(Licenses.)

11. Licenses are no protection to parties not named or described in them. The Johanna, ibid, 521; The Arab, ibid, 546.

12. And there is no exception in favor of British subjects. The Cuba, ibid, 525.

13. It is forfeited by a deviation from the voyage, and taking in The Eunice, ibid, 528.

a cargo.

14. A leak and want of water no excuse for deviating from the licensed voyage. The Pilgrim, ibid, 533.

1. The hoisting of a light in a river or harbor at night, is a precaution imperiously demanded by prudence, and the omission cannot be considered otherwise than as negligence per se. The Mary Campbell, 1 Stuart, 225 n.

2. A vessel, at anchor in the stream of a navigable river, must have at night a light hoisted to mark her position. The Miramichi, ibid, 240.

3. The omission to have a light on board in a river or harbor at night, amounts to negligence per se. The Dahlia, ibid, 242.

4. Damages were awarded for a collision, although the night at the time was reasonably clear, sufficiently so for lights to be seen at a moderate distance. The Niagara, ibid, 308.

5. By the Admiralty regulations, and by the Act of the Legislature of Canada, which makes precisely the same provision, sailing vessels when under weigh are required, between sunset and sunrise, to exhibit a green light on the starboard side and a red light on the port side of the vessel; and such lights are to be constructed as stated in such regulations. The Aurora, 2 Stuart, 52.

6. For rules concerning lights, issued in pursuance of the Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Act, 1862, and of an Order in Council, dated January 9th, 1864, see 2 Stuart, p. 301.

7. The same rules adopted in the Province of Canada by an Act of the Legislature passed June 30th, 1864. ibid, 315.

8. In the United States of America by an Act of Congress passed April 29th, 1864. ibid, 318.

(Lights.)

9. And in the Dominion of Canada by an Act passed May 22nd, 1868. ibid, 315. For diagrams to illustrate the use of the lights carried by vessels under the regulations of this Act, see ibid, 323.

10. A steamer, while at anchor, showed a green and white light instead of a white light only. Held, To have been in fault. The Lorne, 2 Stuart, 177.

11. Anchor lights, in oblong and not in globular lanterns, as directed by the Act respecting the Navigation of Canadian Waters, being equal in power, Held, To be a substantial compliance with the provisions of the Act. The General Birch; The Progress, Cook, 240.

12. Previous to the regulations of 1880, an overtaken vessel held not bound to show a stern light. The Cybele, ibid, 190.

13. The rule as to when a stern light is to be exhibited explained. The European, ibid, 286.

14. Where the lights of the complaining vessel were not properly burning, and were not visible on board the other vessel, Held, That in the absence of proof that this latter was also to blame, the suit must be dismissed. The Arklow, Stockton, 72.

15. An omission to exhibit a masthead white light will render a tug liable to a moiety of the damages, although the collision was mainly caused by the other tug being on the wrong side of the channel of a river. The General, ibid; ante, 86.

For existing regulations respecting the navigation of Canadian waters, see ante, p. 372. (R. S. C. c. 79.)

See Collision, 118, 126, 134, 138, 156, 161, 162, 163.

LIMITATION.

1. There seems to be no fixed limit to the duration of a maritime lien. The Hercyna, 1 Stuart, 274.

2. It is not, however, indelible, but may be lost by negligence or delay, where the rights of third parties may be compromised. ibid.

3. To the same effect, see The Haidee, 2 Stuart, 25; The Aura, Young, 54.

See note to The Plover, ante, p. 134.

See also The Kong Magnus (1891), P. 223.

LOG-BOOK.

1. Entry of desertion in official log-book deemed sufficient evidence of fact, unless seamen show to Court good reason for leaving the ship. The Washington Irving, 2 Stuart, 97.

See Evidence.

See Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, ss. 244, 281.

LOOKOUT.

1. As to the necessity, in all cases of a proper and sufficient lookout. The Niagara, 1 Stuart, 308.

2. The ship is clearly responsible for the fault of her lookout. The Mary Bannatyne, ibid, 354.

3. The want of a competent and vigilant lookout exacts, in all cases, from the vessel neglecting it, clear and satisfactory proof that the misfortune encountered was in no way attributable to her misconduct in this particular. The Secret, 2 Stuart, 133.

4. It is not judicious that the man stationed as the lookout should be a foreigner speaking English imperfectly, and consequently liable to make reports slowly and incorrectly, and perhaps more or less unintelligibly. The Oriental, ibid, 144.

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

5. The speed of the steamer, and her defective lookout, rendered her liable for damages caused by collision.

The Alhambra, Young, 249.

