« AnteriorContinuar »
Ꭱ E Ꮲ 0 Ꭱ Ꭲ
JAMES P. ASPINALL, Barrister-at-Law.
LONDON: HORACE Cox, 10, WELLINGTON STREET, STRAND, W.C.
NAMES OF THE CASES
REPORTED IN THIS VOLUME.
NAMES OP CARES.
KEITH AND ANOTHER v. BURROWS AND ANOTHER
page 280, 427, 481 KLEINWORT AND OTHERS v. THE CASA MARITIMA OF GENOA
358 KOPITOFF v. WILSON
RIVER WEAR COMMISSIONERS, THB v. ADAMSON
page 242, 521 ROBINSON V. PRICE AND OTHERS
321, 407 ROSARIO, THE
334 ROWENA, THE
MACKENZIE V. WAITWORTH.
81 MARIE CONSTANCE, THE..
505 MAUDE, THE
338 MCMILLAN AND SON v. LIVERPOOL AND TEXAS
STEAMSHIP COMPANY (LIMITED) AND C. GRIM.
579 MEDINA, THE
219, 305 MEIKLEREID (app.) v. WEST (resp.)
129 METCALFE BRITANNIA IRONWORKS Com. PANY
313, 407 MEYER AND OTHERS V. RALLI AND OTHERS 324 MINTO, Ex parte
323 MIRABITA V. THE IMPERIAL OTTOMAN BANK.. 591 OORE V. HARRIS
173 MORICE V. ANDERSON AND OTHERS...
290 MORRIS v. LEVISON
171 MOULD AND ANOTHER V. ANDREWS AND OTHERS 329 M. MOXHAM, THE
ST. OLAF, THE
268, 341 SANGUINETTI v. THE PACIFIC STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY
300 SARAH, THE
542 SARPEDON, SPECIE, ex .....
509 SAUNDERS AND ANOTHER V. BARING AND ANOTHER 133 SCEPTRE, THE
269 SCHILLER, CARGO ex
226, 439 SCHUSTER AND OTHERS v. FLETCHER..
577 SCRUTTON v. CHILDS
373 SECRET, THE
337 SFACTORIA, THE
271 SHAND AND OTHERS v. BOWES AND OTHERS... 208, 367 SHEPHERD AND OTHERS v. KOTTGEN AND OTHERS 544 SIMPSON AND OTHERS v. THOMPSON AND OTHERS 567 SISTERS, THE...
122, 224 SKIBLANDER, THE...
556 SMITH AND OTHERS Re
259 SPECIE ex SARPEDON
509 SPINDRIFT, THE
42 STANTON v. RICHARDSON....
23 STAR OF INDIA, THE
261 STEEL AND ANOTHER V. THE STATE LINE STEAM. SHIP COMPANY
516 STEEL v. LESTER AND LILEE
537 STONE AND OTHERS v. OCEAN MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY OF GOTHENBURG
152 STOREY Ex parte
549 STRATHNAVER, THE
113 STRIBLEY v. IMPERIAL MARINE INSURANCE COM. PANY
134 SWALLOW, THE
371 SWANSEA SHIPPING COMPANY (LIMITED) v. Dun. CAN FOX AND Co.
THIS AND OTHERS v. BYERS
OOG AND ANOTHER V. SHUTER
77 OMOA AND CLELAND COAL AND IRON COMPANY, THE, v. HUNTLEY
501 OPPENHEIM v. FRASER..
146 OQUENDO, THE
558 ORIGINAL HARTLEPOOL COLLERIES COMPANY (LIMITED) v. GIBB
PALMER v. ZARIFI BROTHERS
540 PARANA, THE......
220, 399 PEARSON v. THE COMMERCIAL UNION ASSURANCE COMPANY...
275 PECKFORTON ILE, THE
511, 533 PETER DER GROSSE, THE..
195 PHILOTAXE, THE
512 POLYMEDE, THE
124 PRINCETON, THE
QUEEN'S AVERAGE ASSOCIATION, Re; Ex parte
Watson, Ex parte; Re LOVE..
396 WETTERHORN, THE
168 WHITWORTH AND Co., Re; Ex parte BLACKBURN ; Eæparte GIBBS AND Co.
74 WILLIAMS AND OTHERS v. THE NORTH CHINA INSURANCE COMPANY
342 WILSON AND ANOTHER v. GENERAL SCREW COL. LIERY COMPANY
536 WINGATE, BIRRELL, AND Co., v. FOSTER
598 WOOSUNG, CARGO ex....
RAFFAELLUCCIA, THE ....
