MARTHA light was exhibited in the fore-rigging. They swear that they placed it there themselves; and evidence that it was not seen by other parties, not on board the vessel, is clearly not entitled to the same weight as the positive testimony of the men who lighted and placed it. A ship's light is not an object so bright and conspicuous that it must necessarily be seen by persons whose eyes are not directed to it; and the numerous lights on board the steamer and the brigantine may have tended to prevent the people on board them from observing the single light on board the Diligence. The evidence, in my opinion, leaves no room to doubt that there was a light exhibited on board the Diligence, in such a position that it must have been seen by the people of the steamer, and of the brigantine if a proper look-out had been kept by them. On the other hand, it is certain that the Diligence did not exhibit two lights, as the Trinity House Regulations required; nor was the one light quite so high above the deck as prescribed. But it is admitted that the Diligence was seen by those on board the steamer and the brigantine. Laflamme, a fireman of the steamer, Mercier, the mate of the brigantine, and Beauchemin, the pilot of the steamer, -all witnesses for the defence,-distinctly say they saw her and passed at a short distance from her, in coming up the river against the tide, after passing below her to make the turn. The witnesses for the defence differ as to the distance at which they were from the Diligence when they cast off the brigantine. Mercier says, he thinks now they were about five arpents from her, while the pilot, Beauchemin, estimates the distance at about an arpent and a half, the Diligence being to the north and below the brigantine. Mercier says he thought then that they were further from her, but Beauchemin does not so qualify his estimate of the distance, or say that he was deceived as to the distance by want of a light on board the Diligence. When a vessel at anchor is run down by another vessel, the vessel under weigh is bound to show by clear and indisputable evidence that the accident did not arise from any fault or negligence on her part, for this obvious reason that the vessel at anchor has no means of shifting her position or avoiding collision. In this case it does appear that there was fault or negligence on the part of the brigantine, the master of which expressly desired the steamer to cast him off at the time mentioned by the witnesses, and within a distance from the Diligence which proved insufficient to enable him to bring up his vessel without coming into collision with the Diligence. He miscalculated either his distance from that vessel, or the strength of the tide, or the time it would take before his anchor would hold him; and the greatest distance stated certainly appears too short, considering that the tide was running full ebb directly towards the Diligence. But this miscalculation cannot be in any way imputed to any fault or negligence on the part of the people of the Diligence, or to the fact of her having but one light instead of two as required by the Trinity House Regulations then in force, or to the one light being a little lower than prescribed. If the people on board the steamer and brigantine had not seen the Diligence, then the non-compliance with the regulation might have been a defence to the action; but having seen her, they were bound to take every precaution against a collision with her, and this whether she was properly or improperly anchored or lighted. Neither by the marine nor by the common law is a vessel or a carriage justified in not taking proper precautions against a collision with another, by the fact that such other is not in its proper position or side of the road or is in any way contravening any rule of the sea or of the road. It does not appear that the Martha Sophia took proper precautions for avoiding a collision with the Diligence after having seen her; the night was clear, and C MARTHA SOPHIA. MARTHA there was no wind or other circumstance which could occasion any difficulty, and the collision seems to me to have arisen solely from the Martha Sophia having cast off from the steamer sooner than she ought in common prudence to have done, and not having allowed sufficient time for her anchor to hold, and to keep her clear of the Diligence. Vessels ought certainly to comply strictly with all the Trinity House Regulations, and the Diligence may have been liable to a penalty for not doing so, but the collision did not arise from her non-compliance with such regulations, nor did such non-compliance justify the neglect or error in judgment on the part of the Martha Sophia by which the accident was occasioned. Kerr and Lemoine, for the Diligence. Plamondon and Dechene, for the Martha Sophia. Tuesday, 20th December, 1859. MARGARET-CLARK. Where collision occurs, without blame being imputable to either party, loss must be borne by party on whom it happens to alight. The Court will not give costs where a collision has occurred from inevitable accident. In a case of collision the onus probandi is, in the first instance, upon the party complaining of the injury. Although the rule is to port the helm upon the approach of a vessel so soon as descried, still there must be time and opportunity for reflection, as a vessel may, at first sight, be going in a direction opposite to that supposed, and the consequence fatal. This was a cause of damage by collision promoted by MARGARET. the owner of the barque Warburton against the barque Margaret, under the circumstances noticed in the following judgment: THE COURT-Hon. Henry Black. The Warburton, a vessel of 405 tons burthen, laden with deals, sailed from Quebec on the 18th of November, 1857, on her home voyage to London, and in the early morning of the 24th, the wind then being from south-eastward, was beating down the river between Gaspé and Anticosti, under two close-reefed topsails, and on the starboard tack. The Margaret, a vessel of 559 tons burthen, laden with wheat, flour, and deals, sailed from Quebec for Liverpool on the 17th of the same month of November, and in the early morning of the 24th was also beating down between Anticosti and Gaspé, under close-reefed topsails, fore-topmast stay sail and mizen stay sail, on the port tack, and going about five miles an hour. The rate at which the Warburton was going is differently stated, the man at the wheel saying it was from three to four knots, the boat MARGARET. swain five or six knots, while the master says she was going about one knot, and the mate that she might be said to be hove to, and was scarcely under command. About forty minutes past five, according to the witnesses on the part of the Warburton, and about five according to those on the part of the Margaret, the two vessels met each other on opposite tacks, and the collision took place, the Margaret striking the Warburton on the port side, and doing the damage complained of. The Warburton was so disabled that she was obliged to be run ashore on Anticosti, and wintered there. The Margaret was also so much injured by the collision that she had to go into Sidney in Cape Breton to repair. There is as usual some discrepancy between the evidence offered by the opposing parties, but the following facts appear to me to be clearly established:-The Warburton was on the starboard, and the Margaret on the port tack. The Margaret had a good light at her bowsprit end, which was seen from the Warburton. The Warburton, a short time before the collision, had taken in her bowsprit light, for the purpose of trimming it, and it was so taken in at the time when she first saw the Margaret's light; but on seeing the Margaret's light, the master of the Warburton ordered the binnacle light to be exhibited over her lee or port side about the main chains. The light of the Margaret was first seen about two points on the lee (or port) bow of the Warburton. The light which the master of the Warburton ordered to be exhibited when he saw the Margaret's light, was seen suddenly by the people of the Margaret on her lee bow. There is contradiction in the evidence as to the time which elapsed between the time when the vessels saw each other's lights, and that at which the collision took place, the people of the Warburton saying they saw the Margaret's light ten or fifteen minutes previous to the collision, and that they exhibited their binnacle light over the side immediately after first seeing the Mar |