29. Regulations for preventing collisions-Narrow channel-Crossing ships-Cherbourg Channel.Two vessels, one entering and one leaving Cherbourg, collided 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 endeavoured to cross ahead of the vessel entering. Held, that the vessel leaving the harbour was alone to blame; that the crossing rule was inapplicable; that art. 25 of the Collision Regulations applied, and that vessels leaving and entering the harbour and navigating in the waters adjoining the entrance should keep to their starboard side of the channel. The judgment of Sir Gorell Barnes, P. (10 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 361; 96 L. T. Rep. 238; (1907) P. 259) affirmed. (Ct. of App.) The Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse

103

361, 504

The

30. Regulations for preventing collisions-Narrow channel-Starboard hand buoys-River Thames.The steamship R. proceeding up Sea Reach, river Thames, on the starboard hand side of that portion of the river which lies to the southward of the four red conical lighted buoys placed in Sea Reach to mark the northern side of the deepest water in the channel, came into collision with the G., which was proceeding down Sea Reach. The four red conical lighted buoys were nearly in the central line of the reach, and there were other buoys nearer the northern and southern banks of the reach marking the limits of the navigable water. owners of the G. contended that as the R. was to the south of the central line of the stretch of water between the buoys marking the northern and southern limits of the navigable water she had infringed art. 25 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, and was to blame for the collision. Held, that although physical conditions remained the same an alteration in lights or marks which affected the usual way of navi gating a particular stretch of water may, and did in this case, make a portion of that stretch a narrow channel because of the convenience which the lights or marks give for the purpose of navigation, and that the four red conical buoys being by their form and colour starboard hand buoys the R. was right in treating that portion of the reach which lay between them and the buoys marking the southern limits of the navigable water as a narrow channel within the meaning of art. 25 of the regulations. (Adm. Div.) The Gustafsberg..

31. Regulations for preventing collisions-Pilot vessel-Lights.-A pilot vessel which had been cruising with a pilot on board put him on to a vessel, and was then rowed up the river Avon in charge of two men. She was exhibiting a white light at her masthead, and had a flash light on her deck ready for use. A steamship going down the river ran into and sank the pilot vessel. on the steamship charged the pilot vessel with exhibiting improper lights. Held, that the

Those

61

pilot vessel was carrying improper lights, as pilot vessels are only on their stations on pilotage duty within the meaning of art. 8 of the Collision Regulations 1897 when in their pilotage district and on the look-out for vessels to pilot, and they are only allowed to exhibit the special lights mentioned in that article in those circumstances, but that the steamship was alone liable for the collision as it was solely caused by the absence of look-out and excessive speed on her part. (Adm. Ct.) The Reginald

32. Regulations for preventing collisions-Steam trawler Lights Sailing ship. The steam trawler U. C., a vessel of upwards of 20 tons gross register, fishing in the Bristol Channel, exhibited the trawling lights prescribed by art. 9 of the Collision Regulations. After getting in her trawl, the U. C. went full speed ahead, still exhibiting the lights prescribed by art. 9 of the Collision Regulations, and very shortly afterwards ran into the sailing vessel R. Those on the R. had seen the lights of the U. C. for about half an hour before the collision. Held, that the steam trawler the U. C. was alone to blame for the collision, because at the time of the collision she had ceased trawling and was a steam vessel under command, and as such she should have exhibited the usual under-way lights for such a vessel prescribed by art. 2 of the Collision Regulations, and should have kept out of the way of the sailing vessel. (Adm. Div.) The Upton Castle

PAGE

519

153

33. Regulations for preventing collisions-Steamer lying to-Crossing ships-Duty to give way.-The L., a steam trawler, was lying-to heading to the N. with engines stopped, waiting for the tide, when she was run into and damaged by the steamship B., which was proceeding on a course of W. S. magnetic. Those on the B. saw the masthead and green lights of the L. on their port bow, and kept their course and speed until just before the collision, when they slowed, stopped, and reversed their engines. Those on the L. did nothing. Held, that art. 19 of the Collision Regulations applied, and that the L. was alone to blame for the collision, as it was her duty to keep out of the way. The Helvetia (3 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 43) explained. (Adm. Div.) The Broomfield 194 34. Regulations for preventing collisions-WhistlesAuthorised course."-The words authorised course in art. 28 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions are to be given a wide interpretation, and include any course which for the safety of vessels good seamanship requires to be taken with reference to another vessel or vessels in sight. (Ct. of App.) The Anselm.....

