Board of Tradev. Hain Steamship Company Limited. [ H . o f L . Ascertained p h y s ic a l loss, y e t i t is o n ly th e
„ y sica l loss o v e r 1 p e r c e n t, w h ic h is covered.
in ^ ^ i n k , th e re fo re , t h a t i t is open t o th e
?Urers t o m e e t a c la im f o r loss based u p o n a e o la tio n fo u n d e d o n th e re d u c tio n ta b le t o t i ln t o u t th e d iffe re n c e in v o lu m e caused b y l)J ,liJcratu re , a n d t o re q u ire th is e le m e n t to c ta k e n in to a c c o u n t b y th e assured be fore ey Can ‘,e said t o p ro v e th e ir loss. I f , h o w - d ?r ’ th e e ffe c t o f te m p e ra tu re o r v o lu m e is to ^ t a *íe n lo to a c c o u n t, a n d th e re s t ill appears W ' k a Ph y sica l l ° ss u Po n c o m p a ris o n o f t o 1®a ts n o w a c c u ra te ly a d ju s te d , i t appears me 11' a t such p h y s ic a l loss is , o n a p ro p e r O b s tr u c tio n o f th e p o lic y , t o be ta k e n t o be 0 e re s u lt o f leakage, a n d f o r a n y a m o u n t
^ <r 1 p e r c e n t, th e assured w ill re c o v e r. I n t . P resent case i t appears fr o m th e evidence
th e scale a d o p te d o f 3.25 k ilo g ra m s t o Up .?aH °n was th e a p p ro p ria te scale fo r t u r - j,. .n lne a t th e te m p e ra tu re a t th e p o r t o f shi^m U lit ’ a il(l d id g iv e th e a c tu a l w e ig h t o f o f ^,nu:ni c o m p a ra b le w it h th e a c tu a l w e ig h t an ls<i |a rge. T h e re w as, th e re fo re , p ro v e d t jle act u a l p h y s ic a l loss, a n d th e p la in tiffs in 1 n a c tlo n h a v e re co ve re d th e excess o v e r i j ® c e n t, o f t h a t a c tu a l p h y s ic a l loss. T h e re can ° ®ro u n d fo r im p u tin g t h a t loss t o a n y foreSC ° ^ le r th a n leakage, a n d I t h in k , th e re - p l ^ ! t h a t th e ju d g m e n t in fa v o u r o f th e Sh * is c o rre c t, a n d t h a t t h is ap pe al
u d be dism issed w it h costs.
A p p e a l dism issed.
J L 0lie,it o rs fo r th e a p p e lla n ts , W in d y b a n k , a n d Law rence.
CVi,0^ C* t ° rs fo r th e re sp o n d e n ts, W illia m A . ru n ,P a n d Son.
A p r i l 25 a n d J u n e 14, 1929.
( cfore Lords Buckmaster, Dunedin, Sumner, Atkin, and Warrington.)
D OF Tradev. Hain Steamship Company Limited, (a)
appeal from the court of appeal in E N G L A N D .
eC o / r H° ned Ship ~ C h a r te r - p a r ty T .99 — __] \ l Stori Negligence o f both ships— W a r r is k
° f A d m - e — W a rlik e op era tion— L ia b ilit y
' the V
I n
c la im a n t" * steamshiP T -. belonging to the Coni Was ‘re q u is itio n e d by the S h ip p in g P r o v i d e ’ un(h'r c h a rte r-p a rty T . 99, w h ich i n d e n t ’ Cr o wn w o u ld undertake to queue U l f ^ ie owners i n respect o f a ll conse- W o u ld * w.a rtik e operations w h ile the owners Xn j . contin u e to bear the m a rin e ris k s . signer]01 af le r the A rm is tic e had been
— ’ t h e 'r . was on a voyage fr o m the U n ite d ted b y Ed w a r d J, m. Ch a p l in, Esq., B a rris te r-a t-
L a w .
