The SUBJECTS OF CASES. Cassa ...page 358 by a statement that such bond is necessary. (P.C.) Kleinwort and others v. Marittima of Genoa 2. Communication with owners of cargo-Duty to supply funds.-The mere receipt by the owners of the cargo of general information that the ship is damaged and in need of repairs, does not impose upon them the duty of supplying money for such repairs without further information. The Onward (ante, vol. 1, p. 540; 38 L. T. Rep. N. S. 206; L. Rep. 4 A. & E. 38) affirmed and followed. (P.C.) Kleinwort and others v. The Cassa Marittima of Genoa 3. Practice-Original bond to be produced. In all bottomry actions it is necessary that the original of the bond should be produced at the hearing. (Adm.) The Rowena........ See Wages, No. 7. BRITISH SHIP. See National Character-Sale of Ship, No. 4. BROKERS. See Marine Insurance, Nos. 1, 2, 4. CARGO. See Carriage of Goods, Nos. 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15-Charter-party, Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5—Consignor and Consignee, Nos. 1, 2-Marine Insurance, Nos. 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 18, 22, 23, 26-Mortgage, No. 6Sale of Goods-Salvage, Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16, 19. CARRIAGE OF GOODS. 358 506 198 1. Act of God-Definition of.-A loss occasioned by 4. Bill of lading-Exceptions-Rats.-A shipowner 6. Bill of lading-Exceptions-Warranty of sea- v. The State Line Steamship Company 7. Bill of lading-Exceptions-Warranty of seaworthiness-Finding of jury.—When goods are 198 456 357 516 shipped under a bill of lading containing an exception of perils of the seas, however caused," during the voyage, the goods are damaged by salt water getting to the cargo through a port negli. gently fastened by one of the crew, and the jury find to that effect, and no more, such finding is not enough to justify a verdict for the shipowner, as there must be a finding that the ship was seaworthy on leaving the port of loading. (H. of L.) Steel and another v. The State Line Steamship Company. ...page 516 8. Damage to cargo-Bill of lading-" Good order and condition-" Weight, contents, and value unknown"-Onus of proof.—A master signing a bill of lading in which it is stated that the goods were shipped in good order and condition," but which contains a memorandum of "weight, contents, and value unknown," admits that, as far as can be seen externally, the goods are shipped in good condition, and if they arrive damaged the onus lies upon the shipowner to excuse himself from the damage. The Peter der Grosse 195 9. Damage to cargo-Charter-party-Vessel to be cleaned-Mode of cleaning-Evidence.-Where by a charter-party it is provided that "it is understood that the vessel is now bound to Barcelona with a cargo of petroleum in barrels; vessel to be cleaned as customary previous to loading homeward cargo," and the homeward cargo is damaged by petroleum, the fact that other vessels can be and are cleansed so that their cargoes show no signs of petroleum damage, is evidence to show that the vessel is not properly cleansed. (Am. Rep.) The Barque Carlotta; Bliss v. Gomer 430 10. Damage to cargo-Excepted perils-Place of stowage.-Damage to cargo occasioned by salt water does not come within the excepted perils when by reason of the place in which it is stowed it it exceptionally liable to such damage in severe weather. (Adm.) The Oquendo 5.58 11. Damage to cargo-Cesser of liability clauseGoverning law.-Where by a bill of lading it is agreed that certain goods are "to be delivered from the ship's deck, where the ship's responsi bility shall cease, at the port of M. unto the G. Railway Company, and by them forwarded to T., and at the aforesaid station delivered to A... No damage that can be insured against will be paid for, nor will any claim whatever be admitted unless made before the goods are removed," and the goods are damaged, no claim can be made unless the damage is discovered before removal from the station at T., even if the damage is latent; and this ruling is applicable in Canada, although differing from French and Canadian law, if the ship and bill of lading are English. (P.C.) Moore v. Harris 12. Damages-Measure-Late delivery-Carriage by sea-Loss of market.-Where, through the negligence of a carrier by sea, goods carried by him are not delivered in a reasonable time, the owner of the goods or assignee of the bill of lading for the goods is not entitled to recover, as damages from the shipowner, the difference between the market value of the goods when they ought to have been delivered and the market value when they actually were delivered. (Ct. of App., reversing Adm.) The Parana 13. Damages Measure-Interest. Semble, the measure of damages recoverable in such a case is interest at the ordinary commercial rate on the value of the goods for the period of the delay in delivery. (Ct. of App.) Id. 14. Demurrage-Delay in discharging-Indorsees of bill of lading-Evidence of liability.—Where goods are carried under charter-party and bill of 173 399 399 SUBJECTS OF CASES. lading, by which they are to be taken from alongside by the consignee as they come to hand in discharging, the facts-that indorsees of the bill of lading have told the shipowner that they had the cargo and would pay the freight, that they had been remonstrated with for delay in discharging, and had been told that there would be a claim for demurrage without their repudiating their liability-are evidence to show that such indorsees took under the provisions of the bill of lading, and are liable for unreasonable delay. (C. P. Div.) Palmer v. Zarifi Brothers. page 540 15. Freight Charter-party Delivery short of destination-Non-acceptance by consignees.Where by a charter-party it is agreed that a steamship shall load a cargo at an English port and proceed to Taganrog, in the Sea of Azov, or so near thereto as she might safely get, and deliver the same afloat at an agreed rate of freight; and the ship laden arrives at Kertsch and then finds the Sea of Azov frozen over, and not being able to reach Taganrog before April, discharges her cargo at the custom house at Kertsch, notwithstanding the protests of the consignees, and the consignees afterwards at their own expense carry the cargo on to its destination, the shipowner does not perform his contract to deliver under the charter-party, and the consignees not accepting short of the destination, he has no right to freight either under the charter-party or pro ratâ itineris. (Ct. of App., affirming Q.B.) Metcalfe v. Britannia Ironworks Company...... 313, 407 16. Freight-Sale of goods at intermediate portEnforced loan-Indemnity-Pro ratâ freight.Where a master carrying goods under charter sells part at an intermediate port for necessary repairs, the owners of the goods may either treat the money thereby obtained as a forced loan, or may claim an indemnity from the shipowner for the amount that would have been obtained at the port of destination; and if they elect to treat it as an enforced loan, the shipowner has no claim for pro ratâ freight; hence, if the goods sold fetch more than they would have done at the port of destination, and the amount realised is paid over to the owner of cargo on demand made by them, upon the figures stated in an average statement, which made no allowance for freight to the shipowners, the latter cannot recover this pro ratâ freight in respect of the cargo sold. (C.P. Div.) Hopper v. Burness and others 17. Passengers' luggage-Railway and Canal Traffic Act-Reasonable condition-Special contract.The luggage of a passenger by railway comes within sect. 7 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c 31), fixing the liability of railway companies for the loss of or injury to any articles, goods, or things in the receiving, forwarding, or delivering thereof," and no condition therefore limiting the company's liability in respect of such luggage is binding, unless it be a "just and reasonable one and be embodied in a special contract, signed by the passengers or the person delivering such luggage to the company for carriage. (Ex. Div.) Cohen v. The South-Eastern Railway Company 18. Passengers' luggage-Railway and Canal Traffic Act-Regulation of Railways Act-Railway company owning steamships.-By sect. 16 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 119), sect. 7 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act is incorporated, and its provisions extended and made applicable to luggage conveyed by railway companies on board steam vessels used 149 248 by them for the purpose of carrying on a communication between any towns or ports. Stewart v. The London and North-Western Railway Company (19 L. T. Rep. N. S. 302) discussed and distinguished. (Ex. Div.) Cohen v. The SouthEastern Railway Company ...page 248 485 19. Practice Damage to cargo-Particulars.—In a cause of damage to cargo the court (Admiralty Division), contrary to the practice of the High Court of Admiralty, made an order for particulars of the plaintiff's claim, so as to enable the defendant to pay into court in respect of those items of the claim for which he was prepared to admit liability. (Adm. Div.) The Wetterhorn... 168 20. Railway and Canal Traffic Act Railway company-Steamships hired-Reasonable stipu lations-Sea transit.-Where a railway company, having no steamships of their own, make a contract with a person to carry goods of that person by a route which involves a sea transit, and procure a steamship company to carry the goods over the sea transit for them, such contract is, as far as regards the sea transit, governed by the Railway and Canal Traffic Act 1854, sect. 7, and any stipulation in it which is unreasonable is void, and hence the railway company cannot exempt themselves from the negligence of servants of the steamship company during the sea transit. (H. of L.) Doolan v. The Midland Railway Company 21. Stevedore - Charter and sub-charter Liability of shipowner.-Where a ship is chartered to carry goods under a charter-party containing a clause by which "the stevedore is to be nominated by the charterer but to be under the control of the captain and paid by the owners," and the charterer sub-charters the ship by a charterparty containing a similar clause, and the subcharterer appoints the stevedore, who acts under the personal directions of the master and owner, the stevedore can recover from the shipowner the price of his labour, and is not deprived of his right by sending in his account to the subcharterer by whom he is named, such account being addressed to "captain and owners." (Ct. of App.) Eastman v. Harry 22. Warranty of seaworthiness-Shipowner's contract. In whatever way a contract for the conveyance of merchandise be made, if there is no agreement to the contrary, the shipowner is by the nature of the contract impliedly and necessarily held to warrant that the ship is good and in a condition to perform the voyage then about to be undertaken, that is to say, that she is seaworthy or fit to meet and undergo the perils of the sea and other incidental risks to which she must of necessity be exposed in the course of the voyage. (Q. B. Div.) Kopitoff v. Wilson......... 