Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

INDEX.

NOTE.-The Index does not refer to the Digest, nor to the Rules of 1893. For the
Rules a separate Table of Contents will be found, ante, p. 534.

ACCIDENT.

See INEVITABLE ACCIDENT.
ACCOUNTS.-The Court has now jurisdic-
tion to settle accounts between co-owners.
ACT OF PARLIAMENT.

See STATUTES.

ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION.- Since
the passing of the statute 26 & 27 Vict. c.
24, s. 10 (The Vice-Admiralty Courts Act,
1863), the Court has jurisdiction to enter-
tain a claim for damage to a railway car
standing on a wharf within the limits of a
county, by the hawser of the vessel coming
in contact with the car and overturning it.
The Teddington, 45.

2. 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 steam-
er; that the Court had no jurisdiction; and
that the Vice-Admiralty Courts Act, 1863,
sec. 10, sub-sec. 6, did not confer authority to
entertain such an action. The Enrique, 157.
(In view of recent decisions it is submit-
ted this case must be considered overruled.
See note to this case, 161, et seq.)

3. In so far as regards Canadian regis-
tered vessels, the Court can entertain claims
for masters' and seamen's wages if the
amount due is or exceeds two hundred dol-

ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION.-Continued.
lars, and this under the Dominion statute,
the Seamen's Act, 1873. ibid. See contra.
The Jonathan Weir, 79. See note ibid, p.
80, contra.

4. For the statement of the law upholding
the jurisdiction of the Court in causes of
damages to a stationary object, a bridge for
instance, see The Maggie M. and note.
ante, p. 185.

AMENDMENT.-See note to The Moud
Pye, p. 103.

APPEAL.-An appeal from a decree or
order of a Vice-Admiralty Court lies to
Her Majesty in Council; but no appeal
shall be allowed, save by permission of the
judge, from any decree or order not having
the force or effect of a definitive sentence or
final order (26 Vict. c. 24, s. 22); appeal to
be made within six months. See The Ted-
dington, 65 n.

(See now,
1891," 402).
APPRAISEMENT.- A commission of sale
may issue in the first instance. The Nord-
cap, p. 173.

however, "The Admiralty Act,

2. See Rules 145 to 154 of 1893 for pres-
ent practice as to appraisement and sale.
BOTTOMRY BOND.-A vessel owned and
registered in New Brunswick was sent with
a cargo of deals from that province to
Queenstown, Ireland, the intention being to
sell her to best advantage, after arrival and
discharge of cargo. Efforts to sell the ves-
sel were not successful, and after remaining
some time at Queenstown, the agent, by
directions of the owner, instructed the cap-
tain to return with the vessel in ballast to
New Brunswick. Unable to get needed
funds from the owner or agent to make

BOTTOMRY BOND.-Continued.
necessary disbursements for return voyage,
the captain, after due notice, borrowed from
plaintiff the required amount on bottomry
and brought the vessel back to New Bruns-
wick. After her arrival, the bondholder,
not being able to obtain payment, began
suit for recovery of the amount. The owner
and mortgagees of the vessel objected to the
validity of the bond, on the ground that,
under the circumstances, the voyage was
ended at Queenstown; that the vessel re-
quired no repairs for a new voyage; was in
no distress, and that the captain had no
right to give the bond. But Held, That as
the vessel was sent for sale, and that not
being effected, the return was but a continu-
ation of the voyage across; that Queenstown
was a foreign port; that as the captain was
unable to get necessary funds in any other
way, he was justified in borrowing on bot-
tomry, and that the bond must be upheld.
The Elysia A., 28.

See note to this case, p. 42, for citation of
authorities.

CASES. For decisions under Sailing Rules
see p. 385.

COLLISION.-The passenger steamer S.,
sailing up the river St. John, met the steam-
tug N. coming down, near Akerley's Point,
where the river is about half a mile wide.
The S. was near the western shore, which
was on her port side going up; the N. about
one hundred and fifty yards from the same
side of the river. The S., by keeping her
course when she first sighted the N., might
have avoided the collision, but instead port-
ed her helm, which gave her a diagonal
course to starboard towards the east side,
and as a result struck the N. on the star-
board quarter, and sank her. Held, That
the S. was to blame, and liable for the dam-
ages sustained; also held that when two
vessels are meeting end on, or nearly so,
the rule to port helm may be departed from,
where there are reasonable grounds for be-
lieving such course is necessary for safety,
and consequently the N. was not to blame,

COLLISION.-Continued.

immediately before the collision, for putting
her helm to starboard. The Soulanges; The
Neptune, 1.

2. Two vessels, the R. and the G., were
sailing up the river from St. John to Fred-
ericton. At Perley's Reach, so called, near
Fredericton, where the river runs about
north-west and south-east, and is about three
hundred yards wide, the R. being on the
starboard side of the river, and on her star-
board tack, the G. on the port side of the
river, and on her port tack, the vessels were
passing each other port side to port side.
When the G. was nearly abreast the R. she
suddenly rounded to, and struck the R. on
the port side forward of the main chains,
when the R. immediately sank. Held, That
it was not a case of inevitable accident; that
the R., being on the starboard tack, had the
right of way; that the G. was to blame for
the collision, and was liable for damages.
The Grace, 10.

3. For Imperial and Canadian legislation
as to collision see note to The Grace, p. 24.

4. 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 steam-
ship 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, 45.

See also judgment of Palmer, J., in this
case on application for prohibition. ibid, 54.
5. The A. and the B. came into collision
on the high seas. The B. was close-hauled
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

COLLISION.-Continued.

duty of the latter to keep clear and give
way, and not doing so, she was liable for the
damages. The Arklow, 66.

6. The last case was reversed on appeal to
the Judicial Committee (9 App. Cas. 136),
the Court holding where there has been a
departure from an important rule of navi-
gation, if the absence of due observance of
the rule can by any possibility have con-
tributed to the accident, then the party in
default cannot be excused.

Where the lights of the complaining ves-
sel 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 dis-
missed. The Arklow, 72; s. c. 9 App.
Cas. 136.

7. The tug G. was proceeding up the river
St. John, and the tug V. coming down;
when near Swift Point they came into col-
lision, and the V. sank. The G., at the
time of the accident, was, contrary to the
rules of navigation, near the westerly shore
on the port side of the vessel; the V. did
not exhibit any masthead white light, as
required by the regulations. Held, That
both vessels were to blame; that the colli-
sion was occasioned partly by the omission
of the V. to exhibit her masthead white
light, but principally by the course of the
G., and a moiety of the damages was given
to the V. with costs. The General, 86.

8. The vessel M. G., under command of a
pilot, was entering the Miramichi, and near
the Horse Shoe Bar, in the lower part of
Bay du Vin, came into collision with a
lightship there placed for the safety of navi-
gation. Held, That under the evidence no
fault was attributable to the M. G.; that it
was a case of inevitable accident, and the
suit was dismissed, but without costs, as the
Crown was the promovent, and no costs can
be given against the Crown. The Minnie
Gordon, 95.

9. The M., close-hauled on the port tack,
heading about south-west by west, and going
about three knots an hour, with the wind

COLLISION.-Continued.

south, came into collision with the M. P.,
heading east, and running free about ten
knots an hour, and was totally lost. Held,
from the evidence, that the M. P. had no
proper lookout; that failure to have a
proper lookout contributed to the collision,
and she was accordingly condemned in
damages and costs. The Maud Pye, 101.

10. The V., stone laden, on a voyage from
Dorchester to New York, off Tynemouth
Creek, in the Bay of Fundy, close-hauled
on the starboard tack, came into collision
with the E. K. S., running free, in ballast,
going up the Bay to Moncton. The night
was dark and foggy, and from the evidence
it appears that the V. had no mechanical
fog-horn, as required by the regulations,
and that the one she had was not heard on
board the E. K. S., which was to windward.
Held, That it was a case of inevitable acci-
dent; that the E. K. S. was not to blame,
and the action was dismissed without costs
to either party. It is a rule of the Admi-
ralty that where there is a material variance
between the allegations of the libel and the
evidence, the party so alleging is not entitled
to recover, although not in fault, and fault
is established against the other vessel. The
Emma K. Smalley, 106.

11. A tug-boat was engaged by the char-
terers 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 towed was chartered to
carry a cargo of ice from the loading place
above the Falls to New York, and the char-
terers 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 dam-
aged. Held, That the Court had jurisdic-
tion to entertain the suit; that the delay of
the tug in going through the Falls was evi-
dence of negligence; and the tug and owners

COLLISION.-Continued.

were condemned in damages and costs. The
Maggie M., 185.

12. Two vessels-the M. P. and the P.—
came into collision in the Bay of Fundy,
whereby the former was badly damaged.
The wind at the time was blowing strong
from south south-east. The M. P. was hove
to on the port tack, under a reefed mainsail;
and the P. was close-hauled on the starboard
tack. The weather at the time was foggy.
The M. P. did not have a regulation fog-
horn on board, but had a tin one blown by
the mouth. When the P. was first seen by
the M. P. she was from a quarter to a half
mile distant. The M. P. was loaded with
piling, bound for New York. The P. did
not change her course, and ran into the M.
P. and caused the injury. Held, That al-
though the M. P. was on her port tack, she
was practically hove to, and could exe-
cute no manœuvre to avoid the collision;
that the absence of a regulation fog-horn on
board did not occasion or contribute to the
collision; but that the collision was occa-
sioned by the want of a proper lookout on
board the P., and she was therefore con-
demned in damages and costs. The Para-
matta, 192.

CONVENTION OF 1818.-See The White
Fawn, 200.

COSTS.-When both parties in fault, and
damages are divided, each party must bear
his own costs. See contra The General, 86.
2. Costs are not given against the Crown.
The Minnie Gordon, 95.

3. For cases as to security for costs, see
p. 128.

See SECURITY FOR COSTS.
DAMAGES-Division of. The General,

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

EVIDENCE.-It must support the allega-
tions in the pleadings. The Emma K.
Smalley, 106, and note to case.

FEES.- Are now regulated by Rules of
1893, 527.

FISHERY ACTS.-As to the meaning of
the words "preparing to fish." The White
Fawn, 200.

FOG HORN.-See The Paramatta, note,
p. 199; Collision, 10, 12.

HABEAS CORPUS.- The Chesapeake, 208.
INEVITABLE ACCIDENT. - See The
Emma K. Smalley, 106; The Minnie Gor-
don, 95, and note to last case.

INLAND NAVIGATION.-See R. S. C.
c. 74, p. 361; R. S. C. c. 79, p. 372.
INTEMPERANCE.-As it affects right to
wages, 127.

| INTERPRETATION OF TERMS.- See
pp. 395, 413.

JUDGE.-Appointment now governed by
Admiralty Act, 1891, 402.

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE- Law as to
Appeals to. 65.

[blocks in formation]

See MARITIME LIEN.
LIGHTS. Where the lights of the com-
plaining 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, 72.

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

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

LOOKOUT.-See The Maud Pye, 101, 104;
The Emma K. Smalley, 106.

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

MARITIME LIEN.-The plaintiff brought
an action against the P. for wages and dis-
bursements as master of the vessel. In
answer to the master's request when abroad
for a statement of his account and for pay-
ment, the managing owner sent the master
his individual promissory note for $800,
payable with interest, on account of the
wages. The managing owner subsequently
became insolvent. The master, on his re-
turn to St. John, N. B., demanded payment
from the owners of his wages and disburse-
ments, the sum claimed including the am-
ount of the promissory note. The owners,
by their counter claim, sought to set-off
against the master's claim, among other
things, the amount of the promissory note;
but Held, That the master, under the cir-
cumstances of the case, had not lost his lien
upon the vessel. The set-off was rejected,
and the plaintiff held entitled to recover,
with costs. The Plover, 129.

See note to this case, ante, 134, where the
English, American and Canadian cases are
cited.

2. The House of Lords, in The Sara, 14
App. Cas. 209, decided that a master had no
lien for his wages and disbursements, but it
was subsequently given by the Merchant
Shipping Act, 1889 (Imp.), ante, p. 85.
The same law now obtains by legislation in
Canada as respects the inland waters.
370.

p.

[blocks in formation]

NAVIGATION.-The same rules of navi-
gation, and the same precautions for avoid-
ing collisions and other accidents as are now
adopted in the United Kingdom and other
countries, are also adopted in the Dominion
of Canada. R. S. C. c. 79, p. 372.

See INLAND NAVIGATION.
NECESSARIES.-As to priority of pay-
ment. The Borzone, 116, and note.

2. For present jurisdiction as to necessar-
ies, see 3 & 4 Vict. c. 65, s. 6, p. 316; and
54 & 55 Vict. c. 27, s. 2, sub-sec. 2, p. 387.
ORDERS IN COUNCIL.-Approving
Rules of 1893, 409, 410.

PILOTAGE.-Vice-Admiralty Courts have
jurisdiction in respect of pilotage (26 Vict.
c. 24, s. 10). This Act is now repealed by
Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890;
but the Court has the same jurisdiction over
pilotage as the High Court of Admiralty.
Under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854,
s. 2, seaman" includes pilot.

PIRACY.-See The Chesapeake, 208.
PLEADINGS.-It is a rule of the Admir-
alty that where there is a material variance
between the allegations of the libel and the
evidence, the party so alleging is not en-
titled to recover, although not in fault, and
fault is established against the other vessel.
The Emma K. Smalley, 106.

See note to this case, p. 114; also ante,

p. 154.

2. Under R. 61, every action now shall
be heard without pleadings unless the judge
shall otherwise order. p. 425.

POSSESSION.- Power given to any Court,
having Admiralty jurisdiction in any of
Her Majesty's dominions, to remove the
master of any ship, being within the juris-
diction of such Court, and to appoint a new
master in his stead.

See 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 240.

2. By 26 Vict. c. 24, s. 10, the jurisdiction
of the Vice-Admiralty Courts was extended
to claims between owners of any ship regis-
tered in the possession in which the Court
is established touching the ownership, pos-

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »