K .B . D iv.] Great Western RailwayCo. v. Kassos Steam NavigationCo. [K.B. Div. o c c u p ie d b y th e d e c k cargo. A fte rw a rd s , u p o n
a c e rtific a te b e in g g ra n te d t o th e m b y an o ffic e r o f th e Custom s, th e y cam e t o th e c on
c lu s io n t h a t th e a m o u n t o n w h ic h th e y o u g h t to ha ve p a id w as o n ly 370 to n s . T h e p la in tiffs , a c c o rd in g ly , b r o u g h t a n a c tio n in th e C o u n ty C o u rt, in w h ic h th e y c la im e d 51. Is . 6d., th e d iffe re n c e be tw e e n th e dues cha rge able on 370 to n s a n d 454 to n s . T h e C o u n ty C o u rt ju d g e ga ve ju d g m e n t fo r th e p la in tiffs .
T h e d e fe n d a n ts (th e r a ilw a y c o m p a n y ) ap pe ale d.
T h e f u r t h e r fa c ts a n d th e a rg u m e n ts a p pe ar f u ll y fro m th e ju d g m e n ts .
W . N . R a eburn, K .C ., W ilf r id L e w is , a n d G. K . Rose fo r th e a p p e lla n ts .
T re v o r H u n te r, K .C . a n d C. T . M il le r fo r th e resp on den ts.
Swift, J .— T h is is a n a p p e a l fr o m a de cisio n o f H is H o n o u r J u d g e T h o m a s g iv e n a t th e C o u n ty C o u rt fo r th e c o u n ty o f G la m o rg a n , h e ld a t C a rd iff o n th e 8 th A p r il la s t, b y w h ic h he a d ju d g e d t h a t th e p la in tiffs s h o u ld re co ve r, as a g a in s t th e d e fe n d a n ts , th e sum o f 51. Is . 6d., w it h costs.
T h e a c tio n arose in th is w a y . T h e p la in tiffs , th e Kassos S tea m N a v ig a tio n C o m p a n y , are th e ow ners o f th e G reek s te a m s h ip Chelatros, a n d th e d e fe n d a n ts , th e G re a t W e s te rn R a ilw a y C o m p a n y , are th e ow ners o f th e d o c k a t B a r r y . I n A u g u s t o f la s t y e a r th e Chelatros was in th e d o c k a t B a r r y a n d was lo a d in g a carg o o f coa l a n d coke. She n o t o n ly fille d t h a t p o r tio n o f th e s h ip w h ic h was a p p ro p ria te fo r th e c a rria g e o f cargo, b u t also lo a d e d som e cargo u p o n th e d e c k . I t th e re u p o n becam e necessary, in o rd e r t h a t i t m ig h t be a s c e rta in e d h o w m u c h s h o u ld be p a id to th e r a ilw a y c o m p a n y fo r d o c k dues, t h a t th e q u a n tity o f cargo o n th e de ck, o r th e to n n a g e space w h ic h was d e v o te d t o th e c a r r y in g o f t h a t carg o, s h o u ld be a s c e rta in e d a n d a d d e d t o th e re g is te re d to n n a g e o f th e sh ip . P e n d in g t h a t b e in g done, th e ow ners o f th e vessel b y t h e ir agents p a id th e r a ilw a y c o m p a n y o n a basis o f 454 to n s o f coa l, o r o n a basis t h a t 454 to n s o f to n n a g e space h a d been o c c u p ie d b y carg o w h ic h h a d been p u t u p o n th e d e ck. A f t e r th e y h a d p a id in re sp e ct o f th e 454 to n s , th e p la in tiffs cam e t o th e c o n c lu s io n , u p o n a c e rtific a te w h ic h was g ra n te d to th e m b y a n o ffic e r o f th e C ustom s, t h a t th e a m o u n t u p o n w h ic h th e y o u g h t t o h a v e p a id Was o n ly 370 to n s . T h e re u p o n th e p la in tiffs s o u g h t to re c o v e r fro m th e d e fe n d a n ts th e sum
° f 51. is . (id., b e in g th e d iffe re n ce be tw e e n th e dues cha rge able o n th e 370 to n s a n d o n th e 454 to n s .
