DENNIS & CO.
T H IS P H O TO G R A P H IC R E P R IN T E D IT IO N
IS PUBLISHED BY
, INC. (Publishers), Buffalo, N. Y., U. S. A.
B U T T E R W O R T H 8c CO. (Publishers) L T D ., London, England
Reprinted by photolitho in the U.S.A.
by Cushing-Malloy, Inc., of Ann Arbor, Michigan
R E P O R T S
OF CASES RELATING TO
M A R I T I M E L A W ;
CONTAINING ALL THE
DECISIONS OF THE COURTS OF LAW AND EQUITY
IN
3Ti)C StnitcD SingDom,
and selections from th e more important decisions
Coloims anft tije ©aûttïi states.
E D IT E D B Y
^ A M E S I». A 8 P I N A L L , Barrister-at-3Law.
VOL. I.,
New Series, from 1870 to 1873.
(VOL. IV ., O.S.)
L O N D O N :
H O R A C E C O X , 10, W E L L I N G T O N - S T E E E T , S T R A N D , W.C.
1 8 7 3.
L O N D O N :
P E IN T E D B Y H O R A C E CO X, W E L L IN G T O N -S T R E E T , S T R A N D , W .C .
( u m
I N D E X
TO
H S T A . M E S OF T H E CASES
REPOKTED IN ' T H IS VO LU M E.
Ac h il l e s, Th e ... i 65
Ak a, Th e ... 475
-®o l u s, Th e ... 516
Al b i o n, Th e... " 4 g i Al e x a n d e r v. Ca m p b e l l ... 373, 447 Al e x a n d r ia, Th e... 464
An d e r s o na n do t h e r s v.Th e Pa c if ic Fi r ea n d Ma r in e In s u r a n c e Co m p a n y ... 220
An n e t t e, Th e ... 577
An t i l o p e, Th e... . . . . 477, 513 t k in s o na n d He w i t t v. Th e Gr e a t We s t e r n In s u r a n c e Co m p a n y ... 382
ASTRAL ASIAN STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY, TH E , * . Mo r s e... 407
■Ba t u i t v. Ha r t l e y... 337
" Sa r d a n da n o t h e rv.Rh o d e s ... 557
Be a u m a r is Ca s t l e, Th e... 19
Be c h e r d a s s Am b a id a s s, Th e ... 138
■“ Ec r e t t v. Th e We s t o p En g l a n d Ma r i n e In s u r a n c e Co m p a n y ... 185
" En t o n, Th e... " , 14 Bo t t l e Im p, Th e... ’ 571
Ra d f o r da n d a n o t h e r v. Wi l l i a m s ... 313
gtrsY Be e, Th e... 293
Ys n e v. Th e Gu a n o Co n s ig n m e n t Co m p a n y1 ; j. We g u e l i n a n d o t h e r s (garnishees)... 196
* Rn e v. Sc h i l l e r a n d o t h e r s ... I l l Ca l e d o n ia n, Th e... 578
a r g o ex Ar g o s ... 360, 519 a s t l ea n d o t h e r s v. Pl a y f o r d... 255
“Sa n o n r y, Th e ... i ... 569
"«A R K iE H , re Th e (Q. B .) ... 533
^ «a r k i b h, Th e (Adm .) ... 581
Sa b l e s, Th e ... 296
« Ris t o f f e r s e n V. Ha n s e n ... 305
o TY o f Bu e n o s Ay r e s, Th e... 169
Com° GNE, T h E ... . 484
Mp a n yo f Af r ic a n Me r c h a n t s (L im ite d ), Th e, • I h e Br i t i s h a n d Fo r e ig n Ma r i n e In s u r a n c e Co m p a n y (L im ite d ) ... 558
Ns e r v a t o r s o f t h e Ri v e r Th a m e s v. Th e ¡s o u t h Ea s t e r n Ra i l w a y ... 3
^ Ry n. Pa t t o n...225
t® Ma t t o s v. Sa u n d e r s... 377
D BNnTE njS ’ TH E ... 250
o n v. Ho m e a n d Co l o n ia l As s u r a n c e n PANY (L im ite d ) ... 309
Bunc0 * ® 00111’ Th e ... 294
E Aa a na n do t h e r s (apps.) v. Fo s t e r iresp.) ... 214
El f t Gi Bl g t na n d t h e Je s m o n d, Th e... 150
^ X i N E , x H E ... * Pe rRESS’ T H E ... 355
Fra w SON AND Hu t c h in s o n, ex p a r t e ... 8
Pr a s e^ T ’ ^ ... ... 207, 489 sTM;U a n d o t h e r s v. Th e Te l e g r a p h Co n- i W UCTI° * AND Ma in t e n a n c e Co m p a n y... 421
D 0M > Th e ... 28, 136 Ga n d y v. Ad e l a id e Ma r i n e In s u r a n c e Co. page 188 Ga u d e ta n d o t h e r s (app.) v. Br o w n (reap.) ... 519
Gu a n t l e t, Th e (Bail—Practice) ... 45
Ga u n t l e t, Th e ... 86, 211 Ge i p e l a n d o t h e r sv.Sm i t h a n d a n o t h e r... 268
Ge i p e la n d o t h e r s (apps.) v. Co r n f o r t h (reap.) 519 Ge o r g ea n d Ric h a r d, Th e ... 50
Gi l b e r tv.Gu ig n o n ... 498
Gj e s s in g v. Th e St e a m e r Ha n s a... 240
Gl e n d u r o r, Th e ... 31
Gl e n g a b e r, Th e ... 401
Gr a y v.Ca r r a n d a n o t h e r ... 115
Gr e a t No r t h e r na n d Th e Mid l a n d, Th e... 246
Ha l l v. Th e Na s h v i l l e a n d Ch a t t a n o g a Ra il r o a d Co m p a n y... 406
Ha r r isv. Sc a r a m a n g a ... 339
Ha r r is o nv. Ba n ko f Au s t r a l a s ia... 198
Ha r r is o nv.Ga r t h o r n e ... 303
Ha r t v. He r w i g ... 572
He i n r i c h, Th e ... 79’, 260 He r Ma j e s t y’s Pr o c u r a t o r Ge n e r a l (app.) v. El l i o t ta n d o t h e r s (reaps.)... 211
He w s o n s, Th e ... 360, 519 Hi b e r n i a n, Th e ... 491
Ho p e, Th e ... 563
Id a, Th e... 443
In d u s t r ie, Th e... 17
IONIDES AND ANOTHER V.Th e PACIFIC F lR E AND Ma r i n e In s u r a n c e Co m p a n y... 141, 330 Io n id e s v. Pe n d e r ... 381, 432 Ir e l a n d a n do t h e r sv. Li v i n g s t o n ... 389
Ja m e sv.Lo n d o na n d So u t h We s t e r n Ra i l w a y Co m p a n y ... 226
Ja m e sv. So u t h We s t e r n Ra i l w a y Co m p a n y ... 428
Ja p pa n d Ki r b y (apps.) v. Du r a n t e (reap.) ... 16
Je n n y Li n d, Th e... 294
J . L . Bo w e n (the B rig ), a n d h e r c a r g o... 106
Jo h n Fe n w i c k, Th e ... 249
Jo n e s a n d a n o t h e r r . Th e Ne p t u n e Ma r in e In s u r a n c e Co m p a n y ... 416
Jo y c ev. Ke n n a r d ... 194
Jo y c e v.Re a l m Ma r i n e In s u r a n c e Co m p a n y... 396
Ke s t r e l, Th e ... 489
Le a t h e r v.Sim p s o n ... 5
Le bEAU ANI} ANOTHER V. Th e GENERAL STEAM Na v i g a t i o n Co m p a n y... 435
Le i g h v.Ad a m s... 147
Le Jo n e t, Th e ... 438
Lid g e t t v. Se c r e t a na n d a n o t h e r ... 95
Li o n, Th e ... 321
Li s h m a n a n do t h e r s v. Th e No r t h e r n Ma r i t i m e In s u r a n c e Co m p a n y (L im ite d ) ... 554
Li v e r Al k a l i Co m p a n y (L im ite d ), v. Jo h n s o n... 380
Li v i a, Th e... 204
Liv e r p o o l Ma r in e Cr e d it Co m p a n y (L im ite d ) Th e, v. Wil s o n... 323
Ll o y d v.Fl e m in g ; Ll o y d v. Sp e n c e ... 192
Lo n d o na n d So u t h We s t e r n Ra i l w a y Co m p a n y v. Ja m e s... 526
I T
M A R IT IM E L A W CASES.