66

35. Regulations for preventing collisions-Whistles"Course authorised or required."-A steamship was lying in the Humber, a little athwart the river, waiting to enter a dock on the north side of the river, occasionally putting her engines astern to counteract the effect of the ebb tide. A tug, with a lighter in tow, crossing the river under slight starboard helm, when about 200 yards off the steamship, sounded a long warning blast on her whistle, and starboarded to pass under the steamship's stern. Shortly afterwards, as the steamship was seen to be coming astern, the tug hard-a-starboarded, but did not sound a helm signal, and a collision occurred between the lighter in tow of the tug and the steamship. Until the collision those navigating the steamship were unaware of the presence of the tug and tow. Held, by the Court of Appeal varying the decision of the court below, that the tug was to blame for not giving a whistle signal in breach of art. 28, as the fact that the steamship had not heard the warning signal from the tug did not prove that a two-blast helm signal would not have been heard, and therefore it could not be said that the breach could not by any possibility have contributed to the collision. (Ct. of App.) The Aristocrat... 36. Regulations for preventing collisions-FogWhistles-Duty to stop.-Where those in charge of

.....

438

567

a steamship going slow in a thick fog heard the whistle of another vessel fine on the bow and far away they stopped their engines. When they thought the whistles were broadening, and after their vessel had lost steerage way, they went on at dead slow for about twenty minutes, during which time they alleged the whistles continued to broaden, at the end of which time the other ship came in sight and a collision occurred. The court held them to blame because the indications as to the position of the other vessel were not such as to show to her master distinctly and unequivocally that the vessels would pass clear without risk of collision, and that they should have stopped from time to time, even at the risk of falling off from their course, as it is impossible to rely on the direction of sound in a fog to indicate with any certainty the position of a vessel. (Adm. Div.) The Aras

37. Suez Canal-Meeting steamships-Duty to give way. A steamship was proceeding through the Suez Canal from Port Said to Suez. When in the neighbourhood of the seventh mile-post, those on board her sighted the navigation lights of a vessel approaching from the southward. It was admittedly the practice in that part of the canal for steamships navigating to the southward to tie up to permit vessels proceeding to the northward to pass them, and she therefore drew into the bank; her navigating lights were extinguished, and the lights required by signal 11 of the Suez Canal rules to show the free side of the channel were exhibited. The vessel was being tied up when she was run into and damaged by the north-going vessel whose navigating lights had been seen. Those on the north-going vessel alleged that they had the right of way, and that the south-going vessel had kept on too long and had proceeded too fast. Held, that though the north-going vessel had the right of way, yet there was a duty on her to keep herself under such command that in the event of her coming up to a steamship, which had to tie up for her, sooner than was expected, she could, by stopping or going astern, avoid running into the steamship which had to give way, that she was to blame for not doing so, and that as the south-going steam. ship was stopped at the time of the collision she was not to blame. Judgment of Sir Gorell Barnes, P. (94 L. T. Rep. 174; 10 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 189) affirmed. (Ct. of App.) The Clan Cumming

PAGE

358

189, 436

38. Thames By-laws-Risk of collision-Port helm. -Two steam vessels were meeting in the Thames a little above Cuckold's Point. The steam vessel coming up the river sighted the other steam vessel with her starboard side open, about 400 yards off and half a point on the starboard bow. The steam vessel coming up the river kept a starboard helm and sounded two short blasts on her whistle, which the other vessel, as she was porting her helm, replied to with one; whereupon the engines of the vessel coming up stream were immediately reversed and three short blasts were sounded on her whistle, and although the engines of the down coming stream vessel were also reversed and a three-blast signal was sounded on her whistle, a collision occurred. Held, by the Court of Appeal varying the decision of the court below, that art 46 of the Thames By-laws applied, and that the steamers ought to have passed port side to port side. (Ct. of App. Since reversed by H. of L.) The Guildhall

.....