States w ith a cargo o f oats, a n d a steamer, the R ., w h ich had been re q u is itio n e d by the U n ite d States G overnm ent, was on a voyage fr o m E n g la n d to the U n ite d States w ith a cargo o f mines w h ich, as the A rm is tic e had been signed, were no longer req uire d f o r c a rry in g on h o s tilitie s in E u ro p e a n waters. On the n ig h t o f C hristm as D a y , the steamers came in to c o llis io n i n m id - A tla n tic , a n d the T . was so m uch damaged that she was o ff h ire f o r n in e ty -n in e days. The c o llis io n was due to the fa c t tha t both steamers were being n e glige ntly navigated at the tim e.
The a rb itra to r considered h im s e lf bound by the decisions i n the C o m m o n w e a lth S h ip p in g R e p re s e n ta tiv e v. P e n in s u la r a n d O rie n ta l B ra n c h S ervice ; T h e G eelong (128 L . T . Rep.
546 ; (1923) A . C. 191) a n d A tto r n e y -G en eral v. A d e la id e S te a m sh ip C o m p a n y L im it e d ; T h e W a r ild a (129 L . T . Rep. 161 ; (1923) A . C. 292), a n d held tha t the c o llis io n was a consequence o f w a rlik e operations, a n d therefore tha t the C row n was lia b le un de r the ro a r-risks clause i n the c h a rte r-p a rty to i n d e m n ify the owners o f the T .
H e ld , (1) tha t the a rb itra to r was e n title d to f in d that the c o llis io n was a consequence o f w a rlik e operations, even although i t happened after the d e cla ration o f the A rm is tic e ; a n d (2) that the c la im made ag ainst the R . w h ich, i f i t stood alone, w o u ld have been covered by the p o lic y , was not the less covered because the T . also con tribu te d to the accident.
D e cisio n o f the C o urt o f A p p e a l (17 A s p . M a r . L a w Cas. 520 ; 139 L . T . R ep. 566 ; (1928) 2 K . B . 534) affirm ed.
Appeal fr o m th e de cisio n o f th e C o u rt o f A p p e a l, re p o rte d sub. nom . Re H a in S team ship C o m pa ny (owners o f steam ship T re v a n io n ) a n d the B o a rd o f T rade (17 A s p , M a r, L a w Cas.
520 ; 139 L . T . R e p . 566 ; (1928) 2 K . B . 534) o n a special case s ta te d b y a n a r b itr a to r .
I n 1917 th e ste a m s h ip T re v a n io n , o f w h ic h th e c la im a n ts w ere th e ow ners, w as re q u is i
tio n e d b y th e B r it is h A d m ir a lt y u n d e r th e te rm s o f c h a r te r - p a r ty T .9 9 . B y clause 18 o f t h a t c h a r te r - p a r ty , “ T h e A d m ir a lt y s h a ll n o t be h e ld lia b le i f th e ste a m e r s h a ll be lo s t, w re c k e d , d r iv e n o n shore, in ju r e d , o r ren d e re d in c a p a b le o f service b y o r in consequence o f dangers o f th e sea o r te m p e s t, c o llis io n , fire , a c c id e n t, stress o f w e a th e r, o r a n y o th e r cause a ris in g as a sea r is k ,” a n d b y clause 19 : “ T h e ris k s o f w a r w h ic h are ta k e n b y th e A d m ir a lt y are tho se ris k s w h ic h w o u ld be e x c lu d e d fro m a n o r d in a r y E n g lis h p o lic y o f m a rin e in s u ra n c e b y th e fo llo w in g , o r s im ila r, b u t n o t m o re e x te n s iv e clause : W a rra n te d free o f c a p tu re , seizure, a n d d e te n tio n a n d th e consequences th e re o f, a n d also fr o m a ll consequences o f h o s tilitie s o r w a r lik e o p e ra tio n s , w h e th e r b e fore o r a fte r d e c la ra tio n o f w a r.”