T h e a c tio n cam e b e fo re J u d g e T h o m a s in th e C a rd iff C o u n ty C o u rt, w h o , h a v in g h e a rd th e evidence in re g a rd t o th e m a tte r , a n d h a v in g c on sid ered th e a rg u m e n ts p u t b e fo re h im , gave ju d g m e n t fo r th e p la in tiffs . F r o m t h a t J u d gm e nt th is a p p e a l is b ro u g h t, a n d , in m y o p in io n , t h is a p p e a l s h o u ld be a llo w e d .
T h e c o n te n tio n o f th e p a rtie s m a y , I t h in k , oe s ta te d in th is w a y . T h e re c an be n o d o u b t
t h a t sect. 77 o f th e M e rc h a n t S h ip p in g A c t 1894 p ro v id e s f o r th e m e a s u re m e n t o f a s h ip w h ic h is a b o u t to be re g is te re d , a n d sub-sect. (2) o f t h a t s e c tio n p ro v id e s fo r th e m e a s u re m e n t o f a s h ip fo r purposes o th e r th a n re g is tra tio n , i f occasion arises fo r i t t o be m easured a fte r i t has been re g is te re d . N o w , t h a t s e c tio n sets u p tw o m e th o d s o f m e a s u rin g a sh ip , th e fir s t, a c c o rd in g t o a ru le in th e schedule, w h ic h is k n o w n as ru le 1 a n d w h ic h com prises sub- ru le s 1 t o 5, a n d th e second a c c o rd in g to ru le 2, w h ic h com prises sub -ru le s 1 a n d 2. Those are b o th m e th o d s o f m e a s u rin g a s h ip in o rd e r to a r r iv e a t its to im a g e . T h e m e th o d w h ic h is t o be a d o p te d is t h a t w h ic h is a p p ro p ria te to th e p a r tic u la r s h ip , h a v in g re g a rd to th e te rm s o f sub-sect. (1) a n d sub-sect. (2) o f sect. 77.
B y t h a t m eans th e re g is te re d to n n a g e o f th e s h ip is to be a sce rta in e d . B u t cargo m a y be c a rrie d o n a s h ip in excess o f th e re g is te re d to n n a g e o f th e vessel. T h a t is w e ll k n o w n . F r o m tim e to tim e carg o is p u t u p o n th e de ck a n d is c a rrie d b y th e s h ip a n d dues o u g h t to be p a id in respect o f i t . Sect. 85 o f th e A c t o f 1894 p ro v id e s in sub-sect. (1) : “ I f a n y s h ip ” — w it h c e rta in e x c e p tio n s w h ic h do n o t a p p ly in th is case— “ c a rrie s as d e c k cargo, t h a t is t o say, in a n y u n c o v e re d space u p o n d e ck, o r in a n y co ve re d space n o t in c lu d e d in th e c u b ic a l c o n te n ts fo r m in g th e s h ip ’ s re g is te re d to n n a g e , tim b e r , stores, o r o th e r goods, a ll dues p a y a b le o n th e s h ip ’s to n n a g e s h a ll be p a y a b le as i f th e re w ere ad d e d t o th e s h ip ’ s re g is te re d to n n a g e th e to n n a g e o f th e space o c c u p ie d b y th o se goods a t th e tim e a t w h ic h th e dues becom e p a y a b le .” I f , th e re fo re , th e re is space occu p ie d b y carg o w h ic h is ab o ve a n d b e y o n d th e c u b ic a l c o n te n ts fo rm in g th e s h ip ’ s re g is te re d to n n a g e , t h a t space has t o be p a id f o r a n d w h a t t h a t space is has t o be ascer