39. Thames by-laws-Risk of collision-Port helm.-Held, further, by Buckley, L.J.: Risk of collision is a question of opinion rather than a question of fact, and does not mean that an accident presumably will happen, but that the circumstances are such that precautions ought to be taken to preclude the possibility of collision resulting. (Per Buckley, L.J. in Ct. of App.) The Guildhall...

40. Thames by-laws-Swinging barge-Light-Duty to warn.-Where at night in the river Thames a

585

585

barge fast by her headfast to another barge attached to a ship lying at tiers is swinging or about to swing to the tide, she ought, under the preliminary article of the Thames by-laws, to have someone to warn passing vessels, by light or otherwise, of her position. (Adm. Div.) The St. Aubin

41. Tug and tow-Contract of indemnity-Damage to cargo-Costs.-A barge M., in tow of the tug B., came into collision with a barge, H. H., at anchor. The collision was caused by the negli gence of the tug. The cargo on the barge M. was damaged. The cargo owners brought an action for tort against both the barge and tug owners for the damage, and also brought their action against the barge owners alternatively for breach of contract to carry and deliver the cargo safely. In that action the claim of the cargo owners against the owners of the barge was dismissed with costs, but the owners of the cargo recovered against the owners of the tug in tort with costs, and the tug owners were also ordered to pay to the cargo owners the costs of the cargo owners' unsuccessful action against the barge owners. The tug owners had contracted to tow the barge on the following terms: "They will not be answerable for any loss or damage which may happen to any barge or its cargo while in tow, however such loss or damage may arise and from whosesoever fault or default such loss or damage may arise, and the services of their tugs must be understood and agreed to be engaged upon the terms that they are to be held harmless and indemnified from any such loss or damage, and against the faults or defaults of their servants, or any claim therefor by whomsoever made. And the customers of the said Gaselee and Sons undertake and agree to bear, satisfy, and indemnify them accordingly." The tug owners claimed to be indemnified by the barge owners against the damages and costs paid to the cargo owners and against the costs which the barge owners had recovered against the cargo owners and which the cargo owners had recovered from the tug owners. Held (affirming the judgment of the court below), that the contract between the barge and tug owners assumed that a liability might be thrown on the tug owners, and that the barge owners had undertaken to indemnify the tug owners against it, so that the barge owners were liable for the damages recovered by the cargo owners from the tug owners, and the costs reasonably incurred by the tug owners in defending the action, including the costs which the cargo owners had to pay to the barge owners and which the cargo owners afterwards recovered from the tug owners. (Ct. of App.) Gaselee v. Darling; The Millwall

42. Tug and tow-Contract of indemnity-Right to appeal-Practice-Order XVI., rr. 52, 53, 55.The barge M., in tow of the tug B., came into collision with a sailing barge H. H., which was at anchor. The collision was caused by the negligence of the servants of the tug owners. The cargo on the barge M. was damaged. The owners of the cargo on the M. brought an action against the owners of the tug B. and the owners of the barge M. jointly and severally in tort, and also alternatively against the owners of the barge M. for breach of contract in not carrying and delivering the cargo safely. The claim of the cargo owners against the barge owners was dis missed with costs, but the cargo owners recovered judgment against the owners of the tug B. in tort with costs, and the tug owners were also ordered to pay to the cargo owners the costs of the cargo owners' unsuccessful action against the barge owners. The owners of the tug towed the barge under a contract which entitled them to be indemnified by the barge owners against the damages and costs which the owners of the tug had paid in respect of the collision. The owners of the tug appealed against the judgment obtained against them by the owners of the cargo, but afterwards withdrew the appeal. The

PAGE

298

113

b

owners of the barge, who had to indemnify the owners of the tug against the damages and costs to be paid by the tug owners, also appealed against the judgment obtained by the cargo owners against the tug. Held, that the barge owners had no right to appeal against a decision in favour of the cargo owners against the tug owners, as they were not parties to that judg ment, that they were not subrogated to their rights, and they could not rely on the thirdparty procedure under the Judicature Act as no order had been made within the meaning of Order XVI., r. 53, giving directions as to the mode in or the extent to which they were to be bound, or made liable, by the judgment against the tug owners. (Ct. of App.) Page v. Darling and Gaselee; The Millwall