NAMES OF CASES.
Lo r e t t a, Th e ... page 19
McLe a nv. Fl e m i n g... 160
Ma g n a Ch a r t a, Jh e ... 153
Ma r c o Po l o, Th e... 54
Ma r k l a n d, Th e ... 44
Ma k m i o n, Th e ... 412
Ma r p e s ia, Th e ;... 261
Ma r q u e t t e, Th e Sc h o o n e r... 404
Me l p o m e n e, Th e... 515
Me s s in a v. Pe t r o c o c c h in o ... 298
Mi c h a e l, Ex p a rt e... 337
Mir a n d a, Th e ... 440
Mis s io n a r y, Th ev. Th e Vi r g i n i a ... 107
Mo o r s l e y, Th e... 471
Mo r r is o nv. Th e Un iv e r s a l Ma r in e In s u r a n c e Co m p a n y (L im ited ) ... 100, 503 Mo r o c c o, Th e ... 46
Mo r s-l e-Bl a n c h v. Wil s o n ... 005
Moss v. Me r s e y Do cksa n d Ha r b o u r Bo a r d ... 274
Mu l l in g a r, Th e... 252
Mu r i l l o, Th e ... 579
Ne v a d a, Th e... 477
Ne w En g l a n d Mu t u a l Ma r i n e In s u r a n c e Co m p a n y v. Du n h a m ... 21
Nic h o l s o n (app.) v. Wi l l i a m s (resp.) ... 67
No t a r aa n da n o t h e rv. He n d e r s o na n do t h e r s 278 Nu o v a Ra f f a e l i n a, Th e ... 16
Oc e a n ic St e a m Na v ig a t io n Co m p a n y (L im ited ), Th e (apps.) v. Jo n e s (resp.) ... 464
On e iz a, Th e ... 470
On w a r d, Th e ... 540
Or i e n t, Th e ... 108
Pa l a t i n e, Th e... 468
Pa l m y r a, Th e ... 182
Pa n t h e a, Th e ... 133
Pa t r i a, Th e ... 11
Pe e k v. La r s e n... 163
Ph í e n i x In s u r a n c e Co m p a n y (apps.) v. Co p e l in (resp.) ... 14
Pr i s c i l l a, Th e... 468
Ra j a h, Th e ... 403
Ra n g e r, Th e... 484
Re g. (app.) v. McCl e v e r t y (re s p .); Th e Te l é g r a f oo r Re s t a u r a c ió n... 63
Ric h a r d sv. Ge l l a t l e y a n do t h e r s ... 277
Ric h a r d s o nv. St a n t o n... 449
Ri g a, Th e ... 246
Ro b e ya n d Co m p a n y’s Pe r s e v e r a n c e Ir o n w o r k s (lim ite d ) v. Ol l i e r ... page 413 Ro s e, Th e ... 567
Sa n Ro m a n, Th e ... 347, 603 Sa p p h o, Th e ... 65, 258 Sc o u t, Th e ... 258
Se c r e t, Th e ... 318
Se y m o u r s. Th e Lo n d o na n d Pr o v i n c i a l Ma r in e In s u r a n c e Co m p a n y ... 423
Sh e p h e r dv.Ha r r is o na n da n o t h e r
...
66Sim p s o n a n da n o t h e r v.Bl u e s a n d a n o t h e r... 326
Sm i t h a n do t h e r sv.Br o w n a n d o t h e r s
...
56Sm i t h v.My e r sa n da n o t h e r ... 222
Sm i t h v.Th e Ba n k o f Ne w So u t h Wa l e s
...
385St a f f o r d s h ir e, Th e ... 101, 365 St a n t o nvRic h a r d s o n ... 449
St e p h e n sd.Th e Au s t r a l ia n In s u r a n c e Co m p a n y 458 St e w a r tv.We s t In d i a a n d Pa c if ic St e a m s h ip Co m p a n y... 528
St r a n g e r, Th e t u g... 19
Su n n y s id e, Th e ... 91
Ta n n e r v.Ph i l l i p s... 448
Ta p s c o t t a n d -o t h e r s v. Ba l f o u ra n d o t h e r s 501 Ta u b m a n v. Th e Pa c i f i c St e a m Na v ig a t i o n Co m p a n y ... 336
Te i g n m o u t h a n d Ge n e r a l Mu t u a l Sh i p p i n g As s u r a n c e As s o c ia t io n, Re Th e (Ma r t i n’s Cl a im s) ... 325
Te l e g r a f oo r Re s t a u r a c io n, Th e... 63
Te u t o n ia, Th e ... 32, 214 Th a r s is Su l p h u r Co m p a n yv.Lo f t u s ... 455
Th r a c ia n, Th e... 207
Th u r i n g i a, Th e (Practice) ... 166
Th u r i n g i a, Th e ... 283
T w o El l e n s, Th e... 40, 208 Un d e r w r i t e r, Th e... 127
Vi v i d, Th e... 601
Wa r r io r, Th e ... 400
Wa u g hv.Mo r r is ... 573
Wa v e r l e y, Th e ... 47
We s t p h a l ia, Th e St e a m s h ip ... 12
Wi l h e l m Sc h m i d t, Th e... 82
Wi l l e m I I I . , Th e... 129
Wil s o nv.Wil s o n ... 265
Wo o d h a m a n d a n o t h e r (apps.) v, Pe t e r s o n (resp.) ... 93
Wr ig h t v.Wa r d... 25
E R R A T A .
Page 31, col. 1, line 21, and col. 2, line 38, for "T h e Chctali, 19 L . T. Rep. N . S.622,” read "T h e Clarisse, 12 Moore P. C. C. 344.”
Page 32, line 2, for “ H . P. Pu e c e l l” read “ J. P. As p i n a l l.”
Page 40, col. 1, line 11, after “ Emerigon,” read “ (Traité des Assurances et des Contrats a la Grosse, par Boulay-Paty, T it 1, ch. 12, sect. 31, § 1.)"
R E P O R T S
OF
%\l % (ims ¿mb Jetaim b % tjj£ Sitpmar Coarts
R E L A T IN G TO
M A R I T I M E L A W .
Pb.i v. Co.] Th e Es k a n d t h e Nio r d. [ Pr i v. Co
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE F R IV T COUNCIL.
Reported by Douglas Kjngsford, Esq., Barrister-at-Law.
Nov. 28 and 29, 1870.
(Present: the R,igllt Hon- Sir James W ' C o lvim >
Cord Justice Ja m e s, and Lord Justice Mb l l i s i i.) irE Ow n e r sopt h e St e a m s h ip Es k(apps.), v . Th e
Ow n er s opt h e St e a m s h ip Nio r d (resps.) _ Th e Es ka n d t h e Nio r d.
°Uision—Damage— Change of course—Judgment 717 m the ease of the Velocity explained,
tie. Esk was going down the Thames while the -Wiord was coming up. The Esk was coming r°und a point on a port helm. As the vessels ap
proached each other, the N iord first ported her helm, and then p u t it hard a-port, t i l l she had paid
°JJ about five points. The Esk, on seeing this Manoeuvre of the Niord, stopped and reversed her engines, and put her helm hard a-starboard. The
was a collision:
s_ (affirming the judgment of the Court o f Admi- rcjlty ), that the Esk was to blame fo r the collision : since, dealing with the question as one of general navigation, the Esk was in fa u lt, either in not dis
covering, from, insufficiency o f the outlook, the course that the Niord. was talking, or in failing, Jrorn some other cause, to port her helm as she r °u9ht to have done.
'ji decision in the case of The Velocity (21 L. T.
, LrJ': N . S. 686) does not ju s tify one o f two vessels xwhich' would go clear of each other i f each held ier own course) in crossing the course of the other, since such an act would be a violation of the Regulations fo r preventing Collisions at Sea.”
ut vessels are generally free to pass from one Titt ^ mid-channel to the other.
of i SjWa!8 an aPPeal from a judgment of the Court
^ u u r a lt y , in. cross causes of damage, c iv il and on ltlrue> between the appellants and respondents, thoa+CC0Un^ a c°b isi°n which occurred between Und W° vesse^s the Thames on Nov. 12, 1869, er circumstances stated in the judgment post.
sole]1" i °?ert -Chilli more found that the Esk was the ^ to blame for the collision, and condemned ttPTif i antl8 *n damages and costs. H is judg- j 0j reP°rted), after a statement of the facts, blanf6# question which vessel was to fu], e tor tuis collision has been much and care-
y considered by the court and its nautical VOL. 1
assessors. I t appears th at both these vessels were in the same reach, steering nearly opposite courses ; the riv e r seems not to have been in any material degree crowded w ith shipping, or to have pre
sented any circumstances of difficulty to a naviga
tion conducted w ith ordinary s k ill and care. A fte r the recent decision of the P riv y Council in the case of the Velocity (21 L. T. Hep. N. S .-686;
89 L. J. 21, Ad.), I th in k I am bound to hold that i t was competent to either vessel to pass on either shore. The N iord availing herself of this rig h t, ported her helm and attempted to pass on the north shore; and I am informed by the T rin ity Masters th at this was her proper course according to the custom of the river. W hile the N iord was taking this course, the two vessels came into collision. On the part of the Niord, i t is asserted th at she commenced the manœuvre of porting her helm when sufficiently fa r apart from the Esk for the la tte r vessel to have seen her intention, and to have taken steps to avoid the collision, which she ought to have done. The Esk contends that this man
œuvre onthepart of theN iord was executed when i t was too late for the Esk to take any other step than that of starboarding her helm and reversing her engines. The question, therefore, which the court has to determine is narrowed to a small compass.
The Niord, according to the evidence, went off under her port helm five points, and this is corroborated by the evidence th at the blow was nearly a rig h t- angled one. From the evidence on the part of the Esk, i t appears that only one minute, or less than that time, elapsed between the order to starboard and reverse and the collision. The court is of opinion th at the porting of the helm of the N iord was not seen as soon as i t should have been by the Esk, and i t appears in evidence th at neither the master nor the chief officer of the Esk were on the bridge superintending the navigation, of the vessel, but that she was le ft to the sole charge of a water
man. And the T rin ity Masters are fu rthe r of opinion th a t the starboarding of the helm of the Esk was an improper manœuvre. Upon the whole the court has, under the advice of the T rin ity Masters, arrived at the conclusion that the Esk was solely to blame for this collision, and I pronounce accordingly.”
M ilward, Q.C., and Clarkson, for the appellants.
Butt, Q.C., and Phillimore, fo r the respondents.
Judgment was delivered by S ir Ja m e s W.
Co l v i l e.—The collision which has given rise to B
2
M A R IT IM E LA W CASES.
Pr iv. Co. Th e Es k a n d t h e Nio r d. [ Pe i v. Co.
the suit and cross-suit which are now brought on appeal before their Lordships took place in that portion of the river Thames which is known as the Halfw ay Reach on the 12th Nov. 1869, about half-past nine on th at morning. The screw steamer Esk, a collier in ballast, was proceeding down the river, and the Niord, Swedish screw steamer laden w ith a crop of oats, was coming up the river. Near the place of collision is a not very well defined point on the southern or Kentish side of the river, which divides the Halfway Reach from the Barking reach. The vessels ap
pear to have first sighted each other across this point, w hilst the Esk was coming down the Bark
ing Reach; and as they approached each other, the Niord which was in charge of a licensed p ilo t first ported her helm and then put i t hard a-port u n til she had p a id b ff about five points. The Esk, on the other hand, upon seeing this manœuvre of Niord, stopped and reversed her engines, and put her helm hard a starboard. The result was a collision, the Esk running almost at a rig h t angle into the Niord, nearly amidships, cutting clean into her boiler, and compelling her, in order to avoid sinking in deep water, to run ashore on the northern side of the river.
These facts seem to be undisputed. The evidence as to the precise tim e at which the manœuvres were executed, the circumstances which preceded them, and the relative position of the vessels when the Esk first rounded the point, is conflicting, and in many respects even more loose and un
satisfactory than nautical evidence in cases of collision almost proverbially is. Upon that evi
dence, however, the learned judge of the A dm i
ra lty Court, assisted by two Elder Brethren of the T rin ity House, came to the conclusion th at the Esk was solely in fa u lt ; and upon the principles which uniform ly guide this board, and which are more particularly laid down and enforced in the case of the Ju lia (14 Moo. P. C. 210), i t w ill be their Lordships’ duty to affirm that decision upon questions of fact, unless they are clearly satisfied th at i t is erroneous. Before, however, they pro
ceed to consider the effects of the evidence and of the arguments which have been founded upon it, their Lordships deem i t rig h t to make a few ob
servations upon tbe case of the Velocity (21 L . T.
Rep. N. S. 686 ; 39 L . J. 21, Adm.), which was cited by the learned judge of the A d m ira lty Court in his judgment, and has also been cited at the bar, in order to remove any possible misapprehension which may exist concerning its effect. In that case the A d m ira lty Court had held th at the case was one which fe ll w ith in the 14th of the Steering and Sailing Rules ; th at the two steamers in question were crossing each other ; that i t was the duty of the Velocity to keep her course, and the duty of the other vessel (the Carbon) to get out of the way ; that the Carbon by porting her helm, which brought her across the river, had executed the manœuvre which the performance of her duty required; and th at the Velocity had failed to keep her course and was, therefore, solely in fault. The appellate court, on the other hand, held th at the case was not one of two vessels crossing w ith in the meaning of the 14th rule ; th at the course of the Velocity was, after rounding the M illw a ll Pier, to run down the rive r on the north shore ; th at the Carbon was not justified in assuming th at the Velo
city was crossingthe river,but should have pursued her own course on the south of the mid channel, in
which case the two vessels would have passed free starboard to starboard. I t held fu rthe r th at i f the case was one w ith in the 18th rule, the Carbon was s till to blame, inasmuch as she had not got out of the way of the Velocity, which had “ kept her course,” their Lordships holding th at accord
ing to the true interpretation of the term “ keeping her course ” she was at lib e rty to hold on upon the course which she would have pursued, had no vessel been in sight, and was not bound to follow the direction in which her head, as she rounded the point, happened to be at the moment when she was first sighted. In the course of the argu
ment, however, i t had been brought to their Lord- ships’ notice th at w hilst the Merchant Shipping A c t of 1854 was in force, the Velocity would, under its provisions, have been bound to keep on the south side of the m id channel. B u t their Lord- ships, adverting to the repeal of the 297th section of that Act, observes th at “ vessels navigating the riv e r were now at lib e rty to go on whichever side of i t they pleased, taking care, of course, to observe the regulations for preventing collisions.”
This ru lin g seems to th eir Lordships to be by no means so broad as the summary of i t which appears in the shorthand w rite r’s note of the judgment in the A d m iralty Court. I f, for instance, i t were clear upon the evidence, th at the two vessels would have gone clear of each other i f each had held on upon her own course, then the ruling would not have justified the N iord in crossing the course of the Esk, and so by her own act bringing the two vessels into the categoryof crossing vessels, since by such an act she would have violated the regulations for preventing collisions, and would have done th at which, i t was held in the case of the Velocity, she ought not to have _ done. I t is probable, however, th at the learned judge o f the A d m iralty Court only meant to say that in shaping her course up the river, the Niord, under the deci- sioii in the case of the Velocity, was generally free to pass from the one side of the m id channel to the other. Again, something has been said in argu
ment of the negligence of the master of the Esk, in leaving his vessel in charge of the licensed water
man, M r. Braine, and of the insufficiency of the look-out, in consequence of the mate q u ittin g the forecastle. As to the first point, i t is sufficient to observe that whatever blame may attach to the master for leaving the steerage and manœuvres of the vessel in charge of the waterman, th at circum
stance cannot effect the decision of this appeal, since the owners of the Esk are clearly respon
sible for the acts and omissions of the waterman as one of the crew. The insufficiency of the outlbok, which their Lordships th in k is established by the evidence, is a very material consideration, i f the evidence, really affords ground for believing th at had there been a proper outlook on board the Esk, the accident would have been avoided.
The real question, as i t seems to their Lordships, is this,—was the Niord justified in coming across the river under a port helm ? I f she was, then i f the effect of th at manœuvre was to make the ves
sels crossing vessels w ith in the 14th of the Sailing and Steering Rules, i t seems to have been the duty of the Esk to get out of the way ; and she failed to do so. On the other hand, i f w hilst executing th a t manœuvre the N iord was s till in such a position th at the two vessels, keeping each its proper course, m ight have passed each other free port side to port side, i t was the duty of the Esk, by
M A E IT IM E LA W OASES. 3
Rolls.] Co nservato rs o r t h e Th a m e s v. So u t h- Ea s t e r n Ra il w a y Co m p a n y. [ Ro lls. porting her helm, to ensure th at safe passage,
whereas by starboarding she brought about the collision. Their Lordships do not th in k i t neces
sary to affirm that these vessels were, at the moment at which they first sighted each other, crossing vessels w ith in the meaning of the rule ;
™ey w ill assume th at the case does not s tric tly tab w ith in the rule, and w ill then consider which
■vessel was in fault, dealing w ith that question as one of general navigation. They have had the benefit of consulting their nautical assessors, and those gentlemen entirely concur w ith the T rin ity masters, and w ith the learned Judge of the A d m i
ra lty Court, in the conclusion to which they came, that the Esk was solely in fault. The Esk unques
tionably, in rounding that point, must have been under the port helm foratim e. The other vessel had been hugging the south shore,andwould, in the ordi
nary course of navigation, have gone under a port
“ b'm to the other side of the rive r about the point at which she did go. On the other hand, there seems to be no reason why the Esk coming round the point under a port helm, should not have fo l
lowed the southward shore, continuing to port her helm. A t all events, whatever may have been her rights or whatever course she m ight have taken had no other vessel been in the way, i t was clearly her duty to observe the Niord, to see whether she taking th at course which persons acquainted With the navigation of the rive r must have known to be the ordinary course, viz., th at of crossing the river, and to conduct her own manoeuvres ac
cordingly. She seems to th eir Lordships not to have done this. Whether in consequence of the insufficiency of the outlook she did not discover early enough what the N iord was doing, or whether from any other cause she failed to take Jhe course which th eir Lordships, as advised by their nautical assessors, conceive was the rig h t course, namely, th at of porting her helm, she must be held responsible for the collision, th e ir Lordships do not consider i t necessary to gp brfcher into the discrepancies in the evidence upon vfari°us points which have been commented upon at the bar. They w ill, however, mention th at in heir opinion, the place of the collision cannot ave been below the lower creek marked in the chart, and therefore must have taken place shortly alter the rounding of the point by the Esk. On he whole case, looking at the question as one of 'avigation on which four professional persons concur in supporting the judgment of the court
°.w> their Lordships feel i t to be their duty to advise her Majesty to dismiss this appeal w ith
-p Judgment affirmed.
Q ^roctors fo r the appellants, Clarkson, Son, and Rroctors for the respondents, H . O. Stokes.
BOLLS COURT.
Reported by H . Peat, Esq., Barrister-at-Law.
Dec. 7, 8,16,1870, and Jan. 13,1871.
Co nservato rs o f t h e Th a m e sv. Th e So u t h- Ea s t e r n Ra il w a y Co m p a n y.
^ l°ating p ier — Tolls—Revocable licence—B ill to rp, obtain possession—Jurisdiction in equity,
ne City of London by licence granted a, company permission to form a floating pier on the River 1 names, such p ie r to remain during pleasure, and
to take tolls on a ll passengers landed at the pier.
Under the powers conferred upon them by the Thames Embankment Act 1862 the Board of Works took the floating p ie r from the compcmy, and agreed to pay them a certain sum and to can- struct a new landing stage in lieu of the old pier, and to appropriate i t in perpetuity to the benefit of the company. The Thames Embankment Act 1868 purported to give validity to this agreement.
On a b ill by the Conservators of the Thames (in whom a ll the estate, &c., of the City of London in the bed, soil, and shores of the river had become vested by the Thames Conservancy Act 1857) to restrain the company from continuing in possession of the landing stage constructed in lieu o f the old p ie r:
Held, that the company were entitled to the use of the p ie r only on sufferance, and at the pleasure of the p la in tiffs ; that the Board of Works had no power to convert the licence at pleasure into an irrevocable licence; and that the Act which purr- ported to give a validity to the agreement between the company and the Board of Works did not affect the rights of the plaintiffs :
Held, also, that the proper remedy of the plaintiffs was by b ill in equity, and not by ejectment.
Th iswas a suit by the Conservators of the River Thames, who claimed, under the Thames Con
servancy A c t 1857, to be owners of the foreshore and soil of the river, to restrain the South-Eastern Railway Company from continuing in possession of the floating pier known as the Charing-cross Pier. The b ill asked fo r an injunction and an account of the tolls.
On the 2nd Aug. 1844, the navigation committee of the rive r Thames, duly appointed by and acting for the mayor, commonalty, and citizens of the C ity of London, did, by licence not under seal, grant permission to the Hungerford Suspension Bridge Company to form a floating pier on the east side of the north pier of the bridge, such pier to remain during pleasure only. The pier was soon afterwards constructed in conformity w ith the licence, and was subsequently, by A c t of Par
liament, vested in the Charing-cross Railway Company, and finally in the South-Eastern R ail
way Company.
By an indenture dated the 24*th Peb. 1857, all the estate, rig h t, title , and interest of H er Majesty in rig h t of the Crown of in and to the bed, soil, and shores of the Thames, w ith in flux and reflux of the tides bounded eastwards by an imaginary line to be drawn from the entrance to Y a ntle tt Creek, in the county of Kent, on the southern shore of the river, to the c ity stone, opposite Canvey Island, in the County of Essex, on the northern side of the river, were conveyed unto and to the use of the Corporation of London and their successors as conservators of the river.
B y the Thames Conservancy A c t 1857, all the estate, &c., of the Corporation o f London in the bed, soil, and shores of the river, and all powers, authorities, &c., belonging to them in relation to the conservancy of the rive r were vested in the plaintiffs, who were incorporated by the Act.
The Thames Embankment A c t 1862 authorised the Metropolitan Board of Works to construct the embankment, and to make all necessary walls, piers, &c. Sect. 27 of the A c t was in the follow
ing w ords:
Subject to the provision herein contained, i t shall be law ful for the board, by agreement, to appropriate by way of grant or demise, or for any term of years or other