O n th e a fte rn o o n o f C h ris tm a s D a y 1918, a b o u t s ix weeks a fte r th e A rm is tic e w as signed b y G e rm a n y a n d th e A llie s in th e G re a t W a r, th e T re v a n io n , w h ic h w as th e n c a r r y in g a cargo o f oa ts, th e p r o p e r ty o f th e B r it is h W a r D e p a rtm e n t, fro m th e U n ite d S tates o f A m e ric a ,
16
H . ofL . ] Board of Trade v. Hain Steamship Company Limited. [ H . ofL . t o P o rtla n d , fo r ord ers, c o llid e d in m id - A tla n tic
w it h th e ste a m s h ip Roanoke, w h ic h w as th e n i n th e possession a n d u n d e r th e c o n tro l o f th e U n ite d S tates G o v e rn m e n t, e m p lo y e d b y t h a t G o v e rn m e n t s o le ly fo r n a v a l purposes as a r e g u la r ly com m ission ed m in e p la n te r o f th e U n ite d S tates N a v y , o p e ra te d b y th e N a v y D e p a rtm e n t, o ffice re d b y com m ission ed officers o f th e U n ite d S tates N a v y a n d m a n n e d b y a U n ite d S tates n a v a l crew .
T h e a r b it r a t o r fo u n d t h a t, a t th e tim e o f th e c o llis io n , th e Roanoke was pro ce e d in g “ u n d e r h e r a fo re s a id p u b lic e m p lo y m e n t ” fr o m P o r t la n d , E n g la n d , t o H a m p to n R o a d s, V ir g in ia , h a v in g 720 m in es o n b o a rd , b u t n o o th e r cargo a n d n o passengers, a n d t h a t th e re was n o evide nce w it h re g a rd t o th e circ u m s ta n c e s u n d e r o r th e purposes fo r w h ic h th e m in e s w ere b e in g c a rrie d . H e fo u n d t h a t b o th vessels w e re n e g lig e n t a n d b o th w e re e q u a lly to b la m e .
T h e c o llis io n o c c u rre d o n th e 2 5 th D e c. 1018, some s ix weeks a fte r th e A rm is tic e . T h e d u r a t io n o f th e A r m is tic e was o r ig in a lly fix e d a t t h ir t y - s ix d a ys, b u t w as s u b s e q u e n tly e x te n d e d fr o m tim e t o tim e . D u r in g th e A rm is tic e th e b lo c k a d e c o n d itio n s set u p b y th e A llie d a n d A s s o c ia te d P ow ers re m a in e d un ch a n g e d , a n d G e rm a n m e rc h a n t ships a t sea a n d vessels c a rry in g c o n tra b a n d goods re m a in e d lia b le to c a p tu re ; b u t th e o th e r h o s tilitie s h a d ceased.
U p t o th e tim e o f th e A rm is tic e , th e Roanoke h a d been e m p lo y e d as a w a rs h ip engaged in o p e ra tio n s o f w a r, a n d th e q u e s tio n w as w h e th e r she was p e rfo rm in g a w a r lik e o p e ra tio n w h e n p ro c e e d in g , u n d e r ord ers, fr o m E n g la n d to A m e ric a d u r in g th e te m p o r a r y a n d q u a lifie d suspension o f h o s tilitie s a t sea b r o u g h t a b o u t b y th e A rm is tic e .
T h e ow ners o f th e T re v a n io n c o n te n d e d t h a t th e A r m is tic e d id n o t change th e c h a ra c te r o f th e Roanoke's e m p lo y m e n t, a n d t h a t, as th e w a r h a d n o t te rm in a te d , th e case was s im p ly one o f a w a rs h ip in th e e m p lo y o f one o f th e b e llig e re n t P ow ers c a rry in g m u n itio n s o f w a r fr o m one place t o a n o th e r d u rin g a s ta te o f w a r, a n d c o n s e q u e n tly t h a t th e Roanoke was engaged in a w a r lik e o p e ra tio n a t th e tim e o f th e c o llis io n .
T h e B o a rd o f T ra d e , on th e o th e r h a n d , co n te n d e d t h a t in o rd e r to re n d e r a n o p e ra tio n
“ w a r lik e ” w it h in th e m e a n in g o f clause 19, i t m u s t be one w h ic h is p e rfo rm e d in fu rth e ra n c e o f h o s tilitie s , o r fo r c o m b a ta n t purposes, a n d t h a t an A m e ric a n w a rs h ip pro ce e d in g to A m e ric a a fte r th e cessation o f h o s tilitie s , w ith m u n itio n s o f w a r w h ic h w e re no lo n g e r re q u ire d , w as n o t engaged in a w a rlik e o p e ra tio n .
T h e a r b it r a t o r , in d e c id in g in fa v o u r o f th e ow ners o f th e T re v a n io n , h a d fo u n d as a fa c t a n d h e ld as a q u e s tio n o f la w t h a t th e Roanoke, a t th e tim e o f c o llis io n , was p e rfo rm in g a w a r lik e o p e ra tio n ; a n d he h e ld , fu r th e r , fo llo w in g th e decisions in Com m onwealth S h ip p in g Representative v . P e n in s u la r a n d O rie n ta l B ra n c h S e rv ic e ; The Geelong (128 L . T . R e p . 546 ; (1923) A . C. 191) ; a n d A tto rne y-G e ne ra l v . A de la id e S team ship C o m p a n y ; The W a rild a I
(129 L . T . R e p . 161 ; (1923) A . C. 292), t h a t th e c o llis io n was a consequence o f w a r lik e op e ra tio n s , a n d t h a t, th e re fo re , th e C ro w n was lia b le to in d e m n ify th e ow ners o f th e ste a m s h ip T re v a n io n u n d e r th e w a r ris k s clause o f th e c h a r te r - p a r ty T . 99.
T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a l (S c ru tto n , L a w re n c e , a n d G reer, L . J J . ) h e ld , re v e rs in g th e decision o f R o w la tt, J ., (1) t h a t a t th e tim e o f th e c o llis io n th e ste a m s h ip Roanoke, w h ic h was c a rry in g th e m ines, w as engaged in a w a rlik e o p e ra tio n , a n d (2) t h a t as th e Roanoke was engaged o n a w a r lik e o p e ra tio n , th o u g h c on
d u c te d n e g lig e n tly , th e C ro w n w as n o t excused fr o m li a b i lit y u n d e r its w a r-ris k s clause, because th e loss was e q u a lly caused b y th e negligence o f a n o th e r s h ip . T h e C ro w n w as, th e re fo re , lia b le , a n d th e a w a rd o f th e a r b it r a t o r in fa v o u r o f th e s hipo w ne rs m u s t be re s to re d .
T h e B o a rd o f T ra d e appealed.
S ir Thom as In s k ip , K .C ., S ir B o y d M e r r im a n , K .C . a n d R ussell D a vies fo r th e a p p e lla n ts .
C. R . D u n lo p , K .C . a n d R . H . B a llo c h fo r th e resp on den ts.
T h e H o use to o k tim e fo r c o n s id e ra tio n . L o r d Buckmaster.— A t a b o u t 8.20 p .m . on th e 2 5 th D e c. 1918, th e ste a m s h ip T re v a n io n c o llid e d in th e N o r th A t la n t ic w it h th e stea m s h ip Roanoke, a n d suffered dam age b y w h ic h she was d is a b le d fo r n in e ty -n in e d a ys. T h e T re v a n io n w as a t th e d a te o f th e c o llis io n u n d e r re q u is itio n t o H is M a je s ty ’ s G o v e rn m e n t u p o n th e te rm s o f th e c h a r te r - p a r ty w h ic h , u n d e r th e reference o f T .9 9 , has becom e fa m ilia r t o th e c o u rts . T h e Roanoke was in th e possession a n d c o n tro l o f th e U n ite d S tates o f A m e ric a , a n d was e m p lo y e d b y th e U n ite d S tates N a v y as a m in e -p la n te r, office re d b y officers o f th e U n ite d S tates N a v y , a n d m a n n e d b y a U n ite d S tates N a v y c re w . A t th e tim e o f th e c o llis io n th e T re v a n io n was on a v o y a g e fr o m N e w Y o r k t o P o r tla n d la d e n w it h a carg o o f oats, a n d th e Roanoke was p ro c e e d in g fro m P o r tla n d t o H a m p to n R o ad s, V ir g in ia , w it h 720 m ines on b o a rd b e lo n g in g t o th e N a v y D e p a rtm e n t o f th e U n ite d S tates o f A m e ric a , a n d she was c a rry in g n o o th e r cargo a n d no passengers.
T h e c o llis io n was due t o th e jo in t ne gligence o f b o th vessels a n d b o th w ere e q u a lly to b la m e .
T h e consequent d is p u te as to li a b i lit y was re fe rre d to a r b itr a tio n a n d th e a r b it r a t o r fo u n d t h a t th e stea m sh ip Roanoke w as a t th e tim e in q u e s tio n p e rfo rm in g a w a rlik e o p e ra tio n an d t h a t th e c o llis io n w as a consequence o f h o s tilitie s o r w a rlik e o p e ra tio n s . R o w la tt, J ., on appeal, disagreed w it h th is v ie w , b u t h is ju d g m e n t was reve rsed b y th e C o u rt o f A p p e a l.
T h e te rm s o f th e c h a r te r - p a r ty , th e rig h ts u n d e r w h ic h are in issue, need o n ly a b r ie f reference. Clause 18 e x e m p ts th e A d m ir a lt y fr o m li a b i lit y i f th e s h ip be lo s t, a m o ng o th e r th in g s , “ b y c o llis io n . . . o r b y a n y o th e r cause a ris in g as a sea r is k ,” b u t b y clause 19 th e A d m ir a lt y the m se lve s u n d e rta k e th e ris k s e x c lu d e d fr o m an o r d in a r y in s u ra n c e
ASPINALL’S MARITIME LAW CASES.
1 7 H . op L.]Board of Trade v. Hain Steamship Company Limited. [ H . ofL . clau ^ m a rin e in s u ra n c e u n d e r th e fo llo w in g
Consee : “ W a rra n te d . . . free fr o m a ll quences o f h o s tilitie s o r w a r lik e o p e ra tio n s R Pon t i i be^ore o r a fte r d e c la ra tio n o f w a r.”
t j j j g ttio se clauses i t is o n ly necessary t o m a k e to h ° m m e n t = t h a t, in m y o p in io n , ta k e n again f T’ ^ e y p ro v id e a c o m p le te in s u ra n c e excervt a ll loss a ris in g as a sea r is k , a ll t h a t is taken n R orn th e ge ne ral clause b e in g u n d e r-
’y th e A d m ir a lt y . I f , th e re fo re , th e result13^ had been th e m a rin e in s u re r th e haV(, , Woi]ld h a v e been t h a t th e s h ip w o u ld in SUr ” a(^ th e b e n e fit o f a c o m p le te m a rin e referr^ 06 P ° h c y w ith o u t a n y o f th e e xclusio ns
T h f i in clause 19.
