(Collision.)

73. Whenever two vessels are seen from each other, even in parallel courses, provided they are close to each other, or in any course so that there is reasonable probability of a collision, it is their duty, unless there be some impediment, to obey the rule prescribed by the Act respecting the navigation of Canadian waters. The Arabian and The Alma, 2 Stuart, 72.

74. Where a steamer, coming down the St. Lawrence, upon a dark night, meets a sailing vessel, and those in charge of the steamer are in doubt what course the sailing vessel is upon, it is their duty to ease her engine and slacken her, speed until they ascertain the course of the sailing vessel. ibid.

75. The rule of the Admiralty Court, that in case of mutual blame the damage was to be divided, is superseded by sec. 12 of the "Act respecting the navigation of Canadian waters," and the penalty on a party neglecting the rules, enjoined by sec. 8, is to prevent the owner of one vessel recovering damages from the other also in fault. ibid.

This has since been changed by R. S. C. c. 79, s. 7.

76. A steamer going up the St. Lawrence at night, on a voyage from Quebec to Montreal, saw the light of another steamer coming down the river, distant about two miles; and when at the distance of rather more than half a mile, took a diagonal course across the river in order to gain the south channel, starboarding her helm, and then putting it hard-a-starboard. The steamer coming down, having ported her helm on seeing the other, a collision ensued. Held: That the vessels were meeting each other within the meaning of the Act regulating the navigation of the waters of Canada, and that the steamer going up the river was solely to blame for the collision in not having ported her helm. The James McKenzie, ibid, 87.

77. A vessel having the wind free is bound to take proper means to get out of the way of a vessel close hauled. The Courier, ibid, 91.

78. The owners of a vessel having a branch pilot on board are only exempt from liability for damage where the damage is caused exclusively by the negligence or unskilfulness of the pilot. ibid.

See The Gordon, ibid, 198.

79. Of two vessels beating to the windward on opposite tacks, it is the duty of the vessel on the starboard tack to keep her course, and of the vessel on the port tack to give way. The Liberty, ibid, 102.

(Collision.)

80. It is not enough to show that the accident could not be prevented by the party at the moment it occurred, if previous measures could have been adopted to render the occurrence of it less probable. The Liberty, 2 Stuart, 102.

81. Collision by two vessels while sailing, one on the starboard tack, close to the wind, and the other on the port tack. Held: That the latter was to blame for not porting her helm in time, and that the former complied with the rule of the road by keeping on a wind close hauled. The Tornado, 2 Stuart, 172.

82. The pilot in charge of a ship is solely responsible for getting her under weigh in improper circumstances. Defence in a cause of damage upon this ground sustained in the case of a vessel leaving the port of Quebec and running foul of another ship. The Anglo-Saxon, ibid, 117.

83. Where there is a reasonable doubt as to which party is to blame, the loss must be sustained by the party on whom it falls. The Rockaway, ibid, 129.

84. Where the damage was attributable to a deficiency of lookout and management on board the ship doing the damage, and not solely to fault or neglect on the pilot's part, the owners were held liable for the damage. The Secret, ibid, 133.

See The Courier, ibid, 91; and The Gordon, ibid, 198.

85. A vessel while at anchor in the harbor of Quebec, having been run into and made to start from her anchorage, and to drift down with the tide against other vessels, dismissed upon the ground of inevitable accident. The McLeod, ibid, 140.

86. A vessel in motion is bound to steer clear of a vessel at anchor, and nothing can excuse her not doing so but inevitable accident. The Oriental, ibid, 144.

87. When a collision was occasioned by improper steering of a vessel, the exclusive act of the pilot, the vessel was held entitled to the exemption provided by the statute. The Hibernian, ibid, 148.

88. A vessel held to be in fault for having ported her helm and thereby caused damage which might have been avoided if she had kept her course or starboarded. The Lorne, ibid, 177.

89. When a steamer at anchor showed a green and white light instead of a white light, as directed for steamers at anchor, she was held to have been in fault. ibid.

(Collision.)

90. The fault of one vessel will not excuse any want of care, diligence, or skill in another, so as to exempt her from sharing the loss or damage. The Germany; The City of Quebec, 2 Stuart, 158.

91. When both ships were in fault the Admiralty law divided the damages of the owners of the ships. ibid.

92. But this rule was qualified by the Act respecting the navigation of Canadian waters, which agrees with sec. 298 of the Merchant Shipping Act. ibid.

But since changed by R. S. C. c. 79, s. 7 (43 Vict. c. 29, s. 8.)

93. In "The Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Act" (25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, s. 29), this clause was repealed, and the old rule of dividing the damage was re-established. The rule and the penalty provided for the breach of them in Canadian waters remained unchanged until 43 Vict. c. 29, s. 8, so that now the rule of dividing the damages also obtains in Canada.

See note to The Grace, ante, p. 24.