163 23. Warranty of seaworthiness Carriage of armour plates-Duty of shipowner.-Where a shipowner agrees to carry armour plates by his ship, and they are stowed by his servants, and in rough weather break loose and go through the ship and sink her and are lost, it is a proper direction, in an action to recover their loss, to tell the jury that a shipowner warrants the fitness of his ship when she sails, and it is proper to ask them whether she was (as regards the plates carried) reasonably fit to encounter the ordinary perils of the voyage agreed upon. (Q. B. Div.) Kopitoff v. Wilson CARRIER. See Carriage of Goods. CERTIFICATE OF MASTER. See Discipline, No. 2. 117 163 CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRY. See Master, Nos. 1, 2. CESSER OF LIABILITY. See Charter-party, Nos. 16, 17, 18, 19. CHARTERED FREIGHT. See Marine Insurance, Nos. 10, 11, 12. CHARTERERS. SUBJECTS OF CASES. See Carriage of Goods, No. 21-Charter-partyPractice, No. 20-Salvage, Nos. 18, 33-Wages, No. 1. CHARTER-PARTY. 1. Agent-Owner-Evidence of liability.-Where a charter-party is made between charterers and persons who sign "for owners of the ship, correspondence between the charterers and such persons is admissible in evidence to show that such persons are themselves the owners and not mere agents, and are liable under the charterparty. (C. P. Div.) Adams v. Hall..... ..page 496 2. Cargo-Construction-Full and complete cargo. - Where a charterer agrees to load "a full and complete cargo, say about 1100 tons," these are words of contract, not expectation; and he does not contract to load any vessel that may be sent to her full capacity, but only to load as fully as can be done by providing about 1100 tons; hence he must load up to 1100 tons, but he need not fill the ship. (C. P. Div.) Morris v. Levison 171 3. Construction-Choice of different goods-Option of charterer-Reasonableness.-A charter-party containing the words "the ship to load the following cargo of lawful merchandise. full and complete cargo of sugar in bags, hemp, or compressed bales, and (or) measurement goods not exceeding what the vessel can reasonably stow and carry over and above her tackles," gives the charterer the option in what form he will tender the cargo, provided he tenders some or all of the goods named and no others, and does not present a cargo of any kind, or of all kinds together, which is unreasonable as regards the nature of the goods he presents. (H. of L.) Stanton v. Richardson .... .; a 4. Construction-Obligation of shipowner-Seaworthiness.-A shipowner entering into a charterparty to carry such a cargo is bound to provide a ship which is reasonably suited to carry that particular cargo and is staunch and seaworthy for the purposes of that cargo, and must be kept so. Hence, if the charter-party allow wet sugar to be loaded and the ship is unfit to receive it, and her pumps become clogged by the moisture from the cargo, and she cannot be made fit to carry the cargo or seaworthy for that cargo in a reasonable time, the charterer may throw up the charterparty. (H. of L.) Id..... 5. Contract-Parties-Mistake-Name not struck out-Reforming contract.-Where a charterer sues on a charter-party and the shipowners answer that the charter-party was made between the defendant and a third party, not the plaintiff, it is a good reply to plead that the charter-party is made upon a printed form ordinarily used by and containing the name of the third party as a party thereto, and that the plaintiff and defendant had signed the document inadvertently omitting to alter or strike out the name of the third party. There is no necessity to reform the charter-party, as upon the facts being shown the court will treat it as reformed. (C. P. Div.) Breslauer v. Barwick 6. Contract Specified time-Right of cancellation. -The charterer of a vessel chartered for a speci 23 23 23 355 - page 368 fied time commencing on a named day who can. not have the vessel on the day agreed on, is entitled to cancel the charter. (Ct. of App.) Tully v. Howling 7. Damages - Action by shipowner Breach of charter-party against charterer-Safe port-Costs of action brought by consignee.—In an action by a shipowner against a charterer for breach of contract in not naming a safe port to unload according to charter-party, the extra costs of an action brought by the consignee against the master for not unloading at the port named, and successfully contested by the master, are not (the taxed costs having been recovered from the consignee) recoverable as damages against the charterer, unless he has expressly authorised the shipowner to incur the costs on his behalf. (C. P. Div.) Evans v. Bullock and others........ 552 8. Damages-Action by shipowner against charterer -Safe port-Port dues.-But in such case the shipowner is entitled to recover as damages the difference between the port dues at the port named and the port dues he actually paid (if they are in excess of the former) at the port where he discharged the cargo, and no more, under this head. (C. P. Div.) Evans v. Bullock and others. 552 9. Damages-Action by shipowner against charterer -Safe port-Demurrage-Insurance.