ta in e d . N o w , as I say, th e re are tw o m e th o d s o f m e a s u rin g a s h ip . So fa r , w e h a v e h a d n o th in g t o do w it h m e a s u rin g space o r a p o r tio n o f a s h ip as opposed t o th e w h o le o f th e s h ip ; b u t w h e n carg o is c a rrie d o u ts id e t h a t p o r tio n o f th e s h ip , th e c u b ic a l c o n te n ts o f w h ic h h a v e been c a lc u la te d in th e re g is te re d to n n a g e , one m u s t c o n s id e r b y w h a t m eans t h a t space is t o be m easured in o rd e r t h a t one m a y a r r iv e a t th e dues w h ic h are p a y a b le in re s p e c t o f t h a t e x tr a carg o. H a v in g said, f ir s t o f a ll, in sect. 85, sub-sect. (1), t h a t such e x tra cargo s h a ll be p a id fo r, th e A c t o f P a rlia m e n t in sub-sect. (3) goes o n t o say h o w th e m easure
m e n t is t o be m ade. N o w , th e re are tw o m e th o d s o f m e a s u rin g a s h ip . T h e A c t o f P a rlia m e n t m ig h t h a v e s a id : “ Y o u s h a ll a d o p t one o f these m e th o d s o f m e a s u rin g , o r y o u s h a ll a d o p t some q u ite d iffe re n t m e th o d w h ic h has n o th in g to do w it h th e m e th o d s w h ic h w e ha ve la id d o w n f o r th e m e a s u rin g o f a s h ip as a w h o le .” B u t w h a t i t in fa c t has done is th is . I t has said, in sub-sect. (3) : “ T h e to n n a g e o f th e space s h a ll be a s c e rta in e d b y an o ffic e r o f th e B o a rd o f T ra d e o r o f C ustom s in m a n n e r d ire c te d as t o th e m e a s u re m e n t o f poops o r o th e r c lo s e d -in spaces b y r u le 1 in th e Second S chedule to th is A c t . ” T h e re fo re , th is de ck
K .B . D iv.] Great Western RailwayCo. v. Kassos Steam NavigationCo. [K .B . Di v. carg o o n th e Chelatros was, a c c o rd in g t o th e
A c t o f P a rlia m e n t, to be m easured a c c o rd in g t o th e m e th o d a n d th e ru le s la id d o w n b y ru le 1 o f th e Second S chedule t o th e A c t. I t is beside th e q u e s tio n t o say t h a t r u le 2 w o u ld h a v e been a v e r y m u c h m o re c o n v e n ie n t m e th o d o f m e a s u rin g , o r to say t h a t som e o th e r v e r y m u c h b e tte r m e th o d o f m e a s u rin g c o u ld h a v e been fo u n d . P a rlia m e n t, in it s w is d o m , has s a id t h a t , w h e n th is space has to be m easured, fo r th e a s c e rta in m e n t o f w h a t dues are t o be p a id , th e space s h a ll be a s c e rta in e d in th e m a n n e r d ire c te d b y ru le 1 in th e Second S chedule t o th e A c t. W it h re g a rd t o th e carg o o n t h is vessel, t h a t was n o t done.
P o s s ib ly th r o u g h n o f a u lt o f h is o w n , in de ed p r o b a b ly th r o u g h n o f a u lt o f h is o w n , th e o ffic e r w h o o u g h t t o h a v e m easured, a n d w h o o u g h t t o h a v e m easured in accordance w it h th e m e th o d la id d o w n b y ru le 1, in fa c t m easured in accordance w it h th e m e th o d la id d o w n b y ru le 2, a n d he d id so, as he t o ld th e c o u rt, because he h a d re c e iv e d in s tr u c tio n s fr o m h is s u p e rio r officers, th e C ustom s a u th o ritie s , t h a t t h a t w as th e w a y in w h ic h he w as t o m easure.
B u t t h a t is n o t a p ro p e r m e th o d o f m e a s u rin g u n d e r th e A c t.
