Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Ꭱ E Ꮲ 0 Ꭱ Ꭲ

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

JAMES P. ASPINALL, Barrister-at-Law.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

LONDON: HORACE Cox, 10, WELLINGTON STREET, STRAND, W.C.

1878.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

INDEX

TO

NAMES OF THE CASES

REPORTED IN THIS VOLUME.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

ADAMS v. HALL ...................

............. page 496

Daioz, THE....

***.....................page 477

ADRIATIC, THE ...........

DE BUSSCHE V. ALT ..................

........... 584

ALLISON V. THE BRISTOL MARINE INSURANCE DE GARTEIG v. THE MERSEY DOCKS AND HAR-

COMPANY ................................................

BOUR BOARD ..........

500

ALLKINS AND ANOTHER V. JUPE, PEMBROKE,

DELTA, THE ........................

256

OPPENHEIM. AND CHOISY

449 DOLPHIN, THE ..................

AMSTEL, THE ......

488 DOOLAN v. THE MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANY ... 485

ANDERSON AND OTHERS V. MORICE ............ 31,

290

DUDGEON v. PEMBROKE

............ 101, 393

ANEROID, THE

ANGLO-INDIAN, THE.......................................

EARL OF ECLINTON, THE v. NORMAN AND

ANNA, THE.........

237 ANOTHER

ANNANDALE, THE...........

..... 383, 489, 504

EARL SPENCER, THE ....................................

ARTHUR AVERAGE ASSOCIATION, Re (DE WINTON

EASTERN BELLE, THE.

AND Co.'s CASE)..................

............. 245 EASTMAN v. HARRY ...........

ATWOOD (app.) v. CASE (resp.) ........ ...............

EDWARDS v. THE ABERAYRON MUTUAL SHIP IN.

AUSTRALASIAN INSURANCE COMPANY, THE (apps.),

SURANCE SOCIETY (LIMITED) ........

v. WILLIAM TOWNLEY JACKSON (resp.) ............

ELLIS AND Co. v. GENERAL STEAM NAVIGATION

AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURAL COMPANY, THE v.

COMPANY (LIMITED).............

581

SAUNDERS ......

ELMORE AND ANOTHER v. HUNTER ...............

EMMA, THE.........

218

BANDA AND KIRWEE BOOTY ...........

69 ENGLISHMAN, THE ...

BARING v. STANTON.........

.............. 246, 294 EVANGELISTRIA, THE .....

264

BARROW, Ex parte ; Re WORSDELL ................... 387 EVANS v. BULLOCK AND OTHERS

552

BARWICK v. BURNYEAT, BROWN AND COMPANY... 376 EXPERT, THE............

381

BAYLEY AND OTHERS V. CHADWICK ............ 453, 543

BELGIC, THE ......

348 Falcon, THE ...........

............... 566

BELLEROPHON, H. M. S. .................................

58 FISHER V. SMITH .................................... 211, 492

BIOLA, THE ..........

125 FRANCONIA, THE .............................. 295, 415, 435

BLESSING, THE ..........................................

561

FRENCH AND ANOTHER v. GERBER AND OTHERS ... 403

BLISS v. GOMEZ................

FRENCH AND SOns v. NEWGRASS AND COMPANY... 574

BORROWMAN AND OTHERS v. DRAYTON .........

FYENOORD, THE

BOWES AND OTHERS v. SHAND AND OTHERS

BOYNE, THE .........

332 GABARRON AND . ANOTHER V. KREEFT ; KREEFT

BRESLAUER V. BARWICK ..

355 v. THOMPSON .........

BRIDGWATER, THE

506 GAMBLES AAD OTHERS v. "THE OCEAN MARINE

INSURANCE COMPANY OF BOMBAY ............ 92, 120

CADIZ, THE ...............................

332 GENERAL BIRCH, THE.

99

CARGO ex SCHILLER ........

............................ 226, 439 GENERAL STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY V. LON.

CARGO ex WOOSUNG ................................. 50, 239

DON AND EDINBURGH SHIPPING COMPANY ......

CARLOTTA, THE BARQUE .................... ........

456

GIANNIBANTA, THE ....................................

CARNARVON CASTLE, THE

GLEANER, THE .......

CAROLINA, THE .............

CATTARINA CHIAZZARO, THE ...........

HANNA, THĘ .............,

503

CITY OF BERLIN, THE ...............

HELVETIA, THE..........

...........

CITY OF BROOKLYN, THE ..

230 HICKOX AND ANOTHER V. ADAMS AND ANOTHER... 142

CITY OF CAMBRIDGE, THE ............

307 HINGSTON V. WENDT

CLUTHA, THE.......

225 HOPPER v. BURNESS AND OTHERS ...

CLYDE NAVIGATION COMPANY V. BARCLAY AND HORLOCK, THE ..........

421

OTHERS

HUTCHINSON v. GLOVER ........

120

COHEN V. DAVIDSON ............

COHN v. THE SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY COM INNISFAIL, THE ..........

..................

PANY ......

COMMERCIAL STEAMSHIP COMPANY v. BOULTON JAMES ARMSTRONG, THE ............

AND ANOTHER............

111

JENNIE S. BAKER, THE

42

CORINNA, THE ..........

307 JOHN BOYNE, THE ....

341

CORRIE 2. COULTHARD.........

.....................546n JONES BROTHERS, THE.........

478

CREEN V. WRIGHT

JONES V. ADAMSON AND ANOTHER ..........

................ 254

253

CUNNINGHAM V. DUNN AND ANOTHER

595 JULIA FISHER, THE .........

380

CYBELE, THE..........

............ 478, 532 JULINA, THE ...................

CYNTHIA, THE ......

............ 378 | JUNO THE.. ......

217

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

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

163

RIVER WEAR COMMISSIONERS, THB v. ADAMSON
AND OTHERS

page 242, 521 ROBINSON V. PRICE AND OTHERS

321, 407 ROSARIO, THE

334 ROWENA, THE

506

[blocks in formation]

MACKENZIE V. WAITWORTH.

81 MARIE CONSTANCE, THE..

505 MAUDE, THE

338 MCMILLAN AND SON v. LIVERPOOL AND TEXAS

STEAMSHIP COMPANY (LIMITED) AND C. GRIM.
SHAW AND Co

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

95, 191

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.

166, 342

[blocks in formation]

THIS AND OTHERS v. BYERS
THOMAS LEA, THE....
THRIFT v. YOULE
TRANSIT, THE
TULLY V. HOWLING
TURNBULL AND OTHERS v. JANSON
Two BROTHERS, THE

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

411

[blocks in formation]
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

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

562

QUEEN'S AVERAGE ASSOCIATION, Re; Ex parte
LYNES ....

576

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....

50, 239

RAFFAELLUCCIA, THE ....

505 RANKEN V. ALFARO

309 RIO GRANDE DO SUL STEAMSHIP COMPANY (LIMITED), Re THE

424

[blocks in formation]

.........

OF

1

All the Cases Argurd and Determined by the Superior Courts

RELATING TO

0 3 9 3 9 9 7 3

MARITIME LAW.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

56 59 19

23 61

16 37

13

571

61

99

361 500

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE The case set up in the court below on behalf of
PRIVY COUNCIL.

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 north-north-west, and the night was dark and
cloudy, with passing showers.

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.

B

230 285 308

396 168

342

536 598 239

73

« AnteriorContinuar »