L. T. N. S. at p. 212. This is a clear intimation on the part of the learned judge that the effect of 24 Vict., c. 10, would be to enlarge the Admiralty jurisdiction by removing the £50 limit in the recovery of seamen's wages; or, in other words, that the Act of 1861 has repealed see. 189 of the Act of 1854. No other construction can fairly be put on the language of the learned judge. The Vice-Admiralty Act, 1863, was passed June 8 of that year. Its object was to extend the jurisdiction of Vice-Admiralty Courts, and among other things jurisdiction for the recovery of "claims for seamen's wages" was given without any limitation. The case of the tug Robb, 17 Can. L. J. 66, was decided in the Maritime Court of Ontario, October 6, 1880, in which it was held "That the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854 is not to be read in connection with the ViceAdmiralty Act of 1863, which gives jurisdiction to the Maritime Court of Ontario, and that therefore this Court has jurisdiction over any claim for wages." The Canadian Act of 1873, 36 Vict., c. 129, sec. 56, now R. S. C., c. 74, sec. 56, provides: "No suit or proceedings for the recovery of wages under the sum of two hundred dollars shall be instituted by or on behalf of any seaman or apprentice belonging to any ship registered in either of the said provinces in any 1883 THE Court of Vice-Admiralty, or in any Superior Court of Record in either of said provinces, un- JONATHAN less the owner of the ship is WEIR. insolvent within the meaning of any Act respecting insolvency for the time being in force in Canada, or unless the ship is under arrest or is sold by the authority of any such Court, as aforesaid, or unless any judge, magistrate or justices, acting under the authority of this Act, refer the case to be adjudged by such Court, or unless neither the owner nor the master is or resides within twenty miles of the place where the seaman or apprentice is discharged or put ashore." This Act was reserved for the signification of Her Majesty, May 23, 1873, and such signification was subsequently given, and the Act became law, March 27, 1874. The case of The Margaretha Stevenson, 2 Stuart, 192, was decided in Quebec, June 13, 1873, contrary to the decision in the case of The Robb. This was prior to the passage of the Canadian Act, 36 Vict., c. 129, sec. 56. It is somewhat important also to note that in the Quebec case the Vice-Admiralty Act, 1863, is not even referred to in the argument of counsel, or the judgment of the Court. The case, so far as appears from the report, was decided purely under section 189 of the Act of 1854. The head note to The Margaretha Stevenson is: "The Merchant 1883 THE JONATHAN WEIR. Shipping Act, 1854, excludes the Admiralty jurisdiction in suits of masters and seamen, for wages where the amount due is less than £50 stg. The evidence in this case showing a less amount to be due, the claim of a master was dismissed without exception to the jurisdiction pleaded." The learned judge of the Quebec Court, in support of his decision, cites the case of The Harriett, supra, which, as already pointed out, was decided prior to the passing of the Admiralty Act, 1861. Before the passing of the Act of 1861, it was never doubted but that the effect of sec. 189, of the Act of 1854, was to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the Court claims for wages less than £50. A later case decided in the Quebec Court, The Royal, Cook, 329 (1883) follows the judgment in The Margaretha Stevenson. The Act establishing the Maritime Court of Ontario was passed by the Parliament of Canada, April 28, 1877, and conferred on the Court "all such jurisdiction as belongs, in similar matters within reach of its process, to any existing British ViceAdmiralty Court." It would therefore possess all the jurisdiction given to a Vice-Admiralty Court under the Act of 1863, without the limitation imposed by the Canadian Act of 1873, now R.S. C., c. 74, sec. 56. The Admiralty Act, 1861, enlarged the jurisdiction of the High Court in claims for seamen's wages; and the Vice-Admiralty Court Act, 1863, that of Vice-Admiralty Courts for similar claims, but the Canadian Act of 1873, c. 129, sec. 56, reimposed the limitation as to wages by excluding jurisdiction for claims under $200. The Act of 1873 only applied to the ViceAdmiralty Courts of Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and British Columbia, but by a subsequent Act, 37 Vict., c. 27, its provisions were extended to the Vice-Admiralty Court of Prince Edward Island. For the recovery of wages the ViceAdmiralty Courts in Canada, after 1873, had not the right to entertain a claim under $200. In this respect the jurisdiction was more restricted than in the High Court in England. But it is not necessary now to dwell upon the differences in jurisdiction between the High Court of Admiralty and the Canadian Vice-Admiralty Courts in respect of claims for wages, as, since the passing of the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890, 53-54 Vict., c. 27, Colonial Admiralty Courts, coming under that statute, are clothed with the same jurisdiction as the High Court in England, saving a few immaterial exceptions. The Imperial Statute of 1890 has been adopted in Canada by "The Admiralty Act, 1891, 54-55 Vict., c. 29. If in 1890, when the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act was passed, the High Court had jurisdiction to recover claims for seamen's wages under £50, it follows that the Admiralty Courts of Canada have a similar jurisdiction. As late as Dec., 1892, in the Nova Scotia Admiralty District, the Chief Justice, acting as Admiralty Judge, in the case of The Bessie Markham, held in accordance with the decision of The Robb, that sec. 189 