REPORTS OF STAND All the Cases Argued and Determined by the Superior Courts RELATING TO MARITIME LAW. JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL. Reported by J. P. ASPINALL, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY OF ENGLAND. : April 28 and 29, 1875. (Present The Right Hons. Sir J. W. COLVILE, Collision-Lights-Duty to show light astern to following ship. It is primâ facie the duty of an overtaking ship to keep out of the way of a ship ahead of her, but if the latter ship sees another approaching her from a direction where her lights are not visible, and which vessel she has reason to suppose does not, in fact, whether keeping a good look-out or not, see her and is likely to come into collision with her, it is her duty to give some warning to the overtaking ship, not necessarily by exhibiting a light, but by some signal, such as the firing of a gun, the showing a light, or otherwise, which will indicate her whereabouts to the overtaking ship, and call the attention of that ship to the danger of a collision. (a) THIS was an appeal from the decree of the Right Hon. Sir Robert Phillimore. Knight, Judge of the High Court of Admiralty of England, in a cause of damage promoted in that court by the respondents, the owners of the brigantine Excel and of the cargo laden on board her; and also by the personal representatives of her late master, and others of the crew of the Excel, against the barque Anglo-Indian, of which the appellants were owners, for the recovery of damages arising out of a collision between the said two vessels. The Excel was a brigantine of 210 tons register,or thereabouts. The Anglo-Indian was a barque of 440 tons register. The collision happened about 2.30 a.m. on the 14th April 1874, in the Bay of Biscay, about fifty miles south by west of Cape Finisterre. The wind at the time was blowing a gale from the north-north-west, and the night was dark and cloudy, with passing showers. (a) See notes to The Earl Specer, post, p. 4.-Ed. [PRIV. CO. The case set up in the court below on behalf of the respondents, as stated in their petition, was, that the Excel, whilst in the prosecution of a voyage from Swansea to Barcelona, was hove to on the starboard tack, under double-reefed mainsail and mainstay sail, heading about west, and forereaching at the rate of between one and two knots an hour, making considerable lee way. The regulation lights were said to be duly placed and burning brightly at the time. Shortly before 2.15 a.m. a green light-which afterwards proved to be that of the Anglo-Indian-was observed astern of the Excel, and distant about 300 yards. The AngloIndian, it was alleged instead of keeping out of the way of the Excel, approached her in a direction which involved risk of collision, and exhibited her red light to those on board the Excel; and, as it was further alleged, although the Anglo-Indian was loudly hailed from the Excel, and a light was exhibited over the stern of the Excel, the AngloIndian ran into and struck the Excel upon the stern, and did her so much damage that she shortly afterwards foundered and was lost, together with her cargo and everything then on board her. Upon this occasion the master was unfortunately drowned. The case on the part of the appellants was, that on the occasion in question the Anglo-Indian. bound from London to Jamaica, was close-hauled on the starboard tack under reefed upper topsails, foresail, and foretopmast staysail, heading about west, and making about five knots an hour. Her proper regulation lights were duly exhibited and burning brightly, and a good look-out was being kept. Under these circumstances, about 2.30 a.m., on the 14th April, the hull of the Excel was made out a very short distance ahead and a little on the starboard bow of the Anglo-Indian. The helm of the Anglo-Indian was thereupon immediately put hard astarboard, but it was impossible to avoid a collision, and the stem of the Anglo-Indian struck the Excel on the port side of her stern. The respondents alleged that the collision was caused by the negligence of those on board the Anglo-Indian, and by reason of their neglect to keep a proper look-out and to keep the AngloIndian out of the way of the Excel. The appellants denied the statements of the respondents that a light was exhibited over the stern of the Excel and that the Anglo-Indian was B |