6. A sufficient lookout must be maintained throughout, and neglect in this respect will create liability for damage resulting. The Clementine, ibid, 186.

7. The M., close-hauled on her port tack, heading about southwest by west, and going about three knots an hour, with the wind south, came into collision with the M. P. heading east, and running free about ten knots an hour. Held, from the evidence, the M. P. had no proper lookout, and she was accordingly condemned in damages and costs. The Maud Pye, Stockton, 101.

See note to this case, ante, at p. 104.

See also The Paramatta, ante, p. 192.

See Collision, 48, 84, 132, 148, 153, 156, 165, 168.

LORD HIGH ADMIRAL.

1. Nothing in the Vice-Admiralty Court Act, 1863 (26 Vict. c. 24, s. 7), to affect the powers of the Lord High Admiral.

See note to The Teddington, ante, p. 60.

2. Their powers and history. The Little Joe, Stewart, 394.

MANAGEMENT OF SHIP.

1. Vessel not liable for mismanagement of pilot under the law. The Lotus, 2 Stuart, 58.

See Seamen.

MARINER.

MARINER'S CONTRACT.

1. Articles not signed by the master as required by the General Merchant Seamen's Act (7 & 8 Vict. c. 112, s. 2), cannot be enforced. The Lady Seaton, 1 Stuart, 260.

This is now governed by the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, and R. S. C. c. 74.

2. A promise made by the master at an intermediate port in the voyage to give an additional sum over and above the stipulated wages in the articles is void for want of consideration. The Lockwoods, 1 Stuart, 123.

3. Change of owners, by the sale of the ship at a British port, does not determine a subsisting contract of the seamen, and entitle them to wages before the termination of the voyage. The Scotia, ibid, 160.

4. Where the voyage is broken up by consent, and the seamen continue, under new articles, on another voyage, they cannot claim wages under the first articles subsequent to the breaking up of the voyage. The Sophia, ibid, 219.

5. Whether, when a merchant ship is abandoned at sea sine spe revertendè, in consequence of damage received and the state of the elements, such abandonment taking place bona fide and by order of the master, for the purpose of saving life, the contract entered into by the mariners is, by such circumstances, entirely put an end to; or whether it is merely interrupted, and capably, by the occurrence of any and what circumstances, of being again called into force. The Florence, ibid, 254, note.

6. Where seaman shipped for "a voyage from the port of Liverpool to Constantinople, thence (if required) to any port or places in the Mediterranean or Black Seas, or wherever freight may offer, with liberty to call at a port for orders, and until her return to a final port of discharge in the United Kingdom, or for a term not to exceed twelve months," and the ship went to Constantinople in prosecution of the contemplated voyage, and then returned to Malta, whence, instead of going to a final port of destination in the United

(Mariner's Contract.)

Kingdom, she came direct to Quebec in search of freight, which she had failed to obtain at the ports at which she had previously been, it was Held, That coming to Quebec could not be considered a prosecution of the voyage under the 94th section of the Mercantile Marine Act of 1850, re-enacted by the 190th section of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854. The Varuna, 1 Stuart, 857.

7. The words "nature of the voyage" must have such a rational construction as to answer the leading purposes for which they were framed, viz.: to give the mariner a fair intimation of the nature of the service in which he engages. ibid, note, p. 361.

8. The words "or wherever freight may offer" are to be construed with reference to the previous description of the voyage. ibid, 360.

9. The words "or elsewhere" must be construed either as void for uncertainty, or as subordinate to the principal voyage stated in the preceding words. ibid, 361.

10. Where the voyage in the shipping articles is described as one to North and South America, Held, That such description is too indefinite under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854. The Marathon, 2 Stuart, 9.

11. Where the voyage in the shipping articles is described as one to the United States, Held to be a good description under the terms "nature of the voyage" in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854. The Ellerslie, ibid, 35.

12. Where the voyage was described to be from Liverpool to Savannah, and any port or ports of the United States, of the West Indies, and of British North America, the term of service not to exceed twelve months. Held, That the voyage intended was confined to the ports on the eastern shore of the continent, and that the articles did not authorize a voyage to San Francisco on the north-west coast. The Ada, ibid, 11, note.

13. Where there was a deviation in the voyage from that stated in the Shipping Articles, occasioned by a return to the port of Quebec, not specified in them, the engagement of a seaman was terminated, as there was no subsisting contract; and a plea to the jurisdiction alleging a subsisting voyage under the 149th section of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, which enacts that "no seaman who is engaged for a voyage or engagement to terminate in the