T h e p o s itio n w h ic h fo llo w s is th is , t h a t th e p la in tiffs , h a v in g p a id a c e rta in sum fo r d o c k dues, w h e n th e y com e t o re c o v e r som e
t h in g w h ic h th e y sa y th e y h a v e o v e rp a id , h a v e g o t t o b r in g evide nce b e fo re th e c o u rt t h a t, m e a s u rin g th e space o n w h ic h d e ck cargo w as c a rrie d in th e p ro p e r m a n n e r, th e y ha ve p a id to o m u c h . T h e y n e v e r m ea sure d i t in th e p ro p e r m a n n e r, h o w e v e r, a n d , th e re fo re , th e y c a n n o t say th e y h a v e p a id to o m u c h . T h e y do n o t k n o w w h a t th e fig u re w o u ld ha ve been i f th e y h a d m ea sure d i t in th e p ro p e r m a n n e r. T h e re was b e fo re th e le a rn e d C o u n ty C o u rt ju d g e n o evide nce u p o n w h ic h , in m y o p in io n , he c o u ld com e t o th e c o n c lu s io n t h a t th e p la in tiffs h a d r e a lly m ea sure d a n d h a d r e a lly p a id m o re th a n th e tr u e m ea sure m ents re n d e re d th e m lia b le t o p a y . T h e re was n o m e a s u re m e n t la te r o n . I t is suggested t h a t b e fo re th e t r i a l M r . N ic o l, th e o ffic e r o f C ustom s, m ea sure d u n d e r r u le 1, s u b -ru le (5), a n d t h a t th e re s u lts sh o w t h a t i f he h a d m ea sure d in th e p ro p e r w a y o r ig in a lly a c c o rd in g t o th e A c t o f P a r lia m e n t th e m e a s u re m e n t w o u ld h a v e been p r a c tic a lly th e same. T h e answ er t o t h a t is, he n e v e r d id m a k e a n y such m ea sure m ents.
T h e s h ip h a d gone lo n g be fo re th is case cam e o n fo r t r ia l. H e m ea sure d once, a n d he m ea sure d once fo r a ll. U n fo r tu n a te ly , he d id n o t m easure in such a w a y as t o en ab le h im t o m a k e th e c a lc u la tio n s u n d e r ru le I , s ub
r u le (5). H e h a d n o t g o t th e m a te ria ls to d o t h a t. T h e evid e n ce w h ic h he gave t o th e le a rn e d C o u n ty C o u rt ju d g e w it h re g a rd t o t h a t m a tte r was, eve n i f i t w ere a r ith m e tic a lly c o rre c t, w h ic h I a m s a tis fie d i t w as n o t, p e r
f e c tly w o rth le s s , because i t was n o t th e m easure
m e n t o f th e space, n o r was i t based u p o n th e fa c to rs w h ic h th e A c t o f P a rlia m e n t re q u ire s . I t was s a id b y M r . H u n t e r : “ W e ll, t h is m e m o ra n d u m o f th e o ffic ia ls is c o n c lu s iv e ,”
b u t h a v in g re g a rd t o th e d e cisio n in th e case o f The F ra n c o n ia (4 A s p . M a r. L a w Cas. 1 ; 39 L . T . R e p . 57 ; 3 P ro b . D iv . 104) a n d th e ease o f R ic h m o n d H i l l S team ship C om pany v . T r in i t y H ouse C o rp o ra tio n (8 A s p . M a r. L a w Cas. 1 6 4 ; 75 L . T . R e p . 8 ; (1896) 2 Q . B . 134), b o th o f w h ic h w e re c ite d t o us, i t is o b v io u s t h a t th e m e m o ra n d u m is n o t c o n c lu s iv e a t a ll in its e lf. M r . H u n t e r th e n s a id : “ I f i t is n o t c o n c lu s iv e as t o th e space m easured i t is, a t a n y ra te , c o n c lu s iv e as t o th e fig u re s .” I do n o t fo llo w t h a t, because i t does n o t seem t o m e t o be co n c lu s iv e o f a n y th in g a n d i t does n o t seem t o m e t h a t i t p re v e n ts th e d o c k a u th o ritie s fr o m s a y in g t h a t th e m e m o ra n d u m was w ro n g in e ith e r t h a t th e m ea sure m ents h a d n e v e r been m a d e a t a ll, o r t h a t th e fig u re s w h ic h w ere c a lc u la te d as th e r e s u lt o f th o se m easure
m e n ts w e re in t r u t h w ro n g . S p e a k in g f o r m y s e lf— i t is q u ite im m a te r ia l fo r th e pu rpose o f d e c id in g th is case— I s h o u ld d o u b t v e ry m u c h w h e th e r th e re e v e r was a c e rtific a te g iv e n a t a ll u n d e r sect. 85 o f th e A c t o f 1894.
T h a t s e c tio n re q u ire s a m e m o ra n d u m w h ic h is t o be g iv e n t o th e m a s te r o f th e s h ip w h e n th e s h ip is c o m in g in to d o c k . I t is q u ite o b v io u s fr o m th e p r in te d fo r m u p o n w h ic h th is m e m o ra n d u m has been p u t t h a t t h a t w a s th e in te n tio n o f th e d ra fts m a n o f i t b e fo re i t was p rin te d . I n th is case t h a t fo r m has been u tilis e d f o r q u ite a d iffe re n t pu rp o se ; i t has been m a d e t o a p p ly t o th e carg o o f a ship w h ic h was g o in g o u t o f d o c k , a n d n o t c o m in g in , a n d th e re is n o evide nce w h a te v e r t h a t i t was e v e r g iv e n t o th e m a s te r o f th e s h ip a t a ll, a n d i t was c e r ta in ly , so fa r as w e k n o w , n e v e r p ro d u c e d b y th e m a s te r o f th e s h ip w ho, so fa r as I c an a s c e rta in th e fa c ts , was on his w a y to B ue no s A ire s lo n g b e fo re a n y q u e s tio n in re g a rd t o th is m a tte r arose a n d p ro b a b ly lo n g b e fo re th e c e rtific a te was g iv e n . T he c e rtific a te says th e in s p e c tio n was m a d e u p o n th e 8 th A u g ., a n d i t is d a te d th e 1 3 th A u g .—■
some da ys la te r . B e t h a t as i t m a y , i t seems to m e t h a t th e re was n o evide nce b e fo re th e le a rn e d C o u n ty C o u rt ju d g e u p o n w h ic h h e c o u ld com e to th e c o n c lu s io n t h a t th e p la in t if fs h a d o v e rp a id th e de fe n d a n ts 51. Is . 6d.
W h e th e r th e p la in tiffs h a d o v e rp a id th e d e fe n d a n ts o r n o t depended e n tir e ly o n th e m easure
m e n t o f th e space fo r th e p u rp o se o f c a lc u la tin g th e to n n a g e on w h ic h th e y o u g h t t o p a y u n d e r sect. 85. I t is a d m itte d t h a t n o such c a lc u la tio n was eve r m ad e u n t il lo n g a fte r th e p a y m e n t was m a d e , a n d , i f one w as m ad e a t a ll, i t w as o n ly ju s t b e fo re th e C o u n ty C o u rt a c tio n . I n th o se circu m sta n ce s, in m y o p in io n , th e re was n o evidence u p o n w h ic h th e le arn ed C o u n ty C o u rt ju d g e c o u ld fin d as he d id , and I t h in k h is ju d g m e n t o u g h t t o h a v e been fo r th e d e fe n d a n ts . I t h in k , th e re fo re , t h a t th is a p p e a l s h o u ld be a llo w e d , a n d t h a t th e ju d g n ie n f o r th e p la in tiffs s h o u ld be set aside a n d ju d g m e n t e n te re d fo r th e d e fe n d a n ts , w it h costs.
Ac t o n, J .— I agree. I t h in k t h a t th e e rro r in to w h ic h th e le a rn e d C o u n ty C o u rt ju d g e f e l can be m ad e c le a rly a p p a re n t b y a reference
ASPINALL’S MARITIME LAW CASES.
177 K .B . Div.] Ownersof Steamship Istrosv. F. W . Dahlstroema n d Co. [K.B. Div. t o som e c o m p a ra tiv e ly s h o rt passages in hisju d g m e n t. I n h is ju d g m e n t he said : “ I t appears t h a t t h is vessel c a rrie s ■ cargo in w h a t has been d e scrib ed, a n d p r o p e r ly described, as u n re g is te re d spaces. T h e r e g is tra tio n o f th e c a p a c ity o f vessels, so fa r as G reek ships are c on
cerned, is c o n fin e d t o th e spaces b e lo w th e decks, a n d as th e re are in t h is s h ip spaces ab o ve th e d e c k u p o n w h ic h carg o m a y be a n d is c a rrie d , th e p la in tiffs are lia b le t o p a y th e charges w it h reference t o tho se spaces.” T h e n th e le a rn e d ju d g e refers t o sect. 85 o f th e M e rc h a n t S h ip p in g A c t 1894 as th e im p o r t a n t a n d p ro p e r s e c tio n t o be con sid ered , a n d th e n he c o n tin u e s : “ T h e re fo re , t h a t s e c tio n p ro v id e s in c le a r la ng u a g e t h a t dues are t o be p a y a b le u p o n goods s h ip p e d ab o ve th e m a in d e c k .” I t h in k i t w o u ld be m o re c o rre c t t o say “ u p o n space o c c u p ie d b y goods sh ip p e d ab o ve th e m a in d e c k .” H e th e n refers t o w h a t w as, o f course, c o m m o n g ro u n d in th e case, t h a t th e p ra c tic e appears t o h a v e been t h a t th e p a y m e n t s h o u ld be m ad e n o t, in th e f ir s t p lace , o n m e a su re m e n t, b u t o n a d e m a n d m a d e b y th e d e fe n d a n ts , a n d t h a t u p o n such d e m a n d th e p la in tiffs p a id to th e d e fe n d a n ts th e sum o f m o n e y w h ic h was supposed to re p re s e n t th e le g a l charges w h ic h th e d e fe n d a n ts w e re e n title d t o e x a c t fr o m th e p la in tiffs . H e th e n goes o n to say, a n d to say as a g ro u n d fo r th e d e cisio n a t w h ic h he a rriv e d , t h a t he fin d s t h a t th e o ffic e r o f C ustom s, M r . N ic o l, m a d e th e necessary m ea sure m ents as re q u ire d b y th e A c t. H e says t h a t , a fte r d ra w in g a tte n tio n t o th e Second S chedule o f th e A c t, r u le 1, s u b -ru le (5).
T h e n , in th e course o f h is ju d g m e n t, he says t h a t i t was a d m itte d b y th e C ustom s o ffic e r, M r. N ic o l, w h o ga ve evidence, t h a t he d id n o t m a k e h is m e a s u re m e n t in accordance w it h th e Second Schedule, ru le 1, s u b -ru le (5) ; he based h is c a lc u la tio n s u p o n ru le 2, s u b -ru le (2), o f th e schedule, in c o n ju n c tio n w it h some in s tr u c tio n s w 'h ich w ere issued t o office rs lik e h im s e lf b y th e B o a rd o f T ra d e fo r t h e ir g u id ance . I n s a y in g “ th e B o a rd o f T ra d e ,” th e le a rn e d ju d g e , as e v e ry b o d y agrees, was in e rro r, fo r such in s tru c tio n s as th e re w ere w ere issued b y th e C ustom s a u th o ritie s , n o t b y th e B o a rd o f T ra d e . Those in s tru c tio n s , he says, w ere g iv e n in evide nce, “ a n d I h o ld t h a t u n d e r th e s ta tu t o r y e n a c tm e n ts w h ic h w e re re fe rre d t o th e y w ere p r o p e r ly a d m is s ib le in evidence, a n d t h a t th e C u s to m H o u s e o ffic e r was e n title d t o base his c a lc u la tio n s u p o n th e m e th o d o f m ea sure
m e n t disclosed in th e second r u le o f Sched. 2 an d th e in s tr u c tio n s w h ic h w ere g iv e n to h im h y th e B o a rd o f T ra d e office rs ” — w h e re he was again f a llin g in to th e sam e e rro r as he h a d fa lle n in to a fe w sentences p re v io u s ly .
N o w , fo r th e reasons w h ic h m y L o r d has g iv e n , i t seems t o m e q u ite cle a r, a n d c le a r h e y o n d a rg u m e n t, t h a t in t h a t th e le a rn e d C o u n ty C o u rt ju d g e was in e rro r ; he was in e rro r c e r ta in ly f o r th e reasons a lre a d y g iv e n h y m y L o r d a n d also fo r th e reason t h a t I ha ve d ra w n a tte n tio n to , n a m e ly , t h a t he m ad e a m is ta k e a b o u t th e in s tru c tio n s b e in g th e in s tru c tio n s o f th e B o a rd o f T ra d e . T h e o n ly
V o n . X V I I I . , N . S.
d iff ic u lt y in th e course o f th e a rg u m e n t w h ic h p re se n te d it s e lf t o m y m in d was th is , t h a t th e re was evide nce b e fo re th e le a rn e d ju d g e o f w h a t th e c o rre c t m e a s u re m e n t w o u ld h a v e been i f th e m e th o d o r p r in c ip le in d ic a te d b y r u le 1, s u b -ru le (5), h a d been observed, in s te a d o f th e m e th o d in d ic a te d b y ru le 2, s u b -ru le (2), o f th e schedule to th e A c t o f 1894. I t h in k , h o w e v e r, t h a t th e a n sw e r t o t h a t is th e answ er w h ic h has a lre a d y been g iv e n b y m y L o r d , t h a t, in fa c t, t h a t m e a su re m e n t h a d n e v e r been ta k e n a t a ll, a n d th e o p p o r tu n it y o f ta k in g a n y such m e a su re m e n t h a d gone b y ; a n d , in th e c ir cum stances, i t c an fo r m n o a n sw e r to th e o b je c tio n ta k e n in re g a rd t o th e w ro n g m e th o d o f m e a s u rin g h a v in g been a p p lie d t h a t i f th e r ig h t m e th o d o f m e a s u re m e n t h a d been a p p lie d th e r e s u lt w o u ld h a v e been p r a c tic a lly th e same.
T h e a n sw e r t o t h a t is t h a t such m e a su re m e n t n e v e r was ta k e n , a n d , th e re fo re , I agree t h a t th is a p p e a l s h o u ld be a llo w e d a n d ju d g m e n t s h o u ld be e n te re d f o r th e d e fe n d a n ts .
A p p e a l allowed.
S o lic ito rs fo r th e a p p e lla n ts , A . G. H u b b a rd . S o lic ito rs fo r th e re sp on den ts, Ing led ew , Sons, a n d B ro w n , agents f o r Ingledew a n d Sons, C a rd iff.
W ednesday, N o v . 5, 1930.
(B e fo re W r i g h t, J .)
Ow n e r s o f St e a m s h i p Is t r o s v. F . W . Da h l s t r o e m a n d C o. ( a )
C h arter - p a r ty — Clause p r o v id in g tha t the c a p ta in s h a ll prosecute a ll voyages w ith the utm ost despatch— E x c e p tio n clause— C onstruc
tio n — C la im f o r h ire — C o un te r-claim f o r loss caused by delay i n pro secu ting a voyage—
A rb itr a tio n .
The p la in t if fs were the owners a n d the defendants the charterers o f a steamer un de r the B a ltic a n d W h ite Sea Conference U n ifo r m T im e C harter 1 9 1 2 -2 0 . U n d e r the agreement the c a p ta in was to prosecute a ll voyages w ith the utm ost despatch, a n d i f the charterers were dissatisfie d they were to lodge a c o m p la in t a n d a fte r in ve stig a tio n the owners were to make a change i n the a p p o in tm e n t. T he owners made themselves lia b le f o r themselves o r th e ir m anager f o r delay o r loss in m a k in g the steamer seaworthy a n d fitte d f o r the voyage o r a n y other pe rson al act o r om ission o r d e fa u lt on th e ir p a r t o r tha t o f th e ir m anager, but the owners were not to be liable i n a n y other case n o r f o r damage o r delay w h at
soever a n d howsoever caused, even i f caused by the neglect o r de fa u lt o f the owners' servants.
