K .B . Div.] Patterson v. Robinson and others. [K.B. D iv.
a n d I s h o u ld be v e r y s o rry t o g iv e a n y d e c is io n w h ic h m ig h t d im in is h , h o w e v e r s lig h tly , th e p r o te c tio n w h ic h a s ta tu te h a d g iv e n t o a person accused o f c o m m ittin g a n offence. B u t w h e n one lo o ks a t these p ro v is io n s as a w h o le , i n m y o p in io n i t is n o t c o rre c t to sa y t h a t th e p ro d u c t io n o f th e e n t r y in th e lo g is a c o n d itio n p re c ed en t. B y sect. 225 i t is p ro v id e d : “ I f a seam an la w f u lly engaged o r a n a p p re n tic e t o th e sea service ” c o m m its a n y o f a series o f offences re fe rre d t o in t h e A c t as offences a g a in s t d is c ip lin e , he s h a ll be lia b le t o be p u n is h e d s u m m a r ily . O ne o f tho se offences is th e offence w h ic h i t was proposed t o deal w it h in th is case “ i f h e com bines w i t h a n y o f th e crew t o d is o b e y la w fu l co m m a n d s, o r t o n e g le c t d u ty , o r t o im p e d e th e n a v ig a tio n o f th e s h ip o r th e progress o f th e v o y a g e .” T h e n b y sect.
228 i t is p ro v id e d : “ I f a n y offence, w it h in th e m e a n in g o f t h is A c t, o f d e s e rtio n o r absence w ith o u t leave o r a g a in s t d is c ip lin e is c o m m itte d o r i f a n y a c t o f m is c o n d u c t is c o m m itte d fo r w h ic h th e o ffe n d e r’s a g ree m ent im poses a fine an d i t is in te n d e d t o e n force th e fin e ,” th e n ' a n e n t r y o f th e offence ” n o t “ m a y be m a d e ,” h u t li s h a ll be m ad e in t h e o ffic ia l lo g b o o k a n d signed b y th e m a s te r a n d also th e m a te o r one o f t h e c re w ; a n d (6) th e offe n d e r, i f s t i l l in th e s h ip , s h a ll b e fo re th e n e x t subse
q u e n t a r r iv a l o f th e s h ip a t a n y p o r t, o r i f she ls a t th e tim e in p o r t be fo re h e r d e p a rtu re th e re fro m , e ith e r be fu rn is h e d w i t h a c o p y o f th e e n tr y o r h a v e th e sam e re a d o v e r d is tin c t ly an d a u d ib ly t o h im , a n d m a y th e re u p o n m a k e such r e p ly th e re to as he t h in k s f i t ” ; a n d (c)
“ a s ta te m e n t o r a c o p y o f th e e n tr y h a v in g been so fu rn is h e d , o r o f th e e n tr y h a v in g been sp re a d o v e r, a n d , in e ith e r case, th e r e p ly ( i f a n y ) m ad e b y th e o ffe n d e r, s h a ll lik e w is e be e n te re d a n d signed in m a n n e r a fo re s a id .”
