Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

in Reg. v. Keyn, 2 Ex. D., p. 239. The jurisdiction the Cinque Ports exercised under their charters in relation to the sea shore extended to low water mark, "and as far beyond that mark as a horseman could ride into the sea and touch any object with the point of a spear." Sir Travers Twiss thinks we may discern in this ancient rule "the outlines of the principle which has been applied in modern times in limitation of the extent of sea over which a neutral State may claim to exercise a qualified jurisdiction in time of war, namely, ibi potestatem finiri, ubi finitur armorum vis.””

Two years subsequently, by the statute 15 Rich. 2, c. 3, it was enacted "that all manner of contracts, pleas, quereles (complaints or controversies), and of all other things done or arising within the bodies of counties, as well by land as by water, and also of wreck of the sea, the Admiral's Court shall have no manner of cognizance, power or jurisdiction; but all such manner of contracts, pleas and quereles, and all other things rising within the bodies of counties, as well by land as by water, as afore, and also wreck of the sea, shall be tried, determined, discussed and remedied by the Court of the land, and not before or by the admiral nor his lieutenant in any wise. Nevertheless, if the death of a man,

1881

THE

and of a maihem done in great ships, being hovering in the main stream of great rivers only, TEDDINGTON beneath the bridges of the same rivers nigh to the sea, and in none other places of the same rivers, the admiral shall have cognizance; and also to arrest ships in the great flotes for the great voyages of the king and of the realm, saving always to the king all manner of forfeiture and profits thereof coming; and he shall also have jurisdiction upon the said flotes during the said voyages, only saving always to the lords, cities, and boroughs, their liberties and franchises."

The first of these statutes was confirmed by 2 Hen. 4, c. 11, and it was "upon these statutes that the controversies respecting the Admiralty were so zealously and obstinately maintained during more than two centuries." Mr. Justice Story, in the judgment above noted, says: "In the construction of these statutes the Admiralty has uniformly, and without hesitation, maintained that they never were intended to abridge or restrain the rightful jurisdiction of that Court; that they meant to take away any pretense of entertaining suits upon contracts arising wholly upon land, and referring solely to terrene affairs; and upon torts or injuries which, though arising in ports, were not done within the ebb and flow of the tide; and that the language of

[ocr errors]

1881

ނ

THE

these statutes, as well as the manifest object thereof, as stated TEDDINGTON in the preambles, and in the petitions on which they were founded, is fully satisfied by this exposition. So that consistently with these Statutes the Admiralty may still exercise jurisdiction: 1. over torts and injuries upon the high seas and in ports within the ebb and flow of the tide, and in great streams below the first bridge; 2. over all maritime contracts arising at home or abroad; 3. over matters of prize and its incidents." For an able judgment opposed to the extended jurisdiction claimed by Story, J., see Ramsay v. Allegre, 12 Wheat., 611, per Johnson, J. In 1575 an agreement was entered into between the judges of the King's Bench and the Court of Admiralty as to the limits of jurisdiction to be observed; and still later, in 1632, certain resolutions were entered into by all the Privy Council, and subscribed by all the judges of England, for the purpose of establishing and limiting said jurisdiction. These resolutions, which may be found in Browne, Civ. and Ad. Law (1st Am. from 2 Eng. Ed., 1840), vol. 2, p. 78, are as follows:

"If suit should be commenced in the court of admiralty upon contracts made, or other things personal, done beyond the seas, or upon the sea, no prohibition to be awarded.

"If suit be before the admiral

for freight, or mariners' wages, or for breach of charter-parties, for voyages to be made beyond the seas; though the charterparty happen to be made within the realm, so as the penalty be not demanded, a prohibition is not to be granted: but if the suit be for the penalty; or if the question be, whether the charterparty were made or not, or whether the plaintiff did release or otherwise discharge the same within the realm; this is to be tried in the king's courts at Westminster, and not in his court of admiralty.

"If suit be in the court of admiralty for building, amending, saving, or necessary victualling of a ship, against the ship itself, and not against any party by name, but such as for his interest makes himself a party, no prohibition is to be granted, though this be done within the realm.

"Although of some of those causes arising upon the Thames beneath the first bridge, and divers other rivers beneath the first bridge, the king's courts have cognizance; yet the admiralty has jurisdiction there, in the points specially mentioned in the statute of 15 Richard II. And also, by exposition of equity thereof, he may enquire and redress all annoyances and obstructions in these rivers, that are any impediment to navigation or passage to or from the

sea; and also may try personal contracts, or injuries done there, which concern navigation upon sea. And no prohibition is to be granted in such cases.

"If any be imprisoned, and upon habeas corpus broughtif it be certified that if any of these be the cause of his imprisonment, the party shall be remanded."

Formerly, appeals from Admiralty or Vice-Admiralty Courts abroad were made to the High Court of Admiralty, but by 3 & 4 Wm. IV. c. 41, sec. 2, such appeals were directed to be made to the Privy Council. See The Peerless, Lush. p. 40, Macpherson, Prac. Jud. Com. 156. Previously to 1840, the Court of Admiralty had no jurisdiction in the case of contracts made on land or in the body of a county. See The Westrup v. Great Yarmouth Steam Carrying Co., 43 Ch. D. p. 241. For a very interesting case on maritime jurisdiction see Reg. v. Keyn, 2 Ex. D. 63. The Court at present does not have jurisdiction to entertain a suit against a pilot for negligence in causing a collision between two vessels on the high seas. Reg. v. The Judge of the City of London Court (1892), 1 Q. B. 273. This is an important case as, in it Lord

E

1881

THE

Esher, M. R. reviews and dissents from the views of Story J. in De Lovio v. Boit, supra. The en- TEDDINGTON larged jurisdiction given to the High Court in 1840, was still further enlarged by the Act of 1861. By sec. 14 of the Act of 1861, the Court was made a Court of Record, which status the Courts of Common Law had previously refused to recognize. And in The Pieve Superiore, L. R. 5 P. C. 482, it was held as the latter Act was intended to remedy a grievance by amplifying the jurisdiction, it ought to be construed liberally so as to afford the utmost relief which the fair meaning of its language will allow. Enlarged jurisdiction was given to ViceAdmiralty Courts by the Act of 1863, and the same rule of construction will apply to that Act. The latter Act has been repealed by the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890, 53 & 54 Vict., c. 27, and this has been adopted and acted on in Canada by the Admiralty Act, 1891, 54 & 55 Vict., c. 29, so that the laws relating to the jurisdiction of the High Court of Admiralty in England, including the Imperial Statute, 24 Vict., c. 10, are now in force in Canada, with a few immaterial exceptions.

1882

Nov. 29.

THE ARKLOW (1).-PYE.

Collision-Sailing Rules-Lights-Departure from— Liability for.

The A. and the B. came into collision on the high seas. The B. was closehauled on her starboard tack, the A. on her port tack, running free. It was not shown that the lights of the B. were so placed as to be fairly visible to the A. Both vessels kept their courses, and the collision took place.

Held:-Notwithstanding the lights of the B. were not fairly visible to the A., it was the duty of the latter to keep clear and give way, and not doing so, she was liable for the damages.

This case was tried with Captains Prichard and Thomas as nautical assessors to the Court. The facts of the case sufficiently appear from the summing up to the assessors, and the judgment of the Court.

W. H. Tuck, Q. C., and James Straton, for promovents.
C. W. Weldon, Q. C., for respondents.

WATTERS, J., summing up to the nautical assessors, said: Collisions may occur without blame being imputable to either party, as by a storm, or any other ris major, in which case the misfortune must be borne by the party upon whom it happens to fall, the other not being responsible.

The misfortune may arise where both parties are to blame, where there has been a want of due care, diligence and skill on both sides; in such a case the rule is that the loss must be apportioned between them; or, it may happen by the misconduct of the suffering party only, in which case he must bear his own burden; or, it may have been the fault of the ship complained of, when the injured party would be entitled to an entire compensation from the other.

In cases of collision, the law requires that there should be preponderating evidence to fix the loss on the party charged, before the Court can adjudge him to make compensation.

(1) In this case the respondent asserted an appeal to the Privy Council, and the judgment was reversed. 9 App. Cas. 136. See next case for judgment on appeal.

1882

ނ

THE

The promovent or plaintiff must prove not only negligence on the part of the respondent, but that he himself has not been guilty of any act whereby the damage has been caused. ARKLOW. In this case, the barque Bunin, which is the promovent, charges that she being on the high seas on 30th March, 1881, on a voyage from Havre to Baltimore, at 2 a. m., having her red and green lights, properly fitted and brightly burning, being on a starboard tack, close hauled, steering south-west one-quarter half west, the wind about north-west, she observed the red light of the barque Arklow on her port tack, steering in an easterly direction, running free; that when within one-quarter of a mile of the Arklow, seeing danger of collision, she sounded a bell, of which the Arklow took no notice, but that the Arklow continued on her course, and ran into the Bunin, striking her on the starboard side, by which the Bunin was so much damaged that she was abandoned as unseaworthy in two days after.

The defence on the part of the Arklow is that the Bunin exhibited no light; that the night was dark, and that when the Bunin was first sighted it was impossible for the watch on the Arklow to discern how she was heading. That the Arklow was steering E. by S., with wind about N. That about 1.30 a. m., it being the mate's watch, he observed a dark object a point and a half on the weather or port bow, but could not make out how it was heading. That by the aid of glasses he made it out to be a vessel, but he could see no lights, and he concluded its course was westerly. That the vessel, which proved to be the Bunin, approached until the sounding of a bell and shouting could be heard on board of her. The mate says he then called the captain, but that the Bunin was bearing down upon them when he ordered the helm to be put hard a port and aft sails hauled down, which he says was done; but that almost immediately the Bunin struck the Arklow across the port bow, carrying away everything forward.

The parties differ materially on the most important question, namely, that of the lights. They differ also somewhat as to the direction of the wind, and on the conduct of the Bunin immediately before the collision. I must rely upon

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »