T H IS P H O T O G R A P H IC R E P R IN T E D IT IO N
IS PUBLISHED BY
DENNIS & CO., INC. (Publishers), Buffalo, N. Y „ U. S. A.
B U T T E R W O R T H & CO. (Publishers) L T D , London, England
Reprinted by photolitho in the U.S.A.
by Cushing-Malloy, In c , of Ann Arbor, Michigan
R E P O R T S
o r CASES RELATING TO
M A R I T I M E L A W ;
CONTAINING ALL THE
DECISIONS OF THE COURTS OF LAW AND ECtUITY
IN
W$t ftniteïr fimgîrom,
AND SELECTIONS EROM THE MORE IMPORTANT DECISIONS
IN
C oloim s anîï tije © M ittïi States.
EDITED BY
T A . M ! ES I> . ASPINALL, B arrister-at-!Law .
V O L . II.,
New Series, from 1873 to 1876.
(VOL. V., O.S.)
LO N D O N : HORACE COX, 10, W E L L IN G T O N STREET, STRAND, W.C.
1 8 7 6.
LONDON :
PEINTED BY HORACE COX, WELLINGTON-STREET, STRAND, W.C.
04W
INDEX
TO
Ü S T J X IM IIE S OF THE CASES
REPORTED IN T H IS VO LUM E.
Ab r a h a m, Th e... 34
Ac h a r d a n d o t h e r s v. Ri n g a n d o t h e r s... 422
Ad a, Th e ... 4
Ai m o, Th e; Th e Am e l i a ... 9®
Al l i s o n v. Th e Br is t o l Ma r i n e In s u r a n c e Co m p a n y ... 34, 312 Am e l i a, Th e... 96
Am e r ic a n a n d Th e Sy r i a, Th e... 350
Am e r iq u e, Th e... ... 460
An d e r s o n v.Mo r ic e ... 424
Ar t h u r Aye r a s e As s o c ia t io n, Th e, B e ; E x p a rte Co r ya n d Ha w k e s l e y... 530, 570 As h c r o e t v. Th e Croyy Or c„. *d Co l l i e r y Co m p a n y... 397
At t o r n e y-Ge n e r a l v. Te r r y
...
174, 217 Av a, Th e ... 182Ba l t i c, Th e... 237
Ba x t e r v. Ch a p m a n a n d o t h e r s ... 170
Be l l e r o p h o n, H . M . S... 448
Bl d d u l p ha n d o t h e r s v. Bi n o h a m... 225
Bl a n c h it v. Po w e l l’s Ll a n t w i t Co l l ie r ie s Co m p a n y (Li m i t e d) ... 224
Bo u g a i n v i l l e, Th e, v. Th e Ja m e s C. St e v e n s o n 1 Br o w na n d o t h e r sv. Po w e l l Du e f r y n St e a m s h ip Co m p a n y ... 578
Br o w n (app.) v. Ga u d e t (resp.) ; Ca r g o ex Argos 6 Br o w n in g (app.) v. Th e Pr o v in c ia l In s u r a n c e Co m p a n y o f Ca n a d a (resp.) ... 35
Ca ir o, Th e ... 257
Ca r g o ex Ar g o s... 8
Ca t h a r i n e Ch a l m e r b, Th e... 598
Ca t o r 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 ... 95
Ch a r k i e h, Th e... 421
Ch a s c a, Th e... 600
Ci t y o f Br u s s e l b, Th e... 102
Ci t y o f Ca m b r id g e, Th e ... 193, 239 Ci t y o f Mo b i l e, Th e ... 123
Cl o v e e v. Bo y d o n... I® 7 C- M. Pa l m e r, Th e... 94
Co b e q u id Ma r i n e In s u r a n c e Co m p a n y, Th e, v - Ba r t e a u x... 536
Co r d e l ia, Th e Pr o c e e d s o f Th e... 35
Co c k l in g v. Ma s s e y ... 13
Co r y p ATON... 302
°w a n v. Th e Im p e r i a l Ot t o m a n Ba n k... 57
• S. Bu t l e r, Th e (C o llis io n , S alvage) ... 237
• S. Bu t l e r, Th e (C o llis io n , L ig h ts ) ... 408
Ba n j e l l s t, Ha r r is ... 4 13 ¿»An n e b r o g, Th e ... 452
®n n is v. To v e l l ... 482
e Wo l f v. Ar c h a n g e l Ma r i t i m e Ba n k a n d In s u r a n c e Co m p a n y ... 278
Th e ... 366
e d g e o n v. Pe m b r o k e... 323
_e k e o f Su t h e r l a n d, Th e„ ... 478
Bu n m o r e, Th e... 599
Ea r l Sp e n c e r, Th e ...page 523 Eb s w o r t ha n do t h e r sv. Th e Al l i a n c e Ma r i n e In s u r a n c e Co m p a n y ... 125
Ed w a r d s v. Th e Ab e r a y r o n Mu t u a l Sh i p In s u r a n c e So c ie t y (Li m i t e d) ... 469
Ein t r a c h t, Th e ... 198
Em i l i e n Ma r i e, Th e... 514
En e r g ie, Th e ... 555
Eu g e n i e, Th e ... 1 °4 Fa n n y M , Ca r v i l l, Th e ... 478, 565 Fe a t h e r s t o n e v. Wi l k in s o n a n d a n o t h e r ... 31
Fis h e r v. Th e Liv e r p o o l Ma r i n e In s u r a n c e Co m p a n y ...44, 254 Fl o w e r v. Br a d l e y ... 489
Fr a n c e s c o v. Br a d l e y...(note) 594 Fr e i r, Th e ... 589
Fu l l m o r e v. Wa i t... 543
Ge o r g e v. Wa t t s ... 242
Gl e n g a r r y, Th e... 230
Go r r is a n d a n o t h e r v. Sc o t t ... 282
Gr e a t We s t e r n In s u r a n c e Co m p a n y (apps.), Th e, v. Fo g a r t y (re s p .)... 262
Gr e a t We s t e r n In s u r a n c e Co m p a n y o f Ne w Yo r k, Th e, v. Cu n l i f f e ... ... 219, 298 Gu n e s t e a d v. Pr ic e a n d o t h e r s ... 543
Gu n n v. Bo b e r t s ... 250
Ha d g k a f t (app.) v. He w i t t (re sp .)... 573
Ha r t v. He r w i g... 63
Ha t h e s in g v. La i n g ... 170
He n d e r s o n a n d a n o t h e r v. Th e Co m p t o ir d’Es c o m p t e d e Pa r i s... 98
He n d r ic k s ti. Au s t r a l i a n In s u r a n c e Co m p a n y 44 He n r y Mo r t o n, Th e ... 466
He r m i n e, Th e ... 380
Hi b e r n i a, Th e... 454
Hu d s o n a n d a n o t h e rv. Hi l l a n da n o t h e r ... 278
Id a, Th e... ... 551
Im p e r i a l Ot t o m a n Ba n k v. Co w a n ...57, 418 Io n id e s v. Pe n d e r ... 261
Ir m a, Th e Ba r k 155
Ja c k s o n «. Th e Un i o n Ma r in e In s u r a n c e Co m p a n y (Li m i t e d) ...
Ja m e s C. St eYe n s o n, Th e...
Je b s e n v. ' Th e Ea s t a n d We p t In d i a Do c k Co m p a n y...
Jo h n Ev a n s, Th e ...
JOLLIFFE AND ANOTHER V.T H E WALLASEY LOCAL Bo a r d...
435
1
505 234
146
Ka t h l e e n, Th e ..
Ki s h v. Co r y...
Kj o b e n h a v n, Th e
367 593 213
La i n g v. Ze d e n 396
I T
M A R IT IM E L A W CASES.
NAMES OF CASES.
IjAm b t o n, Ex p a r t e ; Re Lin d s a y ... page 525
La n c a s h ir e, Th e... 202
La b n a x, Th e... 94
La t h a m v. Th e Ch a b t e b e d Ba n k o e In d i a, Au s t r a l i a, a n d Ch i n a ... 178
Le m in g t o n, Th e ... 475
Li s h m a n a n d o t h e r sv. 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 ( Li m i t e d) ... 504
Li v e r Al k a l i Wo r k s Co m p a n y ( Li m i t e d), Th e v . Jo h n s o n... 332
Lo n d o n a n d Pr o v i n c i a l Ma r i n e In s u b a n c e Co m p a n yv. Se y m o u r ... 169
Lo r d Ad v o c a t e, Th e,u. Th e Cl y d e St e a m Na v i g a t io n Co m p a n y ... 502
Ma c k e n z iev. Wh i t w o r t h... 490
Ma g n e t, Th e... ... 478
Ma v r o a n d a n o t h e r v. Th e Oc e a n Ma r i n e In s u r a n c e Co m p a n y ...361, 590 Me l p o m e n e, Th e... 122
Me r c h a n t s’ Mu t u a l In s u r a n c e Co m p a n y, Th e v. Ba r i n g a n d o t h e r s... 411
Me r c h a n t s Sh i p p i n g Co m p a n y Li m i t e dv. Ar m i- t a g e ... ...51, 185 Me r c h a n t s’ Tr a d in g Co m p a n y, Th e v. Un i v e r s a l Ma r i n e In s u r a n c e Co m p a n y, Th e ... 431
Me r l e, Th e ... 402
Me b r im a c, Th e... 333
Mie d b r o d t v.Fit z s im o n ... 555
Mi r i a m, Th e... 259
Mo s e l l e, Th e ... 535
Mu l l e r v. Ba l d w i n ... 304
Na o m i, Th e ... 588
Ne l l i e, Th e... 142
No r, Th e ...264
No r t h o p En g l a n d Pu r e Oi l Ca k e Co m p a n y v. Ar c h a n g e l Ma r i t i m e Ba n k a n d In s u r a n c e Co m p a n y (Li m i t e d) ... 574
Ny h o l m, Re. Ch i l d. Ex p a r te ... 165
Ot t e r, Th e ... 208
Ow e n Wa l l i s, Th e... 206
Pe a r s o nv. Th e Co m m e r c ia l Un i o n As s u r a n c e Co m p a n y... 100
Pe n n s y l v a n i a, Th e St e a m s h i p ... 378
Pe t r o c o c h in o a n do t h e r s v. Bo t t... 310
Ph i l o t a x e, Th e ... 141
Pi e v e Su p e r io r s, Th e ...1 6 2 ,3 1 9 Pr e v i t e a n d a n o t h e r v. Th e Ad e l a i d e Fir e a n d Ma r i n e In s u r a n c e Co m p a n y... 577
Pr o c e e d so pt h e Co r d e l i a, Th e...page 35 Pr o s p e r in o Pa l a s s o, Th e... 158
Pr o v i n c i a l In s u r a n c e Co m p a n y o p Ca n a d a, Th e v. Le d u c ... 338
Pu r i t a n, Th e ... 548
Pu b k i s v. Fl o w e r ... 226
Ra c e r, Th e ... 317
Ra i t h w a i t e Ha l l, Th e... 210
Ra n k i n a n d o t h e r sv. Po t t e r a n d o t h e r s... 65
Ric h a r d s o n v. St a n t o n ... 288
Ri o Li m a, Th e ... 34, 143 Ri v e r We a r Co m m is s io n e r s, Th e v. Ad a m s o n AND OTHERS ... 145
Ro b in s o nv. Kn i g h ta n d a n o t h e r... 19
Ro d o c a n o c h ia n d o t h e r s v. El l i o t t ...21, 399 Ro e b u c k, Th e ... 387
Ro n a, Th e ... 18B Ro y a l Fa m i l y, Th e... 42)1 Sa p p h o, Th e... 4
Sc h w a n n, Th e ... 259
Sis t e r s, Th e... 589
Sm i d t v. Ti d e n... 307
Sm i t h a n d o t h e r s v. Th e St. La w r e n c e To w Bo a t Co m p a n y... 41
Sm i t h v. St e e l e ... 487
St a n t o n v. Ri c h a r d s o n... 288
St e w a r t a n d o t h e r s v. Th e We s t In d i a Pa c i f i c St e a m s h ip Co m p a n y... 32
St u a r t a n d a n o t h e r v. Th e Br i t i s h a n d Af r ic a n St e a m Na v i g a t i o n Co m p a n y ... 497
Ta y l o r a n d o t h e r s v. Th e Liv e r p o o l a n d Gr e a t We s t e r n St e a m Co m p a n y... 275
Th a m e s, Th e... 512
Tu l l y v. Te r r y ... 61
Tu r l i a n i, Th e ... ¿08
Vil l a g e Be l l e, Th e ... 228
Wa t s o n a n d Co m p a n y v. Sh a n k l a n d a n d o t h e r s ... 115
We l l s, Fa r g o, a n d Co m p a n y v. Th e Pa c if ic In s u r a n c e Co m p a n y ... m We l l s v. Th e Ma y o r Ac., o f Kin g s t o n-u p o n- Hu l l ... 590
W . H . Wo l fv. Th e Sc o w Se l t... 107
Wi l l i a m Li n d s a y, Th e ... 118
Wo o dv. Wo a da n d o t h e r s ... 289
Zu f a l l, Th e ... 587
r e p o r t s
OF
% \ \
%
( í m sürprtr ató Jtomtntó bn % Superior Courts
RELATING TO
M A R I T I M E L A W .
