In cases of loss of life. Jurisdiction to enforce judgments of foreign Admiralty Courts. JURISDICTION brought into collision with another ship and damaged, it was held that the owner of the damaged ship could sue the tug in the Admiralty Court (g). So also, where, by the careless navigation of those in charge of the ship proceeded against, the plaintiff's vessel was compelled to place herself in such a position that she received damage in the one case from contact with a sea wall, and in the other from a collision with a third ship, it was held that the suit had been properly brought in the Court of Admiralty (r). It was also decided in the Court of Admiralty that, in cases where loss of life or personal injuries resulting in death had been occasioned by a collision between two ships, that Court had jurisdiction to entertain suits instituted under Lord Campbell's Act by the legal personal representatives of the deceased person against the wrong-doing vessel (s). The Court of Queen's Bench, however, prohibited the Admiralty from exercising this jurisdiction. Since the passing of the Judicature Act, the Admiralty Division has asserted this jurisdiction, and the Court of Appeal, in a case where the judges were equally divided, has affirmed the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Division (†). Where a vessel has been in collision on the high seas, and has been, in proceedings in the nature of a suit in rem, condemned by a foreign Court of Admiralty in the damages sustained in the collision, but the sentence has not been satisfied, the Admiralty Division has jurisdiction to execute the sentence on the wrong-doing vessel being arrested within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court (u). The Admiralty Court of the Cinque Ports has concurrent CINQUE PORTS. jurisdiction with the Admiralty Division in such cases of col OF THE (a) The Nightwatch, Lush. 342; The Energy, L. R., 3 A. & E. 48; and see The Batavier, 1 Spk. 378, for a case where, after the passing of the 3 & 4 Vict. c. 65, the owners of a barge which had been sunk in the swell of a steamship recovered against the steamship the damages they had sustained. (r) The Industrie, L. R., 3 A. & E. 303; The Sisters, 1 P. D. 117. (s) The Beta, L. R., 2 P. C. 447; The Guldfaxe, L. R., 2 A. & E. 325; The George and Richard, L. R., 3 A. & E. 466, where leave was reserved for a claim to be preferred on behalf of a child en ventre sa mère at the time of the collision, if born within due time. See also The Explorer, L. R., 3 A. & E. 289; 2 P. D. 164, note; and Smith v. Brown, L. R., 6 Q. B. 729. (t) See The Franconia, 2 P. D. 163. (u) The City of Mecca, 5 P. D. 28. And see the decision of the Court of Appeal in the same case, W. N. 1881, P. 75. lision occurring within the boundaries of the Cinque Ports as could have been entertained in the High Court of Admiralty before the recent statutes extending the jurisdiction of that Court (v). OF COUNTY 71), Cor shall HAVING where JURISDICTION. ADMIRALTY It is provided by the third section of the County Courts JURISDICTION Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. that the county courts having Admiralty jurisdiction (x) have jurisdiction over claims for damage by collision the amount claimed does not exceed 3007., or where the amount claimed is beyond that limit, if the parties agree, by a signed memorandum, that any county court having Admiralty jurisdiction and specified in such memorandum shall have jurisdiction (y). The 4th section of the County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Amendment Act, 1869, extends and applies the provisions of this section to all claims for damage to ships, whether by collision or otherwise, when the amount claimed does not exceed 3007. (z). Under this section county courts having Admiralty jurisdiction can entertain a claim for damage done to a ship by a barge within the body of a county (a); but the provisions of the section do not confer on these Courts jurisdiction either in an action against a pilot who, when in charge of a vessel, has brought about a collision (b), or in a case where a collision has occurred within the body of a county, between two barges propelled by oars only (c). The Vice-Admiralty Courts Act, 1863 (26 Vict. c. 24), JURISDICTION (v) See The Vivid, 42 L. J., Adm. 57; and infra, CHAP. X. SALVAGE. See also the 33rd section of the County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 71, Appendix, p. cccii), allowing appeals and transfers to be made to the Court of Admiralty of the Cinque Ports in lieu of the High Court of Admiralty in all cases which arise within the jurisdiction of the Cinque Ports as defined by 1 & 2 Geo. 4, c. 76, s. 18 (see Supplementary Appendix, p. 130), and are also within the jurisdiction of a County Court having Admiralty jurisdiction. (2) See Appendix, p. ccxcviii. For a list of these Courts and the limits of their jurisdiction, see Appendix, Orders in