43. Tug and tow-Pilot boat-Joint tortfeasorsContribution-Costs.-A pilot cutter was made fast to a sailing ship which was being towed by two tugs. A collision occurred between the cutter and a schooner, causing damage to both. The cutter sued the tugs and the schooner. The schooner counter-claimed against the cutter and the tugs. The tugs were held solely to blame. On appeal by the tugs it was held that, though the cutter was lashed alongside the tow, those in charge of her were not absolved from keeping a look-out, and were negligent in not slipping their tow rope and so avoiding the collision. Held, further, that there was no contribution between the tugs and the cutter in respect of the judg ment obtained by the schooner against the tugs, and that the tugs and cutter must pay their own costs in the court below and of the appeal. (Ct. of App.) The Harvest Home......

44. Tyne Collision Rules-Crossing the river.-A steam vessel leaving a dock on the north side of the Tyne was making to cross the river to the south side to get on to her starboard side of the river before proceeding to sea when she sighted another steam vessel attended by a tug coming up the river on the north side, and came into collision with her. Held, that rules 21 and 22 of the Tyne Regulations applied, and that the vessel leaving the dock and making to cross the river was to blame for not waiting until the upcoming steamship had passed, and for not clearly signifying to the upcoming steamship her intention to wait. (Adm. Div.) The Skipsea

45. Tyne collision rules-Crossing the river.—It is the duty of a vessel about to cross the river Tyne to clearly signify to passing traffic whether she is about to cross or to stop and allow the traffic to pass, and if she proceeds across it is also the duty of other vessels to act reasonably, so that if a little more room is required to assist the crossing vessel such room should be given. (Adm. Div.) The Skipsea

46. Vessel injured by two collisions-Measure of damages-Dry docking-Demurrage.-A vessel, the M., was run into and injured by another vessel, the C. The injury inflicted by the C. was of such a nature that the M. had to be dry docked for repairs in order that she might be made seaworthy. The M. was afterwards run into by the H. G. and further damage was done, to repair which it was necessary that the M. should be dry docked. After the collision with the H. G., the owners of the M. engaged a dry dock for the purpose of doing the repairs rendered necessary by both collisions. The time occupied in repairing the damage caused by the C. alone was twentytwo days. The time occupied in repairing the damage done by the H. G. alone was six days. Both sets of repairs were done at the same time, and the M. was not detained for more than twentytwo days. On a reference to assess the amount of the damage sustained by the owners of the M., the owners of the M. claimed from the owners of the H. G. half the cost of dry docking and incidental expenses and three days' demurrage. The registrar disallowed the claim. The President (Sir Gorell Barnes) affirmed the decision of the

PAGE

110

118

91

91

registrar. On appeal by the owners of the M. to the Court of Appeal: Held, that the owners of the M. were not entitled to recover demurrage from the owners of the H. G.; but that, following the decision in Vancouver Marine Insurance Company v. China Transpacific Steamship Company (55 L. T. Rep. 491; 6 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 68; 11 App. Cas. 573), they were entitled to recover half the cost of dry docking and incidental expenses incurred during the time both sets of damage were being repaired. (Ct. of App.) The Haversham Grange

47. Wreck-Cost of raising-Maritime lien-Priorities-Thames Conservancy.-A steamship collided with a barque in Gravesend Reach. The steamship was sunk. The conservators of the river Thames took possession of her and raised her. Before she was raised the owners of the barque instituted proceedings in rem to enforce their maritime lien for the damage they had sustained, and after being raised she was arrested by the Admiralty marshal. The conservators intervened in the damage action and moved the court to order the release of the vessel on the ground that the statutory right given to the conservators by sect. 77 of the Thames Conservancy Act 1894 to sell the vessel and reimburse themselves for the expenses incurred had priority over the damage lien. Held, that as the conservators had preserved the res their statutory right took precedence of the damage lien, and that the steamship and her cargo should be sold by the conservators, the proceeds of sale of each being kept separate, the expenses and costs of the conservators being first satisfied out of the proceeds of cargo, then out of the proceeds of the steamship, and that the conservators should bring the balance of the amount realised, if any, into court. (Adm. Ct.) The Sea Spray..

PAGE

156

462

See Compulsory Pilotage, Nos. 2, 4- Limitation of Liability, No. 1-Marine Insurance, Nos. 2, 10-Public Authorities Protection Act, No. 1-Wreck.

COMPULSORY P LOTAGE.

1. Coasting Vessel-Foreign-going Articles-Bristol Wharfage Act, 1807.-A ship sailing under foreigngoing articles left Swansea and went to various ports within and without the United Kingdom. She went from Dieppe to Hull in ballast, and at Hull she took in a cargo to be discharged at Bristol, and went from Hull with such cargo to Bristol, where she discharged her cargo, still sailing under the same articles. When on the voyage from Hull to Bristol, the ship was proceeding up the Bristol Channel, and was within the limits of the port of Bristol, within which, by sect. 9 of the Bristol Wharfage Act 1807, pilotage by a Bristol pilot is compulsory for all vessels except "coasting vessels and Irish traders." The master refused to take a compulsory pilot on board, on the ground that the ship during the voyage from Hull to Bristol was a "coasting vessel" within the meaning of the exemption by reason of her having taken in cargo at Hull destined to be discharged at Bristol, both ports being within the United Kingdom. Held, that the ship was not a coasting vessel" at the time in question, and the fact that she took in cargo at Hull, a port in the United Kingdom, which she was going to discharge at Bristol, another port in the United Kingdom, did not make her a coasting vessel" on the voyage from Hull to Bristol, and that the master was properly convicted, under sect. 603, sub-sect. 2, of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, for having, within a district where pilotage was compulsory, refused to take a pilot on board. (K. B. Div.) Phillips (app.) v. Born (resp.); The Ravensworth 131 2. Collision-Duty of officers.-There is a duty on the officers of a ship to give a pilot all reasonable information which will be of assistance to him in navigating the ship, and, if the action of the pilot shows that he is drawing wrong inferences from that information and is bringing about a position of danger, there is a duty on the officers

66

3. Harwich Harbour-Outport district-Termination of pilot's employment.-Harwich is a Trinity House outport district and pilotage is compulsory into and out of the harbour, and although a vessel inward bound is anchored inside the harbour to wait for the tide, and a fee is paid to the pilot for the voluntary service of berthing her, the ship is compulsorily in charge of her pilot until she is berthed at her destination. (Adm. Div.) The Ole Bull....

4. Southampton and Isle of Wight Districts-Outport district--The Solent.-The steamship N. Y. while on a voyage from New York to Southampton, via Cherbourg, came into collision, off Sconce Point, in the Solent, with the steamship A., which was proceeding from Southampton to Bombay. In the damage suits instituted by the owners of the two vessels, both vessels were held to blame for the collision, but the fault in each case was held to be that of the pilot, who was alleged to be compulsorily in charge. The owners of the A. contended that the N. Y. was exempt from compulsory pilotage because she was proceeding from Cherbourg to Southampton, and at the time of the collision was only passing through the pilotage district of the Isle of Wight, and so came within sect. 605 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 60). Held, that the N. Y. was in charge of a pilot by compulsion of law, for the waterway from the sea to Southampton was, for the purposes of compulsory pilotage, one district, although the Trinity House for the purpose of examining and controlling the pilots had from time to time divided the district among different sets of sub-commissioners at Portsmouth, Cowes, and Southampton, and although the limits of the pilots' licences had been varied and certain exclusive rights had been given to the Southampton pilots. (Adm. Div.) The Assaye

CONTRABAND OF WAR.

......

PAGE

534

84

183

See Marine Insurance, No. 3-Mortgagor and Mortgagee, No. 1-Seamen, Nos. 4, 5, 6, 9, 10.

CONTRACT OF INDEMNITY.

See Collision, Nos. 41, 42.

CONTRIBUTION.

See Collision, No. 43-Shipowners.

CONVERSION.

See Carriage of Goods, No. 13.

CO-OWNERS. See Shipowners.

COSTS.

See Charging Order-Collision, Nos. 2, 41, 43-Public Authorities Protection Act, No. 2-Salvage, Nos. 7, 9, 12-Shipping Casualty-Tug and Tow, No. 1.

COUNSEL.

See Salvage, No. 9.

COUNTER CLAIM.

See Collision, No. 12.

COUNTY COURTS ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION.

See Practice, No. 2.

"COURSE AND SPEED." See Collision, Nos. 14, 29.

CRIMPING.

See Seamen, Nos. 1, 2.

CROSSING SHIPS.

See Collision, Nos. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 29, 33.

CUSTOM.

See Carriage of Goods, Nos. 14, 15.

CUSTOMS.

See Carriage of Goods, No. 26.

DAMAGE.

1. Berth-Duty of wharfinger and harbour authorityDuty to warn-Shoreham.-The harbour at S. was vested in trustees who own and have the control and management of the harbour and the berths therein, one of which is alongside a wharf known as the K. wharf. The trustees invite vessels to use the harbour and levy tolls on vessels doing so. The K. wharf is owned, controlled, and managed by the L. B. and S. C. Railway Company, who collect dues on all goods loaded or discharged at the wharf. Vessels loading or discharging at the wharf have to take the ground at low water at the berth alongside the wharf. Trinity House pilots are licensed to pilot vessels into and out of the harbour at S., and from time to time take soundings in the harbour for the purpose of being able to navigate the ships which employ them, and in pursuance of the directions given them by the pilotage authority. The B., a French steamship, was employed to bring a consignment of flour to R. and A., merchants at S., who owned a warehouse on the K. wharf, built on land leased from the

railway company. At low water the B. took the ground and was injured by grounding on a heap of rubbish lying in the harbour alongside the wharf. Neither the trustees nor the railway company as wharfingers had ever sounded the berth, each thinking it was the duty of the other to do so, and also because both relied on the soundings made by the pilots whom they thought would tell them if anything was wrong. The owners of the B. sued the trustees and the wharfingers, the railway company, for the damages sustained by them by reason of the defective condition of the berth, and obtained judgment against both defendants. Both defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal. Held (confirming the judgment of Bargrave Deane, J.), that the trustees were liable for the damage caused by the defective berth as they had been guilty of a breach of their statutory duty to remove obstructions for the purpose of preserving the navigation and use of the harbour, and that the railway company, as wharfingers, were liable, for there was at least a duty on them to take reasonable care to find out whether the berth was safe, and that, in the event of the state of the berth being unknown to them, there was a duty on them to warn the B. that they did not know what condition the berth was in. (Ct. of App.) The Bearn

2. Submarine Telegraphs Convention-Fouling of anchor-Measure of damages. Art. 7 of the schedule to the Submarine Telegraph Act 1885 provides that shipowners who can prove that they have sacrificed an anchor in order to avoid injuring a submarine cable shall receive compensation from the owner of the cable. Held, that in the circumstances of this case the owner of the cable was liable to make compensation for an anchor and chain sacrificed, but not to pay the damages resulting from such sacrifice; though the measure of the compensation is not in all cases necessarily limited to the cost of replacing the anchor and

PAGE

208

3. Thames Conservancy-Duty to remove obstructions -Negligence. The plaintiffs' steamer, while navigating the river Thames, was damaged by a baulk of timber which had been at one time apparently used as a pile, and which was afterwards found to have its blunt end stuck in the bed of the river, and its pointed end slanting upwards and only a few inches below the surface of the water. Held, upon the facts, assuming, as was the case, that a duty lay upon the Thames Conservators to use reasonable care to keep the river Thames free from obstructions to navigation, that there was no evidence that the conservators had been guilty of any neglect of such duty causing the damage to the plaintiff's steamer. Judgment of Kennedy, J. (95 L. T. Rep. 104 (1906) affirmed. (Ct. of App.) Queens of the River Steamship Company Limited v. Easton, Gibb, and Co. and the Conservators of the River Thames

DAMAGE TO CARGO.

PAGE

499

542

See Carriage of Goods, Nos. 16 to 19, 28-Collision, No. 41-Tug and tow, No. 1.

DECK CARGO.

See Light Dues.

DEMISE.

See Limitation of Liability, No. 1-Marine Insurance, No. 10.

DEMURRAGE.

See Carriage of Goods, Nos, 7, 8, 12, 14-Charter party, Nos. 1 to 4-Collision, Nos. 10, 46-Harbour Commissioners.

• DERELICT.

See Salvage, No. 3.

DEVIATION.

See Carriage of Goods, Nos. 1, 20.