Sect. 239 c o n ta in s a series o f s trin g e n t p r o v i
sions as t o th e k e e p in g o f a n o ffic ia l lo g . T h e s e c tio n is as s t r ic t as i t c o u ld be. S ub-sect. (4), fo r e x a m p le , p ro v id e s as fo llo w s : “ A n e n tr y re q u ire d b y t h is A c t in a n o ffic ia l lo g -b o o k s h a ll be m ade as soon as possible a fte r t h e occu rren ce to w h ic h i t re la te s , a n d i f n o t m ade on th e same b a y as t h a t occurrence s h a ll be m ad e a n d d a te d so as t o sho w th e d a te o f th e occurrence q n d o f th e e n t r y re s p e c tin g i t ; a n d i f m ade
*n resp ect o f a n occu rren ce h a p p e n in g b e fo re th e a r r iv a l o f th e s h ip a t h e r fin a l p o r t o f d is c ha rge s h a ll n o t be m ad e m o re th a n tw e n ty - to u r h o u rs a fte r t h a t a r r iv a l. ” I t is n o t Necessary t o c ite f u r t h e r passages t o sho w th e 'm p o rta n c e w h ic h th e A c t a tta c h e s t o th e m a k in g o f e n trie s in th e o ffic ia l lo g . B u t th e q u e s tio n w h e th e r w h e re a n offence is s o u g h t to
*?? p ro v e d th e p r o d u c tio n o f t h a t lo g is a c o n d it io n p re c e d e n t is a n o th e r q u e s tio n . B y sect. 241 i t is p ro v id e d : “ I f a n o ffic ia l lo g -b o o k ls I l° f k e p t in th e m a n n e r re q u ire d b y t h is A c t t h ^ Un e n tr y d ire c te d b y t h is A c t t o be m ade h e re in is n o t m ad e a t th e t im e a n d in th e m a n n e r d ire c te d b y t h is A c t, th e m a s te r s h a ll
° r each offence be lia b le t o th e spe cific fin e m t h is A c t m e n tio n e d .” B u t so fa r as evidence is concerned, th e s ta tu te p ro v id e s , as i t has to
p ro v id e , in sect. 239 (6), t h a t “ e v e ry e n tr y m ad e in a n o ffic ia l lo g -b o o k i n m a n n e r p ro v id e d b y t h is A c t s h a ll be a d m is s ib le in e vide nce.”
T h e n one comes t o p a r. (d), in sect. 228 : “ I n a n y s ub seq ue nt le g a l p ro c e e d in g th e e n trie s b y t h is s e c tio n re q u ire d s h a ll, i f p ra c tic a b le , be p ro d u c e d o r p ro v e d , a n d i n d e fa u lt o f t h a t p ro d u c tio n o r p r o o f th e c o u r t h e a rin g th e case m a y , in t h e ir d is c re tio n , refuse t o rece ive evidence o f th e offence o r a c t o f m is c o n d u c t.”
I a m b o u n d t o sa y t h a t f o r a t im e i t d id n o t a p p e a r t o m e t h a t tho se w o rd s w e re a p t w o rd s to c o v e r a case w h e re ex hypothesi n o e n tr y h a d been m ade. T h e re seems t o be som e
t h in g s lig h t ly h u m o ro u s in s a y in g , f o r e x a m p le , t h a t i t is n o t p ra c tic a b le t o p ro d u c e o r t o p ro v e th e e n t r y in th e lo g w h e n in t r u t h a n d in fa c t th e lo g c o n ta in s n o e n tr y . B u t I h a v e com e to th e c o n c lu s io n t h a t these w o rd s are s u ffic ie n tly w id e t o c o v e r th e case w h e re i t is n o t p ra c tic a b le t o p ro d u c e o r t o p ro v e th e e n tr y f o r th e reason t h a t i t was n e v e r m ad e a t a ll, a n d I a m h e lp e d in c o m in g t o t h a t c o n c lu s io n b y th e fo r m o f t h is p a r t o f th e e n a c tm e n t.
T h a t w h ic h t h e ju s tic e s are b y the se w o rd s em p o w e re d t o do is n o t t o re c e iv e evide nce w h ic h o th e rw is e th e y m ig h t h a v e re c e iv e d . T h e y are em p o w e re d t o refuse t o rece ive e v i
dence. W h a t does t h a t m e a n ? Does i t n o t m e a n th is , t h a t a p a r t fr o m t h is s t a tu to r y p o w e r t o refuse t o re c e iv e such evide nce, th e y w ere e x p e c te d t o re c e iv e a n d w o u ld n a tu r a lly re c e iv e i t ; i n o th e r w o rd s , w h ile t h e A c t goes o u t o f it s w a y , so t o say, t o m a k e a n e n t r y in th e o ffic ia l lo g - b o o k a d m is s ib le in evidence, i t does n o t m a k e i t th e o n ly evide nce, a n d i t e x p re ssly p ro v id e s t h a t w h e re t h a t evide nce, th e be st e v ide nce, p e rha ps, is n o t cap ab le o f b e in g p ro d u c e d , t h e ju s tic e s i f t h e y t h in k f it , m a y refuse t o rece ive a n y o th e r evidence.