Council, pp. 20-25. Actions instituted under this section can be transferred to the Admiralty Division either by order of that Division or M.P. of the County Court in which the suit (y) The 9th section of the Act pro- (z) Appendix, p. cccvii. (a) Purkis v. Flower, L. R., 9 Q. B. OF VICE ADMIRALTY sect. 10, gives jurisdiction to the Vice-Admiralty Courts over OTHER COURTS claims "for damage done by any ship" (c). COURTS AND OF ADMI RALTY JURIS DICTION. Jurisdiction of justices in cases of damage to piers, &c. PROCEDURE IN The Court of Admiralty in Ireland has inherent jurisdiction in causes of damage, and this jurisdiction has recently been extended by statute (d). In Scotland, the Court of Session has an Admiralty jurisdiction in cases of collision between ships (e). The 75th section of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act, 1847, provides that any damage done to the harbours, piers, docks or works within that Act, by any vessel or float of timber, shall, if the amount claimed in respect of such damages does not exceed 50%., be recoverable in England or Ireland before two justices, or in Scotland before the sheriff of the county, and that in any such case where damages have been awarded the justices or sheriff may detain and keep the vessel or float by which such damage has been done until payment of the amount of damages awarded and costs (f). By the 76th section of the same Act, it is provided that where any owner of a vessel or float of timber has made satisfaction for any such damages as in the preceding section mentioned, wilfully or negligently done by the master or person in charge of such vessel or float of timber, the amount of such damage, if it does not exceed 50%., shall be recoverable from the person who actually did the damage before two or more justices or the sheriff in Scotland (g). There was formerly a very marked difference between the DIVISION AND mode of proceeding in the Admiralty Court and in the Common Law Courts, but since the passing of the Judicature Acts many of these distinctions have ceased to exist (h). QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION. (c) See Appendix, p. ccxl, and supra, p. 123, n. (x). See also the Vice-Admiralty Courts Act Amendment Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Vict. c. 45; Appendix, p. cclxxii. This section confers jurisdiction over a claim for damage done by a ship to a wharf. The Chase, Stuart's Vice-Adm. (Quebec) Reports, 1875, p. 361; S. C. on appeal, P. C., July 22nd, 1873. (d) See 30 & 31 Vict. c. 114, s. 29. As to the admiralty jurisdiction of certain local Courts in Ireland, see 39 & 40 Vict. c. 28, and 40 & 41 Vict. c. 56, s. 49. (e) See 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 69, ss. 21, 22, and Fraser's Judicial Proceedings before the High Court of Admiralty in Scotland (Edinburgh), 1814. (f) 10 Vict. c. 27; Supplementary Appendix, p. 148. If payment be not made within seven days of the award, the vessel or float may be sold, and the damages, costs, and expenses paid out of the proceeds. (g) Supplementary Appendix, p. 148. (h) The practice of the Court of Admiralty is in force in the Admiralty Division so far as it has not been expressly varied either by the Judicature Acts or the Rules of the Supreme Court (38 & 39 Vict. c. 77, s. 18). See The Vivar, 2 P. D. 29; The Polymede, 1 P. D. 121; The Sfactoria, 2 P. D. 3; The The distinction between proceedings in rem, which can only be instituted in the Admiralty Division, and proceedings in per sonam, has already been noticed (i). In the Admiralty Division the trial invariably takes place Mode of trial. before the judge without a jury, but usually assisted by elder brethren of the Trinity House of Deptford Strond (j), who act as skilled nautical assessors (k); while in the Queen's Bench Division the trial usually takes place before a judge and jury (1). Until within recent times the Court of Admiralty received evidence by written depositions only, but by the 3 & 4 Vict. c. 65, the practice was introduced into the Admiralty Court of taking evidence by word of mouth, and now evidence is taken substantially in the same manner in all divisions of the High Court (m). The burden of proof lies in all cases upon the party seeking Burden of to recover compensation for damage caused by a collision, and he proof. must establish that the loss was attributable to the default of the person sued (n). There are, however, certain artificial rules introduced by the legislature on the ground of public policy, which in certain cases affect the onus of proof in actions of collision. Thus, by sect. 28 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1862, in case Matthew Cay, 5 P. D. 49. As to the practice of the Court of Admiralty, see Brown's Civil and Admiralty Law, vol. 2, p. 396 et seq.; Pritchard's Admiralty Dig. tit. Practice; Williams and Bruce's Admiralty Practice; Roscoe's Admiralty Practice. Where in a cause of