ACCIDENTAL DEATH-Action by representative.

See Jurisdiction.

ADMIRALTY COURT ACT. See Damage. Juris-
diction.

APPEAL practice in cases of questions of fact]—
On an appeal to the Judicial Committee, if their
Lordships find that, in the Court below, there
was clear and distinct evidence upon one side,
and possibly evidence which the appellants
might think to be clear and distinct on the
other side, nevertheless, if the Judge in the
Court below, in his discretion, having the op-
portunity of seeing the witnesses and observing
their demeanour, has come, on a balance of tes-
timony, to a clear and decisive conclusion, those
who undertake to reverse that conclusion, on
the ground that the Judge has erred in giving
credence to one class of witnesses rather than to
the other, undertake an almost impossible task.
Reid v. Aberdeen, Newcastle and Hull Steam Co.
(the Princess Alice and the Alice), (P.C.), 5
ARREST of ship or cargo. See Damage.

BOTTOMRY BOND-condition of, for average salvage
on loss of ship: total loss: constructive total
loss general average] The condition of a
bottomry bond provided that the obligation
should be void if the obligors should pay, "in
case of loss of the ship or vessel, such an
average as by custom should have become due
on the salvage, or if on the said voyage the
said ship or vessel should be utterly lost, cast
away or destroyed" in consequence of the
perils of the seas, &c. The vessel during her
voyage was obliged to put into port in a damaged
state, and was there sold for a sum less than the
amount of the bond, under circumstances which
it was admitted would, as between assurers and
assured, have constituted a constructive total
loss:- Held (affirming the decision below-see
page 14), that, upon the true construction of
this condition, the loss was not "a loss" within
NEW SERIES, 38.—ADMIRALTY.

the meaning of the condition, and that the holders
of the bond were entitled to the whole proceeds
of the sale of the ship. Stephens v. Broomfield;
The Great Pacific, (P.C.), 45

hypothecation of cargo: necessity for: ad-
vances for, by charterer: freight: rights of
obligee]-The existence of the "necessity" which
validates the hypothecation of cargo by bot-
tomry is to be ascertained by evidence in the
usual manner; and the meaning of the term
"necessity" in respect of hypothecation by the
master is analogous to its meaning in other parts
of the law. Droege v. Stuart (The Karnak),
(P.C.), 57

Any combination of events which would prevent
the completion of the voyage with profit, unless
money should be obtained by bottomry, would
raise the question whether there was need for
bottomry in such high degree as to create a
necessity. Ibid.

In a suit on a bottomry bond hypothecating "ship,
cargo and freight," it appeared that the master
had before bottomry obtained advances on ac-
count of freight from the charterers:- Held,
that the obligee in bottomry had no claim to
freight so advanced by the charterers prior to
bottomry, provided the advances were made
bona fide. Ibid.

notice to owner, an insolvent]—A vessel being
in distress at Cuba, the agents of the charterers
telegraphed to that effect to the charterers at
Liverpool, who authorizod their agents to ad-
vance the necessary funds on bottomry. The
owner resided in the same town as the charterers,
and the charterers knew where he lived, but
the owner was insolvent :- Held, that the
charterers should have communicated with the
owner, and that in the absence of such notice
the bond was invalid. The Panama, 67

COLLISION-compulsory pilotage: duty to assist the
injured vessel: person in charge]· Two steam-
vessels, the L. J. R. and the Q, came into col.

L

1

Hision, and those on board the Q. rendered no
assistance to the L. J. R, which greatly needed
it. The Q. was in charge of a pilot, compulsorily
taken:-
Semble, that the omission to render
assistance after the collision was the fault of the
master, as the "person in charge" for this purpose;
but that the owners of the Q. would nevertheless
not be liable for the collision itself if it had been
caused solely by the pilot. The Queen, 39
COLLISION (Continued)-compulsory pilotage: pas-
senger ship]-Owners are not exonerated from
responsibility for the default of a pilot whom
they have selected and placed in charge when
there was no obligation imposed on them to
take such pilot and put him in charge. Owners
of the Steamship Lion v. Owners of the Ship York-
town; The Lion, (P.C.), 51

In a cause of damage it appeared that at the time
of the collision the master of the damaging ship
had on board his wife and his wife's father.
They were on board by the invitation of the
master and without the privity of the owners,
and they paid no fare till after the collision:-
Held, that they were not passengers within the
meaning of section 379. of the Merchant Ship-
ping Act, 1854, which exempts certain ships
when not carrying passengers from compulsory
pilotage, Ibid.

in swinging to the tide pilot's responsi-
bility: liability of owners]-The W. A, in charge
of a pilot, came to anchor in the Mersey and
gave the B. T. a foul berth. Various remon-
strances were from time to time made by those
on board the B. T, and after a few days the
vessels in swinging to the tide came into col-
lision:-Held, that the owners of the W. A. were
responsible for the damage, first, because while
the vessel was at anchor, the employment of the
pilot was not compulsory; and secondly, be-
cause, even if the pilot had not properly moored
the W. A, her master was not relieved from
responsibility, and therefore her owners
liable for the damage. The Woburn Abbey, 28

གེ སྐས ་གྱི

were

See Damage. Mortgage. Pleading.
COMPULSORY PILOTAGE. See Collision. Damage.

COSTS of witnesses not called]-The expenses of
material and necessary witnesses may be allowed,
even though they may not have been called at
the trial. The Biddick, 24

pilot alone to blame]-In a cause of damage
the only defence was, that the collision was
caused by the fault of a pilot whom defen-
dants were compelled to take, Defendants
having proved their case,-Held, that plaintiffs
must be condemned in costs. The Royal Charter,
36

See Mortgage.

DAMAGE arrest of ship after, subsequent to the
damage: maritime lien]-In March, 1866, the
French vessel C. A. having come into collision

with the R, the master of the C. A. gave in
satisfaction of the damage a bill of exchange
for 821. 58., payable on the arrival of the C. A.
at her destined port of S. The C. A, instead
of proceeding to S, went to France, where she
was sold by the syndics of her owner's estate.
In December, 1867, the vessel again came to
England, and was arrested for the damage :-
Held, that the lien for damage was not lost by
laches or the subsequent sale of the vessel. The
Charles Amelia, 17

attempted salvage and subsequent damage:
liability of owner for acts of the master]-The
policies of insurance upon a steam-vessel (the
T.) and the bills of lading provided that she
might "assist and tow vessels in all situations,"
and in the course of the voyage the T, in
attempting to render salvage services to the S,
damaged the latter so that she sank:-Held,
that the owners of the T. were liable for the
damage to the S. And, semble-that even if
there had been no such provision in the policies
and bills of lading the master would have been
acting within the scope of his authority in
rendering the salvage services, and that there-
fore his owners would be responsible for his
negligence in performing them. The Thetis, 42

damage to cargo: negligence of master and
crew exceptions in the bill of lading]-A cargo
of nuts, stowed before the bill of lading was
signed, was subsequently damaged in the course
of the voyage by the carelessness of the master
and crew, and the bill of lading provided against
liability for their negligence Held, that the
shipowner was not liable for the damage. The
Duero, 69.

damage to cargo: leakage: right to sue: con-
signeee]-C, M. & Co. were in the habit of
consigning goods to plaintiffs for sale, and plain-
tiffs from time to time accepted their bills and
accredited them with the proceeds of sale of the
goods. C, M. & Co. being at the time indebted
to plaintiffs upon the account current between
them, consigned a cargo of sugar to plaintiffs
which was delivered in a damaged state:-Held,
that as consignees of the cargo and creditors of
C, M. & Co. plaintiffs were entitled to sue in
the Admiralty Court for damage by reason
of negligence or breach of duty; and semble also
as mere consignees, even though no property in
the goods passed to them. Held, also, that the
damage was caused by the insufficient drainage

INTERROGATORIES-practice as to compelling answers]-The practice of the High Court of Admiralty as to interrogatories follows that of the Courts of equity rather than that of common law Courts. The Mary, otherwise Alexandra, 29 In a cause of possession the defendant may be compelled to answer interrogatories if they be such as tend to support the plaintiffs' case and to a complete inquiry into the truth of the issues in the cause. Ibid.

A defendant will not be compelled to answer an interrogatory if he swear that his answer would subject him to the penalties of the Foreign Enlistment Act. Ibid.

Theancient and modern practice of the High Court of Admiralty as to interrogatories reviewed. Ibid.

JURISDICTION -loss of life: action by representative]-The High Court of Admiralty has jurisdiction in a suit, by the representative of a deceased person, for injury to the deceased by collision between two vessels. The Guldfaxe, 12

construction of Admiralty Act (24 Vict. c. 10. s. 7.) as to liability of ship for personal injury-The Admiralty Court Act, 1861, by section 7, provides "that the High Court of Admiralty shall have jurisdiction over any claim for damage done by any ship." The respondent sued the appellants' ship for personal injury done to himself by a collision, alleged to be caused by the unskilful navigation of the appellant's ship:-Held, that the section of the Admiralty Act included personal injury. Owners of the Steamship "Beta" v. Toussaint Rollando; The Beta, (P.C.), 50

LIEN-for damage. See Damage.
MASTER-Duty of. See Collision.

MORTGAGE Costs and damages]-Mortgagee of four sixty-fourth shares of a vessel condemned in the costs, but not damages, occasioned by a wrongful arrest of the vessel. The Egerateia, 40

PASSENGER SHIP. See Collision,

PILOT. See Collision. Damage.

PLEADING - answer: material allegation: proof:

variance] On appeal from the Admiralty Court in a case of collision by drifting, between two vessels originally at anchor, the statement in the defendants' answer in the Court below as to the bearing of their vessel in respect to the other when at anchor, varied from the proof:Held, that the statement as to the bearing of one vessel in respect of the other when at anchor was immaterial, and was therefore not necessary under the Admiralty Rules, 1859, No. 67, and that the variance was therefore immaterial. Fairfoot v. Chalwin; The Rosita, (P.C.), 20

particulars of negligence in cause of damage to cargo] In a cause of damage to cargo, the plaintiffs alleged that the oil-cake was not delivered in good order according to the terms of the bill of lading, and also that there was a breach of the contract in the bill of lading, or that the damage was caused by the negligence or breach of duty of the master or crew:-Held, that the plaintiffs were not bound to set forth the particular acts or the character of the negligence which caused the damage. The Freedom, 25

in cause of collision: statements by defendant] -To a petition alleging that the M. had been for some time close-hauled on the starboard tack, and that the W. N. on the port tack came into collision with her, the answer admitted that the W. N. was close-hauled on the port tack, and alleged that the M. was seen on the port tack, distant about a mile:-Held, that the defendants were bound also to allege what was subsequently done on board the W. N. and before the collision, and the mode of the collision. The Why Not, 26

Committee will diminish as well as increase the
quantum of salvage, where the amount awarded
is exorbitant or manifestly excessive. The Chetah,
(P.C.), 1

SALVAGE (continued)-interference with discretion
of Admiralty Court as to amount of salvage]—
The Judicial Committee will not interfere with
the discretion exercised by the Judge of the
Admiralty Court in awarding compensation for
salvage service, unless the difference between
the amount awarded and the amount due in the
judgment of the Judicial Committee is very
considerable. Prendiville v. National Steam
Navigation Co. (The England), (P.C.), 9

jurisdiction: arrest: costs and damages]-A
vessel which had been saved was valued by a
receiver of wreck at less than 1,000l. The salvors
obtained an order for a commission of appraise-
ment, but did not execute it, and after three
weeks gave notice that they proceeded no fur-
ther in the suit :- Held, that they might, within
four days of obtaining the order, have ascer-
tained the value, and that therefore they must

be condemned in damages for detention of the
vessel during the rest of the three weeks. The
Margaret and Jane, 38

agreement as to distribution]—The plaintiff,
as temporary master of a steam-tug, rendered
important salvage service to a vessel in distress.
At the time he became master he was aware of
the custom of the owners of the steam-tug to
distribute any salvage according to a fixed rate
of poundage, but the owners gave him no special
notice of the custom:-Held, that the legal effect
together of the 182nd section of the Merchant
Shipping Act, 1854, and of the 18th section of
the Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Act,
1862, is to leave agreements for distribution of
salvage in the same condition in which they
were prior to any legislation on the subject. And
that, under the circumstances of the case, the
custom was not inequitable, and that the plain.
tiff was bound by it. The Ganges, 61

See Damage.

STAYING PROCEEDINGS. See Practice.