T h a t fo r m a n d t h a t schem e seem t o m e to be in c o n s is te n t w i t h th e p ro p o s itio n t h a t th e p r o d u c tio n o f th e e n tr y in th e lo g -b o o k , o r th e m a k in g o f t h e e n tr y in th e lo g -b o o k , w h ic h is a d iffe re n t th in g , is a c o n d itio n p re c e d e n t. I n m y o p in io n , t h e p ro p e r c o n c lu s io n fo r the se ju s tic e s in the se c irc u m s ta n c e s was n o t t o say
“ w e c a n n o t h e a r o th e r evide nce in t h is case,”
b u t th e y m ig h t w e ll in th e exercise o f t h e ir d is c re tio n h a v e s a id “ w e w i l l n o t h e a r o th e r evid e n ce in t h is case,” a n d t h a t course is s t i l l op en t o th e m .
Av o r y, J .—I agree t h a t th e ju s tic e s w e re w ro n g in t h is case in h o ld in g t h a t th e y h a d no ju r is d ic tio n t o h e a r th e c o m p la in t. T h e re a l q u e s tio n in t h e case is w h e th e r a n e n tr y o f th e a lle g e d offence in th e o ffic ia l lo g -b o o k was a c o n d itio n p re c e d e n t t o a n y pro cee din gs b e in g ta k e n a g a in s t th e re s p o n d e n ts in t h is case fo r th e a lle g e d offence. I n m y v ie w , i t w o u ld re q u ire m u c h p la in e r w o rd s t o ta k e a w a y fr o m a c o u rt, o th e rw is e h a v in g ju r is d ic tio n o v e r an offence, th e ju r is d ic tio n t o deal w it h a p a r tic u la r offence because no e n t r y h a d been m ad e in th e lo g -b o o k . I n m y v ie w , sect. 228, p a r. (d), m eans t h a t in th e absence o f w h a t th e
K .B . D iv.] Goodwin Ferreira and Co. v. Lamport and Holt. [K.B. Di v. le g is la tu re m a y h a v e c on ceived t o be t h e best
evidence o f th e a lle g e d offence, th e m a g is tra te s m ig h t, in t h e ir d is c re tio n , refuse t o h e a r o th e r evide nce t h a n t h a t w h ic h is o r d in a r ily t o he fo u n d in th e lo g -b o o k . I f t h is w ere n o t so, i f t h is w ere n o t th e tr u e v ie w , i t w o u ld , in m y o p in io n , le a d t o th e a b s u rd re s u lt w h ic h I suggested d u r in g t h e a rg u m e n t, t h a t i f a seam an o r a n u m b e r o f seam en a ssa ulte d th e m a s te r a n d th e o th e r officers a n d ren d e re d th e m in c a p a b le o f m a k in g a n e n tr y in th e lo g -b o o k , th e y w o u ld th e re b y save th e m se lve s fr o m eve r b e in g proceeded a g a in st o r p u n is h e d fo r th e offence : in o th e r w o rds, i t w o u ld be a p re m iu m o n t h e ir a s s a u ltin g h im so g rie v o u s ly as t o m a k e i t im p o s s ib le f o r h im t o m a k e a n e n tr y in th e lo g -b o o k h im s e lf. I c a n n o t b e lie v e t h a t t h a t was e v e r in te n d e d b y t h is p ro v is io n in th e A c t, h u t I t h in k t h a t th e o n ly in te n tio n was t h a t th e e n tr y in th e lo g -b o o k s h o u ld , w h e n e v e r p ra c tic a b le , be re c e iv a b le as t h e b e s t evide nce, a n d t h a t in th e absence o f i t , th e m a g is tra te s in t h e ir d is c re tio n m a y proceed t o h e a r a n y o th e r evidence t h a t is a v a ila b le . T h e re fo re I agree t h a t th e case s h o u ld be r e m itte d t o th e ju s tic e s w i t h t h a t o p in io n o f t h is c o u rt.
Sw i k t, J . — I agree.
S o lic ito rs f o r th e a p p e lla n t, B o tte re ll a n d Roche, fo r B o tte re ll, Roche, a n d Tem perley, N e w c a s tle .
J u n e 6 a n d 7, 1929.