collision proceedings were taken in the Admiralty Court on behalf of the crown against the ship causing the damage, it was held that the 18 & 19 Viet. c. 90, did not impose upon the crown the liability to pay costs. The Leda, Br. & L. 19. Where the proceedings are in the Admiralty Division and the Crown is not a plaintiff, the costs are in all cases in the discretion of the Court. Ord. LV. r. 1. As to actions against the officers of Queen's ships, see H.M.S. Swallow, Swa. 30. (i) See supra, pp. 619, 620. () See The Eolides, 3 Hagg. 367, and supra, p. 272, n. (o). the judgment in The Vernon, 1 N. (1) Where a case is tried before a (m) See sect. 7. In default actions in the Admiralty Division, it is usual for evidence to be brought before the court by affidavit. See The Polymede, and The Sfactoria, ubi supra. (n) The London, nomine Morgan v. Sim, 11 Moo. P. C. C. 307; Spaight v. Tedcastle, 6 App. Cas. 217, 224; The Benmore, L. R., 4 A. & E. 132; The Otter, L. R., 4 A. & E. 203. As to the onus of proof where the shipowners set up the defence of compulsory pilotage, see The Clyde Navigation Commissioners v. Barclay, 1 App. Ca. 790, and supra, p. 285. (4) In the Admiralty Division, whether Trinity Masters attend or not, the decision in every case rests with the judge alone. The Aid, 6 P. D. [March 5, 1881]; The Swanland, 2 Spks. 108; The Alfred, 7 N. of C. 354; The Speed, 2 W. Rob. 231. See also Where regulations infringed. any damage to person or property arises from the non-observance by any ship of any Regulation made by or in pursuance of that act, the damage is to be deemed to have been occasioned by the wilful default (p) of the person in charge of the deck of the ship at the time, unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that the circumstances of the case made a departure from the regulation necessary (q). Moreover, it is provided by the 17th section of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1873 (r), that if in any case of collision it is proved to the Court before which the case is tried that any of the Regulations for preventing collision contained in or made under the Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1873, has been infringed, the ship (s) by which such Regulation has been infringed shall be deemed to be in fault (t), unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that the circumstances of the case made departure from the regulation necessary (u). This section applies to a case of collision where the Regulations have been infringed by a foreign vessel on the high seas (r). A ship will not be deemed in fault by virtue of the provisions of this section where it is proved that the infringement of the Regulations could not by any possibility have contributed to the collision (y). Thus, where a collision occurred between two (p) The words "wilful default" in this section do not affect the liability of the shipowner for the unintentional but negligent acts of the master or crew. Grill v. The General Screw Collier Company, L. R., 1 C. P. 601; 3 C. P. 476; The Seine, Swa. 411. As to the meaning of " 'person in charge," see infra, p. 629, n. (b). (9) See also the M. S. Act, 1854, s. 27, supra, p. 585, as to the statutory obligation imposed on owners and masters to obey these Regulations. (r) This section is substituted for the 29th section of the M. S. Act, 1862, which section, until it was repealed by the M. S. Act, 1873, s. 33, took the place of sects. 298 and 299 of the M. S. Act, 1854 [repealed by the M. S. Act, 1862, s. 2, and Sched. table A.]. See The Juliana, Swa. 20, and The Fenham, L. R., 3 P. C. 212. (s) The owner of cargo suing in an action of collision will not be "deemed in fault" under this section for the negligence of the vessel carrying the cargo. See The Milan, Lush. 388, a decision upon sect. 298 of the M. S. Act, 1854. (t) This does not mean "shall be deemed solely in fault." The Hibernia, 24 W. R. 60-P. C.; The Lady Downshire, 4 P. D. 26. See also The Aliwal, 18 Jurist, 296; The James, Lawson v. Carr, 10 Moo. P. C. C. 162; The London, nomine Morgan v. Sim, 11 Moo. P. C. C. 307. (u) For recent cases where defences that circumstances rendered a departure from the Regulations necessary were not sustained, see The Tirzah, 4 P. D. 33; The Lovebird, 6 P. D. [March 4, 1881]. See also The Aurora, Lush. 327, and The London, 11 Moo. P. C. C. 307. (x) The Magnet, L. R, 4 A. & E. 417. (y) The Magnet, ubi supra; The Duke of Sutherland, L. R., 4 A. & E. 419; The Fanny M. Carvill, L. R., 4 A. & E. 422; S. C. on appeal, 44 L. J., Adm. 34. See also The Englishman, 3 P. D. 18; The Khedive, nomine Stoomvaart Maatschappy Nederland v. The Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., 5 App. Ca. 893, 894. Those who represent the ship guilty of an infringement of the regulations have the burden cast upon them of showing that the infringement could not have possibly contributed to the collision. The Fanny M. Carvill, ubi |