Pfilv. Co.] -V Th eBo u g a in v ill e v. Th e Ja m e s C . St e v e n s o n. [ Pe i v. Co. J U D I C I A L C O M M IT T E E O F T E E
P R I V Y C O U N C IL .
Reported by J. P. As p in a i.l, Esq., Barrister.at-L&'v.
April 23 and 24, 1873.
(Present,: The Right, Hons. Sir Ja m e s W . Co l v i l e,
Sir R. Ph i l l i m o e e, Sir Mo n t a g u e E. Sm i t h,
Sir R. p. Co l l ie r.)
Th eBo u g a i n v i l l e v. Th e Ja m e s 0 . St e v e n s o n.
Collision — Sailing ship — Steamer — Duty of—
Lights—Regulations for preventing Collisions at Sea, Articles 15 and 16. ,
When a steamer sights a sailing vessel in the night time at a distance of three miles, hut, owing to the faci uie sailing vessel's lights are not visible, cannot ascertain the course of the sailing vessel, it is the duty of the steamer to slacken speed and wait to ascertain that course before adopting any decided manoeuvre for the purpose of avoiding the sailing vessel. I f the steamer immediately on sighting the sailing vessel adopts such a manoeuvre, as by porting, and a collision ensue without fault on the part of the sailing vessel, the steamer is alone to blame.
t h e s e were cross appeals from an interlocutory degree or sentence of the Vice-Adm iralty Court of Gibraltar, in a consolidated cause of damage brought by and on behalf of the master and the owner of the B ritish steamship James C. Stevenson against the French barque Bougainville and her freight, for the recovery of damages in respect of Josses sustained by the owner, by reason of a col
lision between the two vessels; and by and on behalf of the master and the owners of the barque
■Bougainville, against the steamship James C.
Stevenson and her freight to recover damages in respect of the same collision.
1 he collision oceured between i l and 12 on the night of 29th March 1872 in the Straits of Gibraltar.
The case on the part of the James C. Stevenson was that she was proceeding under steam, steering about due W., w ith her masthead and side lights exhibited and burning brightly, and w ith a fresh wind blowing from the southward, when a vessel Under sail, which proved to be the Bougainville, was seen ahead at the distance of about three piles. The Bougainville was apparently approach
ing in an opposite direction, but no lig h t could then be seen on her. The helm of the James C.
Vo l. II., N.S.
Stevenson was ported in order to keep her o n to f the way of the Bougainville,and the Bougainville s till appearing to be standing towards the James 0.
Stevenson,the helm of the
put hard a-port, and the green ligh t of the Bou
gainville was then for the first time seen. The engines of the Bougainville were stopped, but a coUision occured. the stem of the Bougain
ville striking the James C. Stevenson on the port b°The main grounds of blame charged by the owner of the James C. Stevensonagainst the Bou gainville were, that the lights of the latter were not so exhibited and placed as to be visible to the James 0. Stevenson,and that she (the Bougainville) improperly deviated from her course under a star
board helm. . , ,
The case on behalf of the Bougainville wasi that she was passing through the Straits of Gibraltar on a voyage from Coromandel coast to Marseilles on the n ight of the 29th March 1872, with a crew of sixteen hands all told. A t about 11'35 p m.
of the said 29th March, the wind being west and by south, and the weather squallyand obscure s i times, the Bougainvillewas proceeding through the Straits, steering her proper courseeast¡by north by compass, with her regulation lights properly7 placed and brightly burning, when thePmasthead lig h t of a steamer was reported about two points on her starboard bow, and appearing to be about three miles
The barque proceeded on her course, and shortly afterwards the red lights of the Bteamer became visible, and she came on at rig h t a n g esto h er original course and immediately across the bows of The barque by first porting and afterwards bard porting her helm, and a collision thereby be coming inevitable ; the helm of the barque was pub hard a-starboard to deaden the force of the col
li sion, which immediately took place w ith tre- mendous force, the iron stem and p a rt.o fth e bow of the barque striking the port-bow of th3 ®tea™
in a slanting direction, from aft to forward, about eleven feefc abaft the stem. #
On the part of the owners of the Bougainville, i t was submitted that the evidence show ed th a t her lights were, before and at the time of t.h® C<J lision8 properly placed and b righ tly burning, l accordance with the maritime regulations in re
gard to the lights directed to bo carried by sailing vessels, and that her duty was to keep her course,
M A R IT IM E LAW CASES.
Peiv. Co.] Th e Bo u g a in v il l e v. Th e Jam es C. St e v e n s o n. which she did, u n til she put her helm hard-a-
starboard to ease the blow of the collision, and that the duty of the steamer was to have kept dear of her, which although she m ight easily Have done, she failed to do.
The learned judge of the Vice Adm iralty Court held both vessels to blame; the Bougainville, because her lights did not give a uniform and un
broken lig h t over an arc of the horizon of ten points from the stern to two points abaft the beam as required by Articles 3 and 5 of the Eegulations for preventing Collisions at Sea, which contributed to the collision ; and because she neglected to keep her course; the Janies C.
Stevenson, because she did not make use of the means in her pocket for keeping out of the way of the Bougainville, which means were sufficient and would have accomplished that object, and would have been resorted to by a man of ordinary nau
tical experience and prudence, as he was bound on ascertaining the Bougainville to be a sailing ship to have slackened speed or stopped, or taken other means to keep out of the way, and the neglect to do so was a breach of Articles 15 and 16 of the -Regulations.
Prom this decree the owners of both vessels appealed; the owners of the James C. Stevenson on the ground that she had by porting her helm done all that was necessary to keep out of the way ot the Bougainville within A rticle 15; that she was not bound stop and reverse, and that i f she took any erroneous measure, i t was owing to the wane of lights on board the Bougainville;—the owners of the Bougainville on the ground that the evidence showed that her lights were properly placed, and that she kept her course after sighting the steamer u n til immediately before the col
lision.
The facts and arguments are fu lly set out in the judgment of the Judicial Committee.
Milward Q.C. and Clarkson for the owners of tne James (J. /Stevenson,
J^uuralty Advocate (Dr. Deane, Q.C.) and Dr. Tristram for the owners of the Bougainville.
April 24.—The judgment of the Court was de
livered by Sir R. Ph il l im o e e.—This is an appeal from the decision of thejudgeof the Vice-Admiralty Court at Gibraltar in a case of collision between a steamer and a sailing vessel. The collision took place in the Straits of Gibraltar, according to the best conclusion their Lordships can come to from m 6 .rev,df,rlce> somewhere about 81- miles east of Ia,rifa. ih e nature of the damage was this - The saihng vessel ran into the steamer at rig h t angles 10 feet abaft the stem. The consequences of the collision were very serious to both vessels, both being obliged to put into Gibraltar on account of the damage they received. The learned judge of the court below found, upon the evidence, that both the vessels were to blame, and he made the usuai decree. From that decree appeals have been prosecuted to the Judicial Committee of the P rivy
Council by both parties. J
I t w ill be convenient before stating the conclu
sions at which their Lordships have arrived, to notice in the first instanco the case of the steamer who appeared as the first plaintiff here, and also in the court below. She was called the JamesO.Steven
son. She was ascrew steamer of 1226 tons, and 250 horse power, and was sailing from Calcutta with a general cargo for London. She passed through the Suez Canal and arrived at the entrance of the
[ Pe i v. Co.
Straits of Gibraltar on the night of the 29thMarch.
She says, that at forty minutes past eleven on that night, being eight miles from Tarifa lig h t, which bore W. by N., and steering W., and the wind, which was squally, being W. inclining to S., the night being clear but cloudy (it is not im material to observe this), and proceeding at the rate of 8] knots an h o u r; while so proceeding a sail was reported rig h t ahead, distant about three miles, apparently coming end on; but she says no lights were visible. The course which she pur
sued was immediately to port, and she appears from the evidence to have hard-a-ported almost directly afterwards, by which she fell, before the collision took place, seven points off from her original course. I t is important to observe here that there is no dispute at all that those on board the steamer were perfectly aware that the vessel rig h t ahead of them was a sailing ship, and as the learned judge of the court below remarked, they must have known perfectly w ell that she was coming directly through the Straits w ith the wind directly aft. I t is also important to observe that the captain of the steamer entirely misappre
hended the existing regulation w ith respect to his duty in such circumstances. He says in his evi
dence, “ I th ink that it was the duty of the other vessel, although a sailing vessel and mvself a steamer, to have ported her helm, because she was running free, and i t is the rule of the road ; and I say that, although we were meeting each other stem on. I t would be quite different i f she had L66]1 ?i°se hauled'” ^ ' s hardly necessary to state that this opinion of the captain of the steamer is directly at variance with the existing regulation oi Article 15, viz., that i f two ships, one of which is a sailing ship and the other a steamship,- are proceeding m such directions as to involve risk of collision, the steamship shall keep out of the way of the sailing ship. The steamer ascribes this collision to two circumstances; first, to the in
visibility (if I may use such an expression) of the lights on board the sailing vessel—it not being disputed that she carried lights—their in visibility resulting from their improper position; and also to the sailing vessel having starboarded instead of keeping her course That is the case, stated briefly, on behalf of the steamer.
The case on behalf of the sailing vessel may be also stated in a few words. She was a Drench iron barque of very large tonnage, and was coming from the Gape of Good Hope to Marseilles. She says that on this night, when she was due south of Europa Light, and midway between it and Ceuta L ig h t she saw the white lig h t of a steamer, which proved to be the James C. Stevenson, two points on the starboard bow, and distant about three miles. Both vessels agree in putting the distance at which they were m utually discerned at about three miles. She says the wind was W.S.W., ono point on the starboard quarter, and her head was A by jn . I hen she gives an account of her sails.
.? says she had her courses, fore and maintop- sails, maintop-gallant sails, and two gibs set, the starboard clew of the mainsail being hauled up.
She gives the same account of the night that the other vessel does. She says that the white light ot the James V. Stevenson was discovered at 11'35 and that she was supposed to be steering west,’
that shortly afterwards the red ligh t of the James 0. Stevenson was observed, that her course was not discovered by those on board the sailing vessel
M A R ITIM E LA W CASES.
3Pr iy. Co.]
u ntil the steamer was seen at about 300 yards distant. Then she says that the Bougainville had hitherto been kept on her course supposing that the steamer would keep out of her way, but upon the hull of the James G. Stevenson being dis
covered, and i t being found that she was coming on at rig h t angles towards the bows of the Bou
gainville, and i t being then evident that a collision was inevitable, the helm of the Bougainville, was put hard to starboard, but the Bougainville only fell off one point before the collision. Now she on her part ascribes the collision to these three circum
stances, that is by her pleading and by the argu
ment of her counsel, .she says that the collision Was caused by the rash and improper conduct of the steamer in not waiting to ascertain what course the sailing vessel was taking ; she says that the steamer ought at all events to have re
versed her engines, which would have been one mode of preventing the collision ; and lastly, the ship says that if the steamer did not choose to wait, she ought in the first instance to have star
boarded instead of ported.
In considering this case, i t w ill, I think, be convenient to assume in the first instance that the lights were not visible. On that assump
tion what, according to the 15th Article, was the clear duty of the steamer ? I t was to get out of the way of the sailing vessel. What getting out of the way is must depend, of course, on the circumstances of each particular case. I t may be by porting, i t may be by star
boarding i t may be by stopping. B ut according to her own version of the story, the steamer was aware that the sailing vessel was coming directly through the Straits w ith the wind directly aft, but she says that owing to the absence of her bghts she had no indication of what course the sailing vessel was pursuing. That vessel was going at the rate of 8£ or 9 knots an hour, and their jo in t speed must have been something like ' or 18 knots. Being, as she says, in uncertainty as to the course the sailing vessel was steering, i t was surely not the part of a prudent master imme
diately to take the active and decided step of porting, at the rate which she was then going, of between eight and nine knots an hour, which would carry her to the opposite coast across the bows of the suip. I f she was in doubt as to the course of the vessel approaching her, as she says, stem on, or a httle upon a starboard bow, and as the evidence in their Lordships’ opinion seems to prove rather there than that, between one and two points cn ter starboard bow, surely i t was the part of a prudent master to have waited u n til he could ascertain which course the sailing vessel was pur- The 16th A rticle seems to be precise upon his point. “ Every steamship when approaching another ship so as to involve risk of collision, shall slacken her speed.” There is no reason why she should conceive that the ship was going to the Moorish side of the Strait, although some sug
gestions were made to that effect. In their Lord- ships opinion, therefore, the judge came to a per- th° t • s®nn(I conclusion upon this part of the case, at is iu holding that upon the steamer’s own atement, upon the assumption that the lights ere not visible owing to their improper position, evertheleBS, she sinned against the rules of navi- r ir°-* a'^ ^ own I° r preventing these unfortunate or by n° t slackening her speed, or waiting,
taking any of those precautions which would
[ Pr iy. Co.
have enabled her before she took the decided step of porting to ascertain on what side the sailing vessel was going. I t is not necessary, in their Lordships’ opinion, therefore, to inquire whether i t would have been a prudent course on her part, i f she elected not to wait, to have starboarded instead of porting, by which manoeuvre she cut in between the ship and the lee shore at the rate of seven knots an hour. Their Lordship’s th in k that the finding of the learned judge on this part was perfectly correct, and w ill advise her Majesty that i t be affirmed.
There then remains the other part of the case, upon which the greater part of the argu
ment has been addressed to their Lordships, namely, as to whether, in the circumstances of this case, i t must not be holden that the conduct of the sailing ship contributed to the collision ? First, as to the contribution of the collision, which is said to have been made by the absence of the proper lights, that is to say, by the lights not being placed in a position in which they were visible. The law does not require any particular place at which the lights should be affixed ; though no doubt i t does require that they should be so placed as to be properly visible w ithin the scope of the regulations upon that p o in t; but no particular place is pointed out. The evidence in this case establishes these points with regard to the lights, first, that they were carried, and secondly, that they were proper lights, properly screened; and their Lordships incline to the opinion that i t also is proved that they were carried in the place in which they were usually carried by French vessels.
There has been considerable discussion upon the evidence as to whether the testimony of the master of the ship be credible with regard to the cutting or arching of the foresail, which, according to his evidence, to which he was not cross-examined, and according to the evidence of another witness, was expressly done for the purpose of rendering these lights visible. The vessel was a very large ship, and she had come all the way from Calcutta, and the presumption is in favour of her statement as to the lights. I t may here be observed that if the allegation were correct on the part of the steamer, that the sailing ship had contravened the rule of navigation in not keeping her course, but in starboarding, i t is quite clear that that position is fatal to the other contention that her green lig h t was not visible, because, i f the sailing vessel had starboarded earlier than she said she did, unquestionably, by that manoeuvre, she must have shown her green light, which i t is proved was carried, and which i t is proved was of proper quality. She must have shown her green lig h t to the approaching steamer, and have given her that information of which she complains that she was deprived. The learned judge of the court below seems, on the whole, to have come to the con- elusion, that there was a deficit pTobatio9 upon this particular and material point, that i t was incum
bent upon the sailing vessel to have proved by more conclusive eyidence than she adduced, that these lights so placed in the stern of the vessel were visible by the circumstance that the foresail was cut or arched in the manner described. The learned judge seems to have come to the con
clusion that there was not sufficient evidence to warrant him in thinking that this point was established, and therefore to have decided on th at ground principally that the ship contributed to Th e Bo u g a in v il l e v. Th e Ja m e s C. Ste v e n s o n.
4 M A R IT IM E LAW CASES.
Pk i v. Co.] Th e Ad a; Th e Sa pp h o. [ Pk i v. Co.
this collision. Their Lordships do not th ink it necessary • to express any opinion as to the con
clusion at which they m ight have arrived if this particular matter had come before them as a court of first instance, whether they would or would not have been satisfied with the evidence which was produced on behalf of the sailing vessel to the effect already stated, because their Lord- ships are clearly of opinion, after consulting with their nautical assessors, and after a review of the whole circumstances of this case, that the sailing vessel coming through the strait with the wind, as described, was perfectly and clearly seen at a distance of three miles as stated by the steamer, but at all events between two and three miles ; that upon the assumption that the lights were not visible, it was s till the duty of the steamer not to take that decided course which she did take, in perfect ignorance, according to her own statement, as to which way the sailing vessel was proceed
ing ; that it was very imprudent, rash, and care
less navigation, and was the real cause of this collision ; and even assuming that the lights were placed in a wrong position, aDd therefore were not visible, their Lordships are of opinion, upon the particular circumstances of this case, that it would not be rig h t to come to the conclusion, that the in visibility of those lights could, in any legal sense of the term, and according to the judgments upon the question of contribution to neglierence, properly be said to have contributed to this col
lision.
Their Lordships have not failed to consider the point which was urged on behalf of the steamer, that the starboarding of the sailing vessel m ight have contributed to this collision.
Their Lordships are clearly of opinion upon the evidence that the starboarding was done at so late a period as to take it completely out of the cate
gory of any contribution to the collision ; indeed i f the starboarding had been at an earlier period i t is fatal to the contention of the steamer, that she was not apprised by seeing the green ligh t of the course which the other vessel was pur
suing ; because the dilemma is obvious ; if the starboarding took place at an earlier period, then the green light, which is proved to have been there, must have been «een ; i f the starboarding took place, as we are inclined to suppose, at a later period, then there was no contribution to the collision by that manœuvre at that late period in the history of the case.
Their Lordships w ill therefore humbly ad vise her Majesty that the decree of the judge of the Vice- Adm iralty Court should be varied so as to pro
nounce that the steamer is alono to blame for this collision. We th ink that the costs must follow this decision, aDd that the sailing vessel w ill be entitled to her costs both here and in the court below.
Decree varied accordingly.
Solicitor for the owners of the James G. Steven
son, Thomas Cooper.
Solicitors for the owners of the Bougainville, Cole, Cole, and Jackson.
Friday, April 25, 1873.
(Present: The R ight Hons. James W. Co l v il e, Sir Ba r n e s Pe a c o c k, S ir Mu n t a g u e Sm it h, and Sir Ro b e r t Co l l ie r.)
Th e Ad a; Th e Sa p p h o.
Collision—Crossing vessels— Taking pilot—Special, circumstances—Regulations for preventing Col
lisions at Sea—Arts. 14, 16, and 19.
Two vessels hearing down at the same time from different directions upon a well-known pilot station to take pilots on boa.rd are to be treated as crossing vessels within the meaning of Art. 14 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, i f their courses, i f continued, wouldintersect;
and the fact of their seeking pilots at the same place is not such a special circumstance within the meaning of Art. 19 as will take them out of the operation of the rule requiring that the ship which has the other on her own starboard hand shall keep out of the way of the other.
Where a vessel is approaching a pilot station to take a pilot, and has, as regards another vessel doing the same thing, the right to keep her course, she has a right to keep sufficient headway on her to give her steerage way, so as to get on her proper course after taking a pilot, and is not bound within Art. 16 to stop and reverse. The other vessel is bound to stop and let her take her pilot, or to take some other means of avoiding her.
Th is was an appeal from a decree of the H igh Court of Adm iralty in cross causes of collision, instituted by the owners of the steamship Sappho against the steamship Ada, and by the owners of the Ada against the Sappho. The place of collision was the mouth of the H um ber; both vessels were bound for H ull, the Ada coming from the south
east, and the Sappho from the north-east, and both were approaching a pilot cutter lyin g at anchor to pick up a pilot. The learned judge of the High Court of Adm iralty held that the vessels were to be treated as crossing vessels, under A rt. 14 of the Regulations for preventing Collisions at Sea, and that the fact of approaching a well-known pilot station was not such a special circumstance as took them out of the operation of the rule, and that the Ada having the Sappho on her cwn star
board hand, was bound to keep out of the way, and that the speed of the Sappho was not improper, and pronounced the Ada alone to blame.
The facts and judgment are set out in the re port of the case below: [ante vol. 1, p. 485;
27 L. T. Rep. N. S. 718.) From this decree the owners of the Ada appealed on the ground that the Ada having the rig h t to approach the pilot cutter to take a pilot, also had a rig h t to expect that the Sappho would be navigated as to avoid risk of collision under the special circumstances of the case.
Milward, Q.C. and W. G. F. Phillimore, for the appellunts.—The master of the Sappho, seeing a ship there for the lawful purpose of taking on board a pilot, was bound to allow that ship to approach for that purpose, and to take steps to avoid her whilst getting a pilot. I f the Ada was stopped and lying to for a pilot, the vessels were not crossing vessels w ithin the meaning of A rt.
14 of the Regulations for preventing Collisions at Sea. A t any rate such a state of things was a special circumstance w ithin A rt. 19, which ought