(B e fo re Ro c h e, J .)
Go o d w i n Fe r r e i r a a n d Co. Li m i t e d v. La m p o r t a n d Ho l t Li m i t e d ( a ) B ills o f la d in g — D ischarge in to lighte rs —
Lighterage to he at r is k o f owners o f goods—
D am age to goods by reason o f defective p a c k in g o f other goods— W hether sea -tra nsit completed
— L i a b ili t y o f owners o f s h ip — C a rriag e o f goods by Sea A c t 1924 (14 & 15 Geo. 5, c. 2 2), Sched., A r t . I V . , 2, (c), (n ), (q ).
C e rta in cotton goods were c a rrie d fr o m L iv e rp o o l to B a h ia , where they were discharged in to a lig h te r. C e rta in other ir o n goods, packed in a wooden case, were being lowered in to the same lig h te r when the case broke a n d the ir o n goods f e ll out in to the lig h te r an d holed i t . Sea-water entered a n d damaged the cotton goods. U n de r the contract o f carriage lighterage was to be at the r is k o f the owners a n d the p ro v is io n s o f the C a rria g e o f Goods by Sea A c t 1924, were also in corp orated . The owners o f the cotton goods cla im ed damages fr o m the owners o f the s h ip .
H e ld , tha t i f the sea tra n s it ha d ended when the goods were placed i n the lig h te r the defendants were protected by the term s o f the b ill o f la d in g . T he sea -tra nsit, however, h a d no t ended : the discharge in to the lig h te r was p a r t o f the opera-la) Reported by R. A. Yule, Esq., Barrister-at-Law.
tio n o f discharge fr o m the s h ip a n d was not complete as long as there were other goods to be discharged in to the lighte r.
H e ld , also, that the exception re la tin g to loss due to in s u ffic ie n c y o f p a c k in g i n A r t . I V . 2 (n ), was w ide enough to cover the case o f the p a c k in g o f other goods though p r im a r ily i t w o u ld a p p ly to the goods themselves tha t were lost o r damaged.
H e ld , fu r th e r , tha t on the evidence the defendants- had shown no negligence on the p a r t o f them
selves o r th e ir servants a n d were therefore exempt fr o m lia b ilit y un d e r A r t . I V . , 2 (q).
In J a n . 1926 th e p la in tiffs sen t tw e n ty -tw o - bales o f w h ite c o tto n y a r n fr o m L iv e r p o o l t o B a h ia in th e d e fe n d a n ts ’ s te a m s h ip B ie la - D is c h a rg e a t B a h ia w as in to lig h te rs , a n d u n d e r th e c o n tra c t in th e b i l l o f la d in g lig h te ra g e was t o be a t th e r is k o f th e ow ne rs o f th e goods.
B y th e c o n tra c t, also, th e p ro v is io n s o f th e C a rriag e o f Goods b y Sea A c t 1924 w ere in c o rp o ra te d , a n d w h e re these w ere a t v a ria n c e w it h a n y te rm s in th e b i l l o f la d in g th e fo rm e r w ere t o p re v a il. A t B a h ia th e p la in t if fs ’ goods- w ere d e p o s ite d s a fe ly in to a lig h te r , a n d a case c o n ta in in g h e a v y ir o n pipes was ra ise d fr o m th e h o ld b y s h ip ’ s ta c k le t o be p u t in t o th e same lig h te r . W h ile b e in g lo w e re d th e b o tto m o f th e case b ro k e , a n d th e pipes f e ll o u t in to th e lig h te r a n d h o le d i t . Sea w a te r e n te re d , a n d da m aged th e p la in t if fs ’ goods. T h e p la in tiffs b r o u g h t th e p re s e n t a c tio n c la im in g 8801. o d d as dam ages f o r alleg ed b re a c h o f c o n tra c t in th e c a rria g e o f goods b y sea.
F o r th e d e fe n d a n ts i t was a rg u e d t h a t as soon as th e p la in t if fs ’ goods h a d been p lace d in th e lig h te r , th e sea t r a n s it h a d com e t o an end, a n d t h a t th e y w e re th e n p ro te c te d b y t h e te rm s o f th e b i ll o f la d in g u n d e r w h ic h lig h te ra g e was a t th e r is k o f th e ow ners o f th e goods.
F o r th e p la in tiffs i t was c o n te n d e d t h a t th e d e fe n d a n ts h a d a c k n o w le d g e d th e re c e ip t o f th e goods in go od o rd e r a n d c o n d itio n a n d w e re b o u n d t o d e liv e r in th e lik e good o rd e r a n d c o n d itio n . T h e d e fe n d a n ts c o u ld n o t r e ly on th e e x c e p tio n u n d e r A r t . I V . , 2 (n ), r e la tin g to- in s u ffic ie n c y o f p a c k in g : th e y c o u ld o n ly r e ly o n e x c e p tio n (q) o f A r t I V . , 2, a n d h a d t o sho w t h a t th e re h a d been n o ne gligence o n th e p a r t o f the m se lve s o r t h e ir s e rv a n ts . T h e d e fe n d a n ts h a d n o t d isch a rg e d th is onus.
M ille r , K .C . a n d A tk in s fo r th e p la in tiffs . L e Quesne, K .C . a n d W . L e n n o x M c N a ir fo r th e d e fe n d a n ts .
Roche, J . — T h is a c tio n is b r o u g h t b y shippers a n d rece ive rs o f c e rta in cargo a g a in s t th e ow ners o f th e s h ip u p o n w h ic h t h a t cargo w as la d e n u p o n a v o y a g e in th e y e a r 1926 fr o m L iv e r p o o l t o B a h ia in th e R e p u b lic o f B r a z il.
I s h a ll speak o f th e p la in tiffs as cargo o w ne rs a n d th e d e fe n d a n ts as ship o w n e rs. N o p o in t is ta k e n in th e case b y th e shipo w ne rs, th e d e fe n d a n ts , as t o w h ic h o f th e p la in tiffs , th e sh ip p e rs o r re ce ive rs, has th e p ro p e r t it l e t o re c o v e r, i f a n y b o d y is e n title d t o re c o v e r in th e a c tio n . T h e carg o in q u e s tio n con sisted o f
ASPINALL’S MARITIME LAW CASES.
39 K .B . Div.] Goodwin Ferreira and Co. v. Lamportand Holt. [K.B. Div. la rg e p a rc e l o f w h ite c o tto n y a rn . I t was*h ip p e d o n b o a rd th e d e fe n d a n ts ’ ste a m s h ip B ie la l j i th e y e a r a n d on th e v o y a g e w h ic h I ha ve a lre a d y m e n tio n e d . T h e a c tio n arises hecause w h e n th e carg o, th e p a rc e l o f y a rn , g o t to B a h ia a n d h a d been p u t in t o a lig h te r in w h ic h i t was t o be co n v e y e d fr o m th e s h ip ’ s side to th e C ustom s H o u se on th e w h a rf, c e rta in m a c h in e ry , w h ic h also fo rm e d p a r t o f th e cargo
° f th e B ie la , a n d w h ic h , lik e th e c o tto n y a rn , was d e s tin e d fo r B a h ia , w h e n b e in g p u t in to th e lig h te r , w h ic h also c o n ta in e d th e y a rn , cam e o u t o f its case, d ro p p e d in to th e b o tto m o f th e lig h te r , m a d e a h o le in i t , lpt in sea w a te r, a n d da m ag ed th e c o tto n y a rn t o th e e x te n t o f some 80 p e r c e n t, o f its sound v a lu e . T h e re is n o d is p u te t h a t i f th e p la in tiffs are e n title d t o succeed th e y are e n title d t o s u b s ta n tia lly th e sum c la im e d in th is a c tio n . T h e re a l q u e s tio n is w h e th e r th e y are e n title d t o succeed a t a ll. T h e m a tte r m u s t he d e te rm in e d in accordance w i t h th e te rm s o f th e b i ll o f la d in g u n d e r w h ic h th e goods w e re ca rrie d , w h ic h , o f n e cessity, in c o rp o ra te s a n d m akes a p p lic a b le t h a t w h ic h is m ad e a p p lic a b le t ° th e c a rria g e o f th e goods b y th e A c t o f P a rlia m e n t its e lf— th e p ro v is io n s o f th e C a rriag e
° f Goods b y Sea A c t 1924.
