22 applied, and that the steamship was to blame for starboarding and so attempting to cross ahead of the trawler. The water in the Humber between the Bull and Clee Ness buoys on the south side and the buoys on the north side is a narrow channel. ACTION of damage.

The plaintiffs in this action were the Monarch Steam Fishing Company Limited, the owners of the steam trawler King Stephen. The defendants were the owners of the steamship Ashton.

The action was brought to recover the damage sustained by the plaintiffs by reason of a collision which occurred between the two vessels about 1 a.m. on the 11th May 1904. The owners of the Ashton also counter-claimed for the damage sustained by their vessel.

The case made by the plaintiffs was that the King Stephen, a steel steam trawler of 162 tons gross register, manned by a crew of nine hands all told, was in the river Humber on a voyage from the fishing grounds in the North Sea to

(a) Reported by L. F. C. DARBY, Esq., Barrister-a: Law.

« ForrigeFortsett »