of the Act of 1854 is repealed, and that the Court has authority to entertain a suit for any claim for wages. It is, therefore, submitted that no limitation at present exists in Canada, but that the Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for seamen's wages, although the amount sued for is under $200. Formerly the master had no right to proceed in the Admiralty Court for the recovery of his wages, until it was given by the Act of 1854, sec. 191. He had no lien on the ship for his wages, and a right to proceed in rem was the foundation of the Admiralty jurisdiction. But by 7 & 8 Vict. c. 112, sec. 16, in case of the bankruptcy or insolvency of the owner of the ship, all the rights, liens and remedies at that time allowed the seamen for the recovery of wages were extended to the master. sec. 10 of the Act of 1861, the right was granted both for his wages and disbursements on ac By 1881 THE WEIR. count of the ship, and under sec. 35 of the same Act, he can proceed either in rem or in person- JONATHAN am. But the Court will not give costs to a master who has not, before bringing his suit, rendered accounts to his owners. The Fleur de Lis, L. R. 1 A. & E. 49; The Royal, Cook, 326. A series of cases in the Admiralty Court, beginning with The Mary Ann, L. R. 1 A. & E. 8, and ending with The Sara, 12 P. D. 158, had decided that the master had a maritime lien on ship for disbursements, but on appeal to the House of Lords in the latter case, 14 App. Cas. 209, it was held that the master had no lien for his disbursements. The Merchant Shipping Act, 1889, 52 53 Vict., c. 46, was then passed to bring back the law to what it was supposed to be prior to the decision of the Lords in The Sara. But it has recently been held, even under the Act of 1889, that the master has no lien on the ship for disbursements for which he had no authority to pledge the shipowner's credit. The Castlegate (1893) A. C. 38. The release by the master of his personal claim against the shipowners for wages, does not operate as a release of his lien against the ship. The Chieftain, Br. & Lush, 212. The lien arises, although the master, in good faith, was hired by one fraudulently in possession of the vessel. The Edwin, ibid 281. 1884 Jan. 14. THE GENERAL-TAPLEY. Collision Sailing Rules - Both Vessels to Blame-Division of Damages — Costs. The tug G. was proceeding up the river St. John, and the tug V. coming The tugs General and Victor, on the night of June 19, 1883, came into collision on the river St. John, near Swift Point, and the Victor was sunk. The General was proceeding up the river, and the Victor coming down. Contrary to the sailing regulation, the General kept to the westerly or port side of the river going up, while the Victor failed to exhibit any white light at the masthead. As both vessels had failed to comply with the regulations, both were pronounced in fault, and one-half the damages sustained, with costs, were awarded to the owners of the Victor. C. W. Weldon, Q. C., for promovent, the Victor, cited Marsden on Coll. (ed. 1880), 146, 173, 177, 182. The Rhondda (1), Pritch. Dig., p. 91; Smith v. Brown (2); The Khedire (3); The Velocity (4); The Lapwing (5); The Bougainville (6); The Magnet, The Duke of Sutherland, The Fanny M. Carvell (7). The infringement of sailing rule on part of the General was such as by possibility might have contributed to the accident. Dom. Stat. 1880, c. 29, sec. 6; also Art. 15, sec. 2. The Benares (8). C. N. Skinner, Q. C., for respondent. (1) 8 App. Cas. 549. (3) 5 App. Cas. 876. (4) L. R. 3 P. C. 44. Neither party (5) 7 App. Cas. 512. (6) L. R. 5 P. C. 316. (7) L. R. 4 A. & E. 417. (8) 9 P. D. 16. 1884 THE charged accident to be caused by departure from regulations, promovent must be held to strict proof of negligence. The Benares (1) is in his favor. The Velocity does not apply, GENERAL. as ships were not crossing. Refers to Kaye on Ship. (ed. 1875) 905. The Catherine of Dover (2). When accident inevitable neither party can recover. The Fenham (3). Art. 21 only obligatory when passing another ship. Course pursued by Victor brought about collision. Refers to cases cited by promovent; also cites The Englishman (4); The Kestrel (5). The absence of the light on Victor caused the accident. She was sighted as a sailing vessel, and deceived the General by want of proper lights. Weldon, Q. C., in reply. Cites and discusses the Stat. 36 & 37 Vict., c. 85, s. 17. The General violated Art. 21; had no right to be on west side of channel. The absence of masthead light of Victor could not possibly have contributed to the collision. Also refers to The James C. Stevenson (6). And now (January 14, 1884), the following judgment was delivered by WATTERS, J. The collision in question took place on the night of the 19th June, 1883, off Swift Point, on the river St. John, about seven hundred feet from the western shore of the river, and about nine hundred feet from Swift Point. The river at and immediately below Swift Point is about a quarter of a mile in width, but widens from Swift Point to the westward, into Grand Bay. The tug General was proceeding up river, and the tug Victor was going down; the wind was southerly, and the tide nearly high, with a two-knot current. It was raining, but it was not a bad night for running-not a dark night only a little thick with the rain. The tugs had both left Indiantown that night; the Victor had towed a schooner up to Millidgeville, on the Kennebeccasis, and was returning when she met with the General. I must first ascertain, as well as I am able, from the evidence, the position and courses of these vessels prior to and (1) 9 P. D. 16. (2) 2 Hag. 154. (3) L. R. 3 P. C. 212. (4) 3 P. D. 18. (5) L. R. 4 P. C. 529. (6) L. R. 5 P. C. 316. |