T h e f ir s t p o in t in lo g ic a l o rd e r, th o u g h I do n o t k n o w t h a t i t is th e p o in t w h ic h is m o s t h ig h ly esteem ed b y th e p la in tiffs , is th is : t t is said t h a t th e goods n e v e r o u g h t, u n d e r th e c o n tra c t c o n ta in e d in th e b i l l o f la d in g , t o h a v e peeii p u t in to th e lig h te r , a n d t h a t, a c c o rd in g ly , was r e a lly a case o f d e v ia tio n o r d e p a rtu re m om th e te rm s o f th e c o n tra c t a n d th e d e fe n d a n ts w e re n o t p ro te c te d b y th e te rm s in th e c o n tra c t, a n d , a c c o rd in g ly , are lia b le as c a rrie rs o f th e goods in th e lig h te r fo r th e dam ages th e y s u s ta in e d . T h a t depends u p o n clause 9 o f th e b i l l o f la d in g a n d u p o n th e fa c ts o f th e case. T h e b o d y o f th e b i l l o f la d in g h a v in g p ro v id e d t h a t th e goods w e re t o be d e liv e re d a t th e p o r t o f B a h ia , o r as n e a r th e re to as th e s h ip c o u ld s a fe ly g e t, clause 9 P ro v id e d : “ T h e goods t o be d isch a rg e d fr o m th e s h ip as soon as she is re a d y t o u n lo a d a t t h e w h a rf, o r in to h u lk , la z a re tto , o r h ire d hg h te rs i f necessary, a n d be lig h te re d b y th e m a s te r o r a g e n t a t s h ip ’ s expense, in th e case o f B a h ia in accordance w it h th e c u s to m o f th e h m t . . . b u t a t th e r is k o f th e ow ners o f th e goods in e v e ry case.”
I t is said h y th e p la in tiffs t h a t i t w as n o t necessary to p u t these goods in t o a lig h te r , t h a t th e re w e re w h a rv e s to w h ic h th e s h ip c o u ld h a v e g o t h a v in g re g a rd t o h e r d ra u g h t, w h ic h was some 2 0 ft., th e w h a rv e s p r o v id in g 2 4 ft. o f w a te r, f t is, th e re fo re , said t h a t th e lig h te r in g was u n a u th o ris e d b y th e c o n tra c t, a n d th e c o n sequences fo llo w w h ic h I h a v e in d ic a te d . T h e
rs t o b s e rv a tio n is th e re is evidence t h a t no e rth w as a v a ila b le ; th e y w ere o ccu pied, n t I do n o t r e ly u p o n t h a t o r decide th e case on t h a t, a lth o u g h I t h in k i t w o u ld be a s u ffic ie n t a c t u p o n w h ic h t o decide i t . T h e evide nce is n a t these la rg e steam ers o f th e d e fe n d a n t s h ip ow ners do n o t proceed t o these w h a rv e s .
T h e ir u s u a l d is c h a rg in g p la c e a n d m e th o d is t h a t w h ic h w as fo llo w e d in t h is case. T h e b o d y o f th e h i l l o f la d in g w o u ld a u th o ris e discha rge a t B a h ia in a n y u s u a l m a n n e r a n d a t a n y u su a l place p r o v id in g i t w as th e u s u a l d is c h a rg in g place in th e p o r t, as I f in d t h is place was.