94. The enactment in "The Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Act, 1862," to the effect that if in any case of collision it appeared to the Court that such collision was occasioned by the neglect of any regulation under that Act, the ship so neglecting should be deemed to be in fault is so far changed that if in any case of collision it is proved to the Court that the regulations under "The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1873," have been infringed, the ship by which these regulations were so infringed shall be deemed to be in fault. See 36 & 37 Vict. c. 85, s. 17; 2 Stuart, 329; also ante, p. 24.

See 31 Vict. c. 58, s. 11 (Can.).

95. The Court of Vice-Admiralty exercises jurisdiction in a case of collision in Halifax harbor. The Wavelet, 2 Stuart, 354; s. c. Young, 34.

96. In order to support an action for damages in cases of collision, it is necessary distinctly to prove that the collision arose from the fault of the persons on board the vessel charged as the wrongdoer; or from the fault of the persons on board of that vessel and of those on board of the injured vessel. The Agda, Cook, 1.

97. Where the evidence on both sides is conflicting, and there is reasonable doubt as to which party is to blame, the loss must be sustained by the party on whom it has fallen. ibid.

(Collision.)

98. Where a part of the line of an electro-magnectic telegraph passed under the river St. Lawrence, being laid in such.a manner on the bed as not injuriously to interrupt the navigation. Held, in a case of gross negligence, on the part of a sailing ship causing the wire cable to be broken, that her owners were liable for the damage; and, as under existing statutory law, the Admiralty has jurisdiction, in case of damage done by any ship, that consequently proceedings in rem against the offending vessel were rightly taken. The Czar, Cook, 9.

99. Where a steamship did not keep out of the way of a sailing ship, there being risk of a collision, and the sailing ship, by porting her helm instead of keeping her course, contributed to the collision, both held to be in fault, and neither entitled to recover. Quebee; The Charles Chaloner, Cook, 17.

The

100. The law imposing compulsory pilotage having been repealed, the liability of shipowners for acts of pilots in charge of their vessels revived. ibid.

101. A steamer having a clear course altered it to go to the south and pass between two other vessels, and in attempting to do so collided with both. The fact of one of such vessels having very improperly altered her helm, and contributed materially to the collision, does not relieve the steamer from the liability to make good the injuries sustained by the vessel which did not contribute to the accident. The Quebec, Cook, 32.

102. Where one steamship overtook another in a shallow channel in the river St. Lawrence, and a collision ensued, the overtaking vessel declared to be in fault. The Quebec, Cook, 37.

103. Collision by two vessels while sailing close to the wind on opposite tacks. By the rule of the road the ship on the starboard tack was entitled to keep her luff. Held, in the Vice-Admiralty Court, that she was, notwithstanding in a case of imminent danger, and on being apprised that the port-tacked vessel was not under command, bound to give way, and for not doing so condemned in damages and costs. The Underwriter; The Lake St. Clair, Cook, 43.

104. Held, on appeal by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, that when a port-tacked vessel has thrown herself into stays, and becomes helpless, she ought, nevertheless, to execute any practical manœuvre in order to get out of the way of the starboardtacked vessel. ibid.

(Collision.)

105. A starboard-tacked vessel, when apprised of the helpless condition of a vessel, which, by the ordinary rule of navigation, ought to get out of her way, is bound to execute any practical manoeuvre which would tend to avoid the collision. ibid.

106. Both vessels held to blame for the collision, and the damages ordered to be assessed according to the Admiralty rule. ibid.

107. In such a case each party must bear their own costs, both in the Court below and in appeal. ibid.

108. To support a plea of inevitable accident the burden of proof rests upon the party pleading it, and he must show, before he can derive any benefit from it, that the damage was caused immediately by the irresistible force of the winds and waves; that it was not preceded by any fault, act, or omission on his part, as the principal or indirect cause; and that no effort to counteract the influence of the force was wanting. The Agamemnon, Cook, 60.

109. Where a barque and a steamer were proceeding in opposite directions, and the latter, when between a quarter and half a mile of the former, which was then keeping her course, ported her helm without slackening her speed, which brought her across the course of the barque, the helm of which was shortly afterwards starboarded, and a collision occurred. Held, That the action of the steamer in porting her helm, having brought the barque (which otherwise should have kept her course) into instant and most imminent danger, she was justified in starboarding; and the steamer, whose duty, when proceeding in a direction involving risk of collision, was to keep out of the way, and, moreover, to stop and reverse when danger was imminent, was responsible for the collision. The N. Churchill; The Normanton, Cook, 65.

110. The payment of sums of money to witnesses, considerably larger than those legally allowable to them, even when shown to have been made with no wrong intent, but from an unfounded apprehension that they would leave the country before testifying, will bring such discredit on their testimony as seriously to affect its credibility. ibid.

111. A ship sailing seven knots an hour in a fog over fishing ground on the banks of Newfoundland, without adequate means on deck to prevent accident. Held, to have been in fault, and a plea of inevitable accident overruled. The Frank, Cook, 81.