505 RANKEN V. ALFARO
309 RIO GRANDE DO SUL STEAMSHIP COMPANY (LIMITED), Re THE
All the Cases Argurd and Determined by the Superior Courts
0 3 9 3 9 9 7 3
56 59 19
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE The case set up in the court below on behalf of
the respondents, as stated in their petition, was, Reported by J. P. ASPINALL, Esq., Barrister-at-Law.
that the Excel,whilst in the prosecution of a voyaga
from Swansea to Barcelona, was hove to on the ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY
starboard tack, under double-reefed mainsail and OF ENGLAND
mainstay sail, heading about west, and forereaching
at the rate of between one and two knots an hour, April 28 and 29, 1875.
making considerable lee way. The regulation (Present: The Right Hons. Sir J. W. COLVILE, lights were said to be duly placed and burning Sir Barnes Peacock, Sir MONTAGUE SMITH, Sir
brightly at the time. Shortly before 2.15 a.m. a R. P. COLLIER, and Sir H. S. KEATING.)
green light-which afterwards proved to be that of
the Anglo-Indian-was observed astern of the THE ANGLO-INDIAN.
Excel, and distant about 300 yards. The Anglo
Indian, it was alleged instead of keeping out of Collision-Lights-Duty to show light aslern to
the way of the Excel, approached her in a direction following ship.
which involved risk of collision, and exhibited her It is primâ facie the duty of an overtaking ship to
red light to those on board the Excel; and, as it keep out of the way of a ship ahead of her, but if
was further alleged, although the Anglo-Indian the latter ship sees another approaching her from
was loudly hailed from the Excel, and a light was a direction where her lights are not visible, and
exhibited over the stern of the Excel, the Anglowhich vessel she has reason to suppose does not, in
Indian ran into and struck the Excel upon the fact, whether keeping a good look-out or not, see
stern, and did her so much damage that she shortly her and is likely to come into collision with
afterwards foundered and was lost, together with her, it is her duty to give some warning to the
her cargo and everything then on board her. overtaking ship, not necessarily by exhibiting a
Upon this occasion the master was unfortunately light, but by some signal, such as the firing of a
drowned. gun, the showing a light, or otherwise, which will
The case on the part of the appellants was, that indicale her whereabouts to the overtaking ship,
on the occasion in question the Anglo-Indian, and call the attention of that ship to the danger bound from London to Jamaica, was close-hauled of a collision. (a)
on the starboard tack under reefed upper topsails, This was an appeal from the decree of the Right
foresail, and foretopmast staysail, heading about Hon. Sir Robert Phillimore. Knight, Judge of the
west, and making about five knots an hour. Her High Court of Admiralty of England, in a cause
proper regulation lights were duly exhibited and of damage promoted in that court by the respon
burning brightly, and a good look-out was being dents, the owners of the brigantine Excel and of
kept. the cargo laden on board her; and also by the
Under these circumstances, about 2.30 a.m., on personal representatives of her late master, and
the 14th April, the hull of the Excel was made out others of the crew of the Excel, against the barque
a very short distance ahead and a little on the Anglo-Indian, of which the appellants were owners, starboard bow of the Anglo-Indian. The helm of for the recovery of damages arising out of a colli
the Anglo-Indian was thereupon immediately put sion between the said two vessels.
hard astarboard, but it was impossible to avoid a The Excel was a brigantine of 210 tons register,or
collision, and the stem of the Anglo-Indian struck thereabouts. The Anglo-Indian was a barque of the Excel on the port side of her stern. 440 tons register,
The respondents alleged that the collision was The collision happened about 2.30 a.m. on the 14th April 1874, in the Bay of Biscay, about fifty
caused by the negligence of those on board the miles south by west of Cape Finisterre.
Anglo-Indian, and by reason of their neglect to The wind at the time was blowing a gale from
keep a proper look-out and to keep the Anglo
Indian out of the way of the Excel.
The appellants denied the statements of the
respondents that a light was exhibited over the (a) See notes to The Earl Specer, post, p. 4.-ED.
stern of the Excel and that the Anglo-Indian was VOL. III., N.S.
230 285 308
536 598 239