Clause 9, in p r o v id in g f o r d ischa rge in to lig h te rs , i f necessary, d id n o t in m y ju d g m e n t p ro v id e m e re ly as a n in d is p e n s a b le c o n d itio n t h a t i t s h o u ld be p h y s ic a lly im p o s s ib le t o d ischa rge o th e rw is e th a n b y lig h te rs . I t p ro v id e d t h a t i f i t w e re necessary, w h ic h in m y ju d g m e n t m e a n t in th e o r d in a r y business sense necessary, t h a t t h a t m e th o d o f d ischa rge s h o u ld be fo llo w e d , a n d t h a t c e rta in p ro v is io n s s h o u ld be m ad e w it h re g a rd t o th e lig h te ra g e a t th e s h ip ’ s expense a n d s h ip ’ s r is k . N o w I c a n n o t d o u b t t h a t i f th e business is done a lw a y s in th is w a y b y these steam ers o f th e d e fe n d a n ts , a n d t h a t course o f business is acquiesced in , as i t seems t o be (th e re is n o evide nce o f a n y o b je c tio n o r a n y th in g o f t h a t s o rt), h y a ll th e consignees o f th e goods o n th e d e fe n d a n ts ’ steam ers, t h a t th e re is th e business n e cessity w h ic h is re q u is ite u n d e r th e clause in q u e s tio n . F o r t h a t reason I h o ld t h a t t h a t p o in t on w h ic h th e p la in tiffs seek t o b u ild t h e ir case fa ils .
I ca n c o n v e n ie n tly , I t h in k , a t t h is stage d e a l w it h w h a t I m a y c a ll a p a r a lle l c o n te n tio n ra ise d o n b e h a lf o f th e d e fe n d a n ts re g a rd in g th e lig h te ra g e , because t h a t c o n te n tio n also goes t o th e r o o t o f th e a c tio n i f i t is w e ll fo u n d e d . T h e c o n te n tio n o f th e d e fe n d a n ts w it h re g a rd t o th e lig h te ra g e is th is , t h a t lig h te ra g e w as n o t m e re ly p e rm is s ib le a n d p ro p e r, b u t t h a t w h en th e goods in q u e s tio n — th e y a r n — w as p u t in to th e lig h te r , th e sea t r a n s it w as o v e r a n d th e w h o le t r a n s it w as o v e r w h ic h w as m ad e th e s u b je c t o f th e C a rria g e o f G oods b y Sea A c t 1924, a n d t h a t, th e re fo re , th e d e fe n d a n ts w ere n o t b o u n d a t t h a t stage b y th e p ro v is io n s o f t h a t A c t, a n d t h a t w i t h re g a rd t o th e ris k s o f p e rils o f th e sea, e ve n i f th e re w as a ne gligence o f t h e ir se rv a n ts , th o se w e re a ll p ro v id e d fo r a t t h a t stage, a n d in re sp e ct o f t h a t stage, b y th e p ro v is io n s o f th e b i l l o f la d in g its e lf u n a ffe c te d b y a n d n o t re n d e re d m o re onerous b y th e p ro v is io n s o f th e C a rria g e o f Goods b y Sea A c t 1924. I t h in k i t w o u ld fo llo w , i f th e c o n te n tio n w e re w e ll fo u n d e d , t h a t th e A c t d id n o t a p p ly , t h a t th e e x c e p tio n s o f th e b ill o f la d in g it s e lf w o u ld be s u ffic ie n t t o p r o te c t th e d e fe n d a n ts u p o n a n y v ie w o f th e fa c ts o f th is case. B u t in m y ju d g m e n t th e c o n te n tio n it s e lf is erroneous. T h e d ischa rge o f these goods w as p a r t o f th e o p e ra tio n s w h ic h are co v e re d a n d a ffe c te d b y th e C a rria g e o f Goods b y Sea A c t 1924. I n m y ju d g m e n t th e d is cha rge o f these goods w as n o t fin is h e d w h e n th e y w e re p u t in t o a lig h t e r w h e n o th e r goods w ere b e in g d isch a rg e d in to th e same lig h te r t o m a k e u p th e lig h te r lo a d w h ic h w as t o s ta r t fo r th e shore. W h e n i t is c o n te m p la te d t h a t these goods are t o fo r m th e lig h t e r lo a d w it h o th e r goods, th e discha rge o f th e goods th e m selves w it h in th e m e a n in g o f th e A c t o f P a r lia m e n t is, i n m y ju d g m e n t, g o in g o n so lo n g as o th e r goods are b e in g ra ise d in t o th e
K .B . D iv.] Goodwin Ferreira and Co. v. Lamport and Holt. [K.B. Div. lig h t e r a n d s to w e d in t o th e lig h t e r alon gsid e
o r o n t o p o f th e m . F o r t h a t reason I p u t o u t o f s ig h t a n d dism iss t h a t c o n te n tio n , a lth o u g h i t is open t o th e d e fe n d a n ts t o r e ly u p o n i t i f t h is ju d g m e n t, w h ic h f o r o th e r reasons w i ll be 'in t h e ir fa v o u r, is im p e a c h e d b e fo re a n y o th e r
c o u rt.