wheth hrSt question th a t arises, therefore, is hostil e tbe col»si°n was a consequence of SeconH °F w arlike operations ; and the negli ’ ” this be so, is whether the fact of the fr<Hn b*1-06 tbe T re v a n io n prevents her owners aPpea Cln® entitle d to recover. The firs t point that d -V 0 me t° he one upon which i t is possible In Hop 'i’jfa t views m ight reasonably be held, and (, C'i l 948 the Arm istice had been declared it prov-,i )e< n existing fo r some six weeks, and immerl'1(+ by art - 20 th a t there should be an 10SS a late cessatio n of hostilities at sea, so th a t as i ^ consequence o f hostilities, meaning negati 't does, existing hostilities, is and h o ^ ^'■be war> however, had not ended, Was an>eVer ho probable it may have been, it have h 6 P°ss*hle th a t it could at any moment PnsitioCen rev' ve<l, and it is certain th a t the P°«sii)iii tfnust he regarded in the lig h t of th a t Peacefi i ^ be Roanoke was sailing into Purpos Waters w ith a cargo of mines, fo r what point t 1S 11 sf ated, and these considerations Was n0t° Ir' “r m*n<f. to the conclusion th a t she is clear m a w arlike operation ; b u t it Which th i* there were other matters upon
°PPosite <' • *eaiIied a rb itra to r m ight take the fact, anrl^T W’ R >s essentially a question of finding * * am n° t prepared to disturb his
T h e *
w ith . ^ a in in g q u e s tio n can be s h o r tly d e a lt is enga„ ' j s H o use has d e cid e d t h a t i f a vessel negligen ^ o n w a r lik e o p e ra tio n s a n d b y it s negligenCe c°lh d e s w it h a n o th e r vessel, th e being , ¡'C < oes n o t p re v e n t th e c o llis io n fro m
■Attorney.^ re s u lt ° f w a r lik e o p e ra tio n s (see P ony r '; en<‘r(P v. A de la id e S team ship Com- L a w > The W a r ild a (16 A s p . M a r . A . C. 2921 5 7 r 1 2 9 ■ L - T ’ R e p ’ 161 ; (1923) to discus R ls n c ilh e r necessary n o r f it t in g ju d g m eJ?s ° r e x a m in e th e g ro u n d s o f t h a t a u th o ritu t- ° r fh e la w u p o n th is p o in t is th a t th e lv e a n d cle a r. I t fo llo w s , th e re fo re , P revent , negligence o f th e Roanoke does n o t W arlike 0 1S c? h is io n fr o m b e in g th e re s u lt o f
° f th e y Pe ra t'° n s . Does, th e n , th e negligence
° p in io n ■e.Va^ on p ro d u c e t h a t r e s u lt ? I n m y F is c h e r uoes n o t. I t h in k th e case o f 4 9 3: 71 t '¿n v ic k (7 A s p . M a r. L a w Gas.
548), ' T - R e P- 2 3 8 ; (1894) 2 Q . B . PPrevcd b y th is H o u se in L e y la n d R ife f n f,. ornP a n y L im ite d v . N o rw ic h U n io n L a w Society L im ite d (13 A s p , M a r.
A . C. 350), shows t h a t i t is n o a n sw e r t o a c la im u n d e r a p o lic y w h ic h covers one cause o f a loss t h a t th e loss was also d u e t o a n o th e r cause t h a t w as n o t so cove red . I t fo llo w s fro m th is t h a t th e c la im m ad e a g a in s t th e Roanoke, w h ic h , i f i t sto o d alone, w o u ld h a v e been cove red b y th e p o lic y , is n o t th e less cove red because th e T re v a n io n also c o n trib u te d t o th e a c c id e n t.
F o r these reasons I t h in k th e a p p e a l 'shou ld be dism issed.
L o r d Dunedin.— I c o n c u r.
L o r d Sumner.— I n p a r. 9 o f h is a w a rd th e le a rn e d a r b it r a t o r says : “ I f a n d in so fa r as i t is a q u e s tio n o f fa c t, I fin d , a n d i f a n d in so fa r as i t is a q u e s tio n o f la w , I h o ld (s u b je c t t o th e o p in io n o f th e c o u rt) t h a t th e Roanoke, a t th e tim e in q u e s tio n , w as p e rfo rm in g a w a r
lik e o p e ra tio n a n d t h a t th e c o llis io n was a consequence o f h o s tilitie s o r w a r lik e o p e ra tio n s ” a n d y o u r • L o rd s h ip s h a v e t o decide in th is ap pe al w h e th e r he was r ig h t . I t h in k he was.
T h o u g h th e A rm is tic e h a d been sig ne d a n d , h a v in g been renew ed, w as s t ill c u rre n t, w a r was n o t o v e r n o r was th e re n e w a l o f w a r b y a n y m eans o u t o f th e q u e s tio n . E x c e p t in so fa r as h e r d e s tin a tio n m a y m a k e th e d iffe re nce , th e Roanoke was a p p a re n tly d o in g w h a t w o u ld h a v e been one o f h e r o r d in a r y d u tie s fla g ra n te bello, a n d , i f she h a d been p ro c e e d in g t o h e r s ta tio n o ff th e coa st o f G e rm a n y , I do n o t t h in k i t c o u ld h a v e been a rg ue d, in v ie w o f th e a u th o ritie s , t h a t h e r v o y a g e so m ad e w as n o t a w a rlik e o p e ra tio n . T h e te m p o ra ry cessation o f h o s tilitie s , w h ic h is a ll t h a t an a rm is tic e in it s e lf in v o lv e s , c o u ld n o t d e p riv e th e o p e ra tio n o f t h a t c h a ra c te r.
T h e a p p e lla n ts ’ p ro p o s itio n w as t h a t i t is n o t en ou gh t o p ro v e w h a t th e Roanoke was, unless i t is also sh o w n w h a t she w as d o in g . I recognise th e h ig h im p o rta n c e o f c o n s id e rin g th e s h ip ’ s e rra n d a n d th e pu rpo se o f h e r vo ya g e , b u t I s h o u ld h a v e th o u g h t t h a t, h a v in g p ro v e d a n a n im a l a t la rg e t o be a lio n , i t w as n o t f u r t h e r in d is p e n s a b le t o p ro v e t h a t he w as n o t a t th e m o m e n t m e re ly p e rfo rm in g as a la m b , unless, o f course, some circu m sta n ce s o f o v in e b e h a v io u r h a pp en ed t o be a p p a re n t. I n t r u t h th e c o n te n tio n t h a t th e o p e ra tio n was n o t w a rlik e , in o th e r w o rd s , t h a t u n d e r th e c ircu m sta n ce s, w h a te v e r i t was lik e , i t w as in t r u t h pe a ce fu l, is fo u n d e d m a in ly on th e Roanoke's d e s tin a tio n , a n d p a r tly , I t h in k , o n w h a t is n o w k n o w le d g e b u t th e n was o n ly hope, t h a t h o s tilitie s w ere a c tu a lly o v e r.
Y o u r L o rd s h ip s w ere n o t m u c h tr o u b le d w it h th e q u e s tio n w h e th e r th is m a tte r w as one o f fa c t o r o f la w ; th e p o in t r e a lly u rg e d was t h a t th e re is n o p re s u m p tio n here one w a y o r th e o th e r as to th e p u rp o se o f th is v o y a g e ; t h a t its c h a ra c te r depends o n its p u rpo se ; a n d t h a t f o r th e pu rpo se n o th in g s h o rt o f a ffir m a tiv e p r o o f w i ll d o . H a d th e vessel n o t been a r e g u la rly com m ission ed s h ip o f w a r o f th e U n ite d S tates N a v y th is m ig h t w e ll be so, b u t
D
H. of L.] Board of Trade v. Hain Steamship Company Limited. [H. of L.
t h a t is w h a t she was in fa c t, n a m e ly , a “ m in e - p la n te r ,” w it h 720 m in es o n h o a rd , re a d y a n d , f o r a ll we k n o w , w a itin g , t o he “ p la n te d .”