DISBURSEMENTS.

See Marine Insurance, No. 3.

DISCOVERY.

See Marine Insurance, No. 8-Practice, No. 3.

DISPATCH MONEY.

See Carriage of Goods, No. 11.

DOCK DUES.

1. Lighters-Exemption from dues-Discharging or receiving-London and St. Katharine Docks Act 1864. The London and St. Katharine Docks Act 1864 provides by sect. 136 that all lighters entering the docks to discharge or receive goods to or from on board of any ship or vessel lying therein" shall be exempt from the payment of rates, so long as the lighter is "bona fide engaged in so discharging or receiving the goods. A lighter entered the dock, laden with goods to be discharged into a particular ship then lying in the dock. This ship completed her loading and left the dock without receiving any of the goods on the lighter. The lighter remained in the dock. The next day, being four days after the lighter had entered the dock, another ship came in, into which the lighter discharged the goods and then left the dock. Held, by Vaughan Williams and Buckley, L.JJ. (Moulton, L.J., dissenting), that the lighter was exempt from the payment

of rates under sect. 136, although the ship she discharged her goods into was not lying in the dock at the time when the lighter entered the dock. A lighter entered the dock, laden with goods which were discharged into a ship then lying in the dock. The discharge of the goods into the ship was completed about 5 p.m. on Saturday, and the ship left the dock on the midnight tide. The lighter remained in the dock till Monday and left on the early_morning_tide. Held, by Vaughan Williams and Buckley, L.JJ. (Moulton, L.J., dissenting), that although the lighter had not left the dock by the first available tide after discharging the goods, yet the delay was not so unreasonable as to negative the contention that the lighter was bona fide engaged in discharging the goods within sect. 136, and that the lighter was therefore exempt under that section from the payment of rates. Judgment of Walton, J. (10 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 334 (1906); 96 L. T. Rep. 13) affirmed. (Ct. of App.) McDougall and Bonthron Limited v. London and India Docks Company; Page, Son, and East Limited v. London and India Docks Company 334, 557 2. Lighters-Exemption from dues-West India Dock Act 1831.-The West India Dock Act 1831, which empowers the dock company to levy dues on lighters entering the dock, provides by sect. 83 an exemption from dock dues in the case of lighters entering the dock to discharge goods into any vessel lying there, so long as such lighters shall be "bona fide engaged in discharging." Two barges entered the dock, laden with goods intended to be discharged into a vessel lying there. The barges lay in the dock until it was found that the vessel was fully loaded, and they then as soon as possible left the dock without having discharged any part of their cargoes. Held, affirming the decision of the Divisional Court (95 L. T. Rep. 506), that the barges were exempt under sect. 83 from liability to pay any dock dues. (Ct. of App.) London and India Docks Company v. Thames Steam Tug and Lighterage Company Limited

3. Statutory right to detain-Maritime lienPriorities-Mersey Docks Acts Consolidation

Acts 1858. The statutory power of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board to detain a vessel until the dock or harbour rates due in respect of her have been paid, is an absolute power of detention and is not affected by maritime liens attaching to the ship. (Ct. of Åpp.) The Emilie Millon; Gulbe and others v. Owners of the Emilie Millon

EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT 1880. Stevedore-Unloading ship-Defect in ship's tackle— Reasonable care.-A stevedore contracted to unload a ship, and, according to the usual custom, a part of the tackle used for the unloading was provided by the owner of the ship. In consequence of a defect in that tackle one of the stevedore's workmen was injured. The ship's tackle had been put in position by the mate of the ship. The workman brought an action against the stevedore for compensation under the Employers' Liability Act 1880, and the County Court judge withdrew the case from the jury on the ground that the stevedore was not liable for a defect in the ship's tackle, and his decision was affirmed by the Divisional Court. Held, that, although the tackle did not belong to the defendant, it was his duty to take reasonable care to see that it was not defective and was fit for the purpose for which it was used, and the action must be sent back for a new trial to determine whether this duty had been discharged. (Ct. of App.) Biddle v. Hart

ESTOPPEL.

See Carriage of Goods, No. 22.

FAULT OR PRIVITY.

512

162

469

See Carriage of Passengers-Limitation of Liability, No. 1.