H a v in g d e a it w i t h th o se c o n te n tio n s , I n o w pass t o th e q u e s tio n s o f fa c t as t o h o w th e a c c id e n t ha p p e n e d . T h e re a l d is p u te be tw e e n th e p a rtie s has been a n d is th is . T h e p la in tiffs say, b y c e rta in a ffid a v its o f lig h te rm e n , t h a t th e a c c id e n t h a p p e n e d because th e case w h ic h c o n ta in e d th e m a c h in e ry was b u m p e d in to th e b o tto m o f th e lig h t e r a n d t h a t th e end o f th e case w h ic h c o n ta in e d th e m a c h in e ry was b ro k e n a n d t h a t w h e n th e case was lig h te d u p a g a in t o m a k e m o re o r d e r ly stow age, i t was fo u n d t h a t th e b o tto m o f th e case w as sm ashed, a n d th e n th e m a c h in e ry , w h ic h con sisted o f c o lu m n s o f p illa r s , f e ll o u t in t o th e lig h te r . T h e evide nce is v e r y in d e c is iv e , a n d I t h in k v a ria b le fr o m tim e t o tim e , w h e n i t appears in d iffe re n t fo rm s , le tte rs , a n d so f o r th , w h e th e r th e h o lin g o f th e lig h te r is supposed t o h a v e been done w h e n th e case was b u m p e d o r d ro p p e d in to th e b a rg e in th e f ir s t in s ta n c e , o r w h e n th e c o lu m n s fo r m in g th e c o n te n ts f e ll o u t o f th e case. B u t I d ism iss, a n d d o n o t b e lie v e , t h a t case f o r v a rio u s reasons w h ic h I need n o t f u r t h e r d e fin e . I t is e m in e n tly im p ro b a b le ; i t w as p u t fo r w a r d v e r y la te ; a n d I d e fin ite ly p re fe r a n d a c c e p t th e v e rs io n o f th e
H a v in g d e a it w i t h th o se c o n te n tio n s , I n o w pass t o th e q u e s tio n s o f fa c t as t o h o w th e a c c id e n t ha p p e n e d . T h e re a l d is p u te be tw e e n th e p a rtie s has been a n d is th is . T h e p la in tiffs say, b y c e rta in a ffid a v its o f lig h te rm e n , t h a t th e a c c id e n t h a p p e n e d because th e case w h ic h c o n ta in e d th e m a c h in e ry was b u m p e d in to th e b o tto m o f th e lig h t e r a n d t h a t th e end o f th e case w h ic h c o n ta in e d th e m a c h in e ry was b ro k e n a n d t h a t w h e n th e case was lig h te d u p a g a in t o m a k e m o re o r d e r ly stow age, i t was fo u n d t h a t th e b o tto m o f th e case w as sm ashed, a n d th e n th e m a c h in e ry , w h ic h con sisted o f c o lu m n s o f p illa r s , f e ll o u t in t o th e lig h te r . T h e evide nce is v e r y in d e c is iv e , a n d I t h in k v a ria b le fr o m tim e t o tim e , w h e n i t appears in d iffe re n t fo rm s , le tte rs , a n d so f o r th , w h e th e r th e h o lin g o f th e lig h te r is supposed t o h a v e been done w h e n th e case was b u m p e d o r d ro p p e d in to th e b a rg e in th e f ir s t in s ta n c e , o r w h e n th e c o lu m n s fo r m in g th e c o n te n ts f e ll o u t o f th e case. B u t I d ism iss, a n d d o n o t b e lie v e , t h a t case f o r v a rio u s reasons w h ic h I need n o t f u r t h e r d e fin e . I t is e m in e n tly im p ro b a b le ; i t w as p u t fo r w a r d v e r y la te ; a n d I d e fin ite ly p re fe r a n d a c c e p t th e v e rs io n o f th e