On a voyage w h ich started fr o m the T y n e the steamer met w ith u n u s u a lly heavy weather a n d the c a p ta in p u t in a t f o u r p o rts o f refuge whereby the voyage was u n d u ly delayed. The owners made a c la im f o r balance o f h ire a n d the charterers counter-claim ed damages f o r the
(a) R eported b y R . A . Yu l b, Esq., B a rris te r-a t-L a w . A A
K .B . D iv.] Ow n e r s o f St e a m s h i p Is t r o s v
.
F. W . Da h t.s t r o e m a n d Co. [K .B . Di v. loss sustained by reason o f the delay in prosec u tin g the voyage. T he a rb itra to r fo u n d th a t the delay was due to the d e fa u lt o f the c a p ta in , a n d h o ld in g tha t the owners were exempt fr o m lia b ilit y un de r the contract made an a w a rd in fa v o u r o f the owners but stated a case f o r the o p in io n o f the court.
H e ld , tha t the a rb itra to r was rig h t. T he delay caused by the de fa u lt o f the c a p ta in w o u ld have made the owners lia b le unless there was a clause i n the contract expressly e xclud ing th is lia b ilit y . T he a rb itra to r h a d fo u n d tha t the delay was n o t due to w a n t o f diligence on the p a r t o f the owners o r th e ir m anager i n m a k in g the s h ip seaworthy a n d fitte d f o r the voyage n o r to a n y other pe rso n a l act o r om ission on th e ir p a rt.
The case o f the owners cle a rly f e ll w ith in the exception clause o f the ch a rte r-p a rty a n d the a w a rd m ust be affirm ed.
S u z u k i a n d C o m p a n y L im it e d v. T . B e y n o n a n d C o m p a n y L im it e d (17 A s p . M a r . L a w Cas.
1 ; 134 L . T . Rep. 449) referred to.
Sp e c i a l c a s e s t a t e d b y a n a r b i t r a t o r .
T h e p la in tiffs w ere th e ow ners o f th e s te a m s h ip Is tro s o f 5660 to n s , a n d th e de fe n d a n ts w ere th e c h a rte re rs u n d e r th e B a ltic a n d W h ite Sea Conference U n ifo r m T im e C h a rte r 1 9 12 -20, th e c h a r te r - p a r ty b e in g d a te d th e 3 rd A u g . 1929 a n d th e p e rio d fo u r c a le n d a r m o n th s . T h e vessel d u ly w e n t o n service, a n d o n a v oya ge w h ic h s ta rte d fr o m th e T y n e on th e 2 4 th D ec.
1929 she m e t w it h b a d w e a th e r. T h e c a p ta in p u t in a t th re e p o rts o f re fu g e : M a rg a te R o ad s o n th e 2 9 th D e c., T o r b a y o n th e 1 st J a n . 1930 t i l l th e 6 th J a n . 1930, a n d C o ru n n a o n th e 9 th J a n . t o th e 1 5 th J a n . These c irc u m stances caused a d e la y in th e p ro s e c u tio n o f th e v o y a g e . B y clause 8 o f th e c h a rte r- p a r t y i t was p ro v id e d t h a t th e c a p ta in was to pro se cu te a ll voyages w it h th e u tm o s t d is p a tc h a n d t o re n d e r c u s to m a ry assistance
1929 she m e t w it h b a d w e a th e r. T h e c a p ta in p u t in a t th re e p o rts o f re fu g e : M a rg a te R o ad s o n th e 2 9 th D e c., T o r b a y o n th e 1 st J a n . 1930 t i l l th e 6 th J a n . 1930, a n d C o ru n n a o n th e 9 th J a n . t o th e 1 5 th J a n . These c irc u m stances caused a d e la y in th e p ro s e c u tio n o f th e v o y a g e . B y clause 8 o f th e c h a rte r- p a r t y i t was p ro v id e d t h a t th e c a p ta in was to pro se cu te a ll voyages w it h th e u tm o s t d is p a tc h a n d t o re n d e r c u s to m a ry assistance