(Damages Measure of.)

accident on proof only that the money had been duly expended. The Celeste, Cook, 76.

2. Upon objection the report was overruled, and it was held that it was necessary for the promoters to go further, and to establish not only the actual expenditure, but that such expenditure was adapted to the purpose for which it was made, and had enured so much to the benefit of the promoters. ibid.

3. When items in a claim are disputed the principles of evidence applicable in ordinary suits are to be followed. ibid.

4. The measure of damages for the detention of a vessel after a collision is the amount she can earn while unemployed by reason of the collision. The Normanton, Cook, 122.

See The Nettlesworth, ibid, 363.

5. Where, after a collision, the vessel injured was docked for the winter, and the resuming of her voyage could not take place until spring, by reason of the navigation of the St. Lawrence being closed until then. Held, That her owners could not recover as part of their damages the seamen's wages while idle during the winter, and no more than would suffice to send them to the place where they were shipped, and to pay their wages until their arrival there. ibid.

6. The promoters having stated and proved their loss in the United States currency, the registrar and merchants reported an equivalent amount in gold, not at current rate of exchange, but at the rate as on the day of the collision. The Court, upon contestation, maintained the report. The Frank, Cook, 105.

7. Upon objection to a report of the registrar and merchants, to whom had been referred the amount of the damages sustained by a foreign shipowner, through the arrest, detention and search of his vessel, without reasonable cause, under the Foreign Enlistment Act, 1870; the report was confirmed, and held correct, in restricting the damages so occasioned to their natural and proximate consequences, and in disallowing remote and consequential loss. The Atalaya, ibid, 260.

8. Upon the liquidation of an account by the registrar and merchants in a case of collision for damages to a wharf. Held, That a claim for consequential damages, not asked for in the libel, nor awarded by the decree, cannot be considered by the registrar and merchants; and that if it could, such damage should not be allowed either under Article 1660 of the Civil Code or by the Maritime Law. The Barcelona, Cook, 299.

(Damages — Measure of.)

9. But further held that the Vice-Admiralty Courts Act, 1863, conferring jurisdiction on Vice-Admiralty Courts, where damage was done by any ship, does not extend to consequential damages occasioned to the traffic of a lessee. ibid, p. 311.

10. On a bottomry bond, interest is allowed at the legal rate where principal money payable. The Elysia A., Stockton, note, p. 42.

11. The owner of a ship wrongfully injured in collision is entitled to have her fully and completely repaired, and if the ship is totally lost the owner is entitled to recover her market value at the time of the collision. The Heather Belle, 3 E. C. R. 40.

See note to The Maud Pye, Stockton, p. 104.

DAMAGES TO PROPERTY.

1. Vice-Admiralty Courts have jurisdiction, in respect of claims, for damage done by any ship (26 Vict. c. 24, s. 10), as in case of damage to a wharf in Halifax harbor. The Chase, 2 Stuart, 361; s. c. Young, 113.

2. A railway passenger car, standing upon a track on a wharf on the western side of the harbor of St. John, and within the limits of the city of St. John, was injured by a hawser attached and belonging to a steamship moored to the wharf. Held, That since the passing of the statute 26 & 27 Vict. c. 24, s. 10, the Vice-Admiralty Court has jurisdiction to entertain a claim for damage to property done by any ship, although the property injured is within the limits of a county, and situate upon the land. The Teddington, Stockton, 45.

3. Where a part of the line of an electro-magnetic telegraph passed under the river St. Lawrence, being laid in such a manner on the bed as not injuriously to interrupt the navigation. Held, (1) In a cause of gross negligence on the part of a sailing ship, causing a wire cable to be broken, that her owners were liable for the damage; (2) Under existing statutory law, the Admiralty has jurisdiction, in case of damage done by any ship, and that consequently proceedings in rem against the offending vessel were rightly taken. The Czar, Cook, 9.

4. A tug-boat was engaged by the charterers of a vessel, the E., to tow her from the harbor of St. John, N. B., through the Falls at the mouth of the river, beneath a suspension bridge which spans the Falls at the point where the river flows into the harbor. The vessel

(Damages to Property.)

towed was chartered to carry a cargo of ice from the loading place above the Falls to New York, and the charterers were to employ the tug and pay for the towage services. The tug, having waited to take another vessel in tow, together with the E., was too late in the tide, and in going under the bridge the topmast of the E. came into collision with the bridge and was damaged. Held, That the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit; that the delay of the tug in going through the Fails was evidence of neglience; and the tug and owners were condemned in damage and costs. The Maggie M., Stockton, 185.

See Jurisdiction, 44, 45.

5. In a case of collision against a ship for running foul of a floating light-vessel, the Court pronounced for damages. In such case the presumption is gross negligence, or want of skill, and the burthen is cast on the shipmaster and owners to repel that presumption. The Miramichi, 1 Stuart, 237.

See The Minnie Gordon, Stockton, 95.

See also notes to The Teddington, ibid, at p. 52.

6. A claim for damages, upon loss of vessel by shipwreck after capture, rejected, there being no misconduct on part of the captors. The Roscio, Stewart, 556.

7. The Maritime Court of Ontario refused to exercise jurisdiction in a cause of damage to a tow, arising from the negligence of the towing vessel, where no actual collision had occurred between vessels. The Sir S. L. Tilley, 8 Can. L. T. 156.

This is not now the law. See Jurisdiction, 44.
Also see ante, p. 162.

8. The Court entertained jurisdiction in a case where a propeller broke a canal lock gate, in consequence of which land adjoining was flooded and injured. The Walter S. Frost, 5 Can. L. T. 471. See Jurisdiction.

See Admiralty Jurisdiction.

DAMAGES (PERSONAL).

1. Damages awarded to a steward for assaults committed upon him by the master without cause. The Sarah, 1 Stuart, 89.

2. Unnecessary wanton and unlawful punishment cannot be inflicted under color of discipline. ibid.

(Personal Damages.)

3. The master is responsible for any abuse of his authority at sea. The Friends, 1 Stuart, 118.

4. A suit for personal damage by a cabin passenger against the master, for attempting to exclude him from the cabin, sustained. The Toronto, ibid, 170.

5. A suit for personal damages, by a seaman against the master, dismissed. The Coldstream, ibid, 386.

6. A suit by a seaman against the master and owner of a ship, for assault and battery and oppressive treatment dismissed on the ground of mutiny. The Bridgewater, Cook, 252.

7. A foreign steamship, the E., while in the harbor of St. John, N. B., loading a cargo of deals, bought and received on board a quantity of coals for the use of the ship. The coals were purchased to be delivered in the bunkers of the steamer, and the coal merchant employed a third party to put the coals on board. The steam power to hoist the coals on board was furnished by the E. The plaintiff was employed by the third party to put the coals on board, and while so employed was injured by the breaking of the hoisting rope. Held, That an action could not be maintained against the steamer; that the Court had no jurisdiction; and that the Vice-Admiralty Courts Act, 1863, s. 10, sub-sec. 6, did not confer authority to entertain such an action. The Enrique, Stockton, 157.

See note to this case at p. 161. In view of later decisions this case must be considered overruled.

DECLINATORY EXCEPTION.

1. In a suit for an injury done on the waters of the St. Lawrence, near the city of Quebec, a declinatory exception, in which it was averred that the locus in quo of the pretended injury was within the body of the county of Quebec, and solely cognizable in the Court of Queen's Bench for the district of Quebec, dismissed with costs; and decree pronounced maintaining the ancient jurisdiction of the Admiralty over the river St. Lawrence. The Camillus, 1 Stuart, 383.

Decrees of Berlin and Milan not revoked by the Duke of Condon's letter. The New Orleans Packet, Stewart, 260.

DEFAULTS.

1. On return of a warrant first default made, but no prayer for a second default at the expiration of two months from the return of the warrant, proceedings discontinued thereby. The Friends, 1 Stuart, 73.

DEFECTS.

In Vice-Admiralty Act pointed out. Young, 12; 2 Stuart, 343.

The City of Petersburg,

DENMAN (LORD).

1. As respects the Act 6 & 7 Vict. c. 85, commonly called Lord Denman's Act, see The Courier, 2 Stuart, 91.

DEPUTY JUDGE.

See Judge.

DEPUTY REGISTRAR.

See Registrar.

DEPUTY MARSHAL.

See Marshal.

DERELICT.

1. In no case, however meritorious the service, does the High Court of Admiralty of England decree more than a moiety for salvage. The Marie Victoria, 2 Stuart, 109.

2. The rule as to salvage on derelict stated and cases reviewed. The Ida Barton, Young, 240.

3. Where no owner appeared to claim goods found derelict, and their value was not great, Held, That the salvors should have the full amount they realized after payment of necessary costs. Two Bales of Cotton, ibid, 135.

4. For directions as to proceedings in case of derelicts, see The John, ibid, 129.

5. The salvors of a derelict ship should, in the first instance, give notice to the proctor for the Admiralty, who will forthwith extract a warrant. After the issue of the derelict warrant, the salvors should move for leave to intervene. If the case be one of only trivial importance, the Court will then direct the filing of affidavits in proof of claims, etc. In cases of greater moment, it will sanction an act or petition with the usual pleadings and proof under the rules of 1859; and when there are claims represented by several