W e h a v e n o r ig h t , in la w o r in fa c t, t o assume w ith o u t evidence t h a t such a s h ip is n o t engaged on th e d u t y fo r th e service o f w h ic h she fo rm s p a r t o f th e N a v y t o w h ic h she belongs, a n d th e m ere fa c t t h a t w e do n o t k n o w w h y she was s a ilin g a w a y fr o m th e o r d in a r y are a o f h o s tilitie s fo r purposes u n k n o w n does n o t e s ta b lis h such a co n clu sio n , h o w e v e r a m p le th e scope fo r s p e c u la tio n m a y he. I t is n o t fo r us t o pre sum e t o k n o w a ll th e purposes o f th e n a v a l a u th o ritie s o f th e U n ite d S tates a t t h a t tim e . I n th e absence o f k n o w le d g e I t h in k t h a t th e a r b it r a t o r c o m m itte d n o e rro r o f la w in p re s u m in g t h a t th e pu rp o se o f h e r v o y a g e was such as t o co n s is t w i t h h e r g e ne ral w a r lik e c h a ra c te r, a n d in th e lik e absence I t h in k i t w o u ld be useless fo r m e to e s tim a te th e chance o f h e r m is s io n b e in g o f one k in d ra th e r th a n o f a n o th e r. T h is is a s tro n g e r case th a n t h a t o f a m a n -o f-w a r, r e tu r n in g t o h e r hom e p o r t s t ill e q u ip p e d w it h h e r p e rm a n e n t a rm a m e n t. L iv e m in es, I ho pe one m a y be ju s tifie d in sa yin g , are n o t g e n e ra lly supposed t o be th in g s e ith e r re q u ire d in tim e o f peace o r c o n v e n ie n t f o r storage a t ho m e a g a in s t th e n e x t w a r, n o r do th e y c o n s titu te so safe a carg o as t o te m p t a n y p r u d e n t a u t h o r ity to keep th e m on h a n d i f th e y are n o lo n g e r w a n te d a n d , in so f a r as th is w as a q u e s tio n o f fa c t, I t h in k t h a t th e le a rn e d a r b it r a t o r was e n title d , i f he was so m in d e d , t o say so.
I t was a rg ue d, th o u g h I do n o t t h in k t h a t th is q u e s tio n was s u b m itte d b y th e special case, t h a t th e c o llis io n here was n o t a r is k ta k e n b y th e A d m ir a lt y u n d e r c h a rte r fo rm T . 99, because clause 18 excepts “ c o llis io n .”
I t h in k th is rea son ing is fa lla c io u s . E a c h s h ip ra n in to th e o th e r a n d , as th e a w a rd fin d s , th e c o llis io n “ was caused b y th e n e g lig e n t n a v ig a tio n o f b o th vessels ” a n d “ b o th w ere e q u a lly t o b la m e .” F o r th e purposes o f an in s u re r’ s li a b i lit y th is m eans t h a t th e loss—
w h ic h e v e r s h ip is re g a rd e d as th e su ffe re r—- w as th e re s u lt o f tw o causes, jo i n t l y a n d s im u lta n e o u s ly in o p e ra tio n — fo r th e Roanoke ra n in to th e T re v a n io n a n d th e T re v a n io n ra n in to th e Roanoke. I f th e resp on den ts h a d c la im e d in d e m n ity fo r th is fr o m L lo y d ’ s u n d e r
w r ite r s th e answ er w o u ld h a v e been “ th is loss, w h ic h is a c o llis io n loss, is one loss, th e p ro d u c t o f t w o causes, jo in t a n d sim u lta n e o u s , n a m e ly th e e c c e n tric courses steered b y th e t w o vessels. T h e w h o le v o y a g e o f th e Roanoke, a n d th e re fo re th is p a r t o f i t , w as a w a r lik e o p e ra tio n , a n d fr o m losses so caused t h is p o lic y is w a rra n te d free. N e ith e r in la w n o r in fa c t is th is c o llis io n a n d it s r e s u ltin g dam age a p p o rtio n a b le — hence n o p a r t o f i t can f a ll o n th is p o lic y .” T h is defence w o u ld h a v e succeeded a n d , u n d e r clause 19 o f c h a rte r- p a r t y T . 99, th is , c o u p le d w it h p r o o f t h a t th e Roanoke’s v o y a g e t r u l y was a w a r lik e op e ra tio n , w o u ld h a v e b r o u g h t th e case w it h in th e c o v e r g iv e n b y th e A d m ir a lt y . Clause 18 m u s t n o t be re a d so as to e viscera te clause
19 ; b o th s ta n d to g e th e r. I t h in k clause 18 o n ly excludes such c o llis io n s as do n o t o th e r - ,
19 ; b o th s ta n d to g e th e r. I t h in k clause 18 o n ly excludes such c o llis io n s as do n o t o th e r - ,