-Where the shipowner has in such a case recovered for demurrage in respect of the delay so occasioned, he cannot recover for the cost of insurance from the port named to port of actual discharge (even if he could in any event), as such insurance, being an ordinary expense of the shipowner, must taken to be included in the demurrage recovered. (C.P. Div.) Evans v. Bullock and others 10. Demurrage-Detention-Default of charterers -Bad weather.-Where a ship, by the default of the charterers, is prevented from loading accord. ing to the charter-party " in her regular turn," and is in consequence delayed several days, and during such days bad weather comes on so that she is still further delayed, the charterers are responsible in damages as demurrage for the detention of the ship during the bad weather as well as for the detention during the previous days consequent upon the default. (Ex. Div.) Jones v. Adamson and another 552 253 11. Demurrage-Detention at port of loading-Time of loading not fixed-Charterer's liability.-The word demurrage" in a charter-party fixing the time for discharge and giving a lien for demur. rage, does not include detention at the port of loading, unless the time of loading is fixed by or can be gathered from the charter-party; and if the charter-party contains a clause exempting the charterer from liability on the completion of the loading no action will afterwards lie in respect of such detention. (Ex.) Lockhart v. 8 Falk......... 12. Demurrage-Lay days-Sundays-Construction. -In a charter-party by which it is agreed "the loading and discharging of the said ship to be as fast as the steamer can work, but a minimum of seven days to be allowed the charterers, and ten days on demurrage over and above the said lying days at 251. per day," "lying days" mean working days, and do not include Sundays. (Q.B.) Com mercial Steamship Company v. Boulton and another 13. Demurrage-Part of day.-A ship detained part of a day on demurrage is entitled to be paid for the whole of the day. (Q.B.) Id. 14. Demurrage-Lay days-Bad weather-Risk of charterer.—Where by a charter-party a given number of days is allowed to a charterer for un 111 111 SUBJECTS OF CASES. loading, a contract is implied on his part that from the time when the ship is at the usual place of discharge he will take the risk of any ordinary vicissitudes, including bad weather, which may occur to prevent his releasing the ship at the expiration of the lay days. (Q.B. Div.) Thiis and others v. Byers....page 147 15. Demurrage-Loading—"Stiffening"-Construction. Where a charter-party provides that a ship is 46 to be loaded at the average rate of 75 tons per clear working day. Stiffening coal, if required, to be supplied at ship's expense at the rate of 40 tons per clear working day after written notice is given to the charterer's agent of its being required, but all days on which stiffening coal is taken on board, or the ship is detained for the same, to be excluded in the computation of the said working days allowed for loading;" the putting stiffening coal on board is "loading" within the charter-party, and demurrage is payable under a demurrage clause in respect of the neglect to supply stiffening coal, thus causing a detention of the ship. (Ct. of App.) Sanguinetti v. The Pacific Steam Navigation Company ............... 16. Liability of charterer to cease unloadingDemurrage-Lien-Exemption of charterer.-But where the charter-party further provides that the master is "to have a lien on the cargo for all freight and demurrage due under this agreement," and that "all liability of the charterers shall cease as soon as the cargo is on board," the liability of the charterer for such demurrage ceases on the completion of the loading, and the shipowner's only remedy is by means of the master's lien. (Ct. of App.) Sanguinetti v. Pacific Steam Navigation Company 17. Liability of charterer to cease on loadingDetention-Lien for freight, demurrage, &c.— Exemption-Effect of.-Where a charter-party contains the words, "This charter being concluded by the said A. and B. for and on behalf of another party, it is agreed that all liability of the former shall cease as soon as the cargo is shipped, loading excepted, the owners and master of the vessel agreeing to rest solely on their lien on the cargo for freight, demurrage, and all other claims, which lien it is hereby agreed they shall have; "the charterer is liable for all undue detention before the cargo is completely shipped, whether the shipowner has a lien on the cargo therefor or not. (Q. B. Div.) Lister v. Van Haansbergen 18. Liability of charterers to cease on loadingLien-Exemption-Effect of.-A charter-party containing the clause, "The liability of the charterers to cease as soon as the cargo is on board, provided the same is worth the freight at the port of discharge, but the owners of the ship to have an absolute lien on the cargo for all freight, dead freight, and demurrage, which they shall be bound to exercise," exempts the charterers from all liability after the ship is loaded even in respect of breach of contract for which the shipowner's lien would give no remedy. (Ct. of App.) French and another v. Gerber and others 19. Liability of charterer to cease on loadingCharterers also consignees - Bill of lading Exemption.-Where a charter-party provides for the cesser of liability of the charterers on loading and payment of advance freight at the port of shipment, and the bills of lading make the cargo deliverable "unto order or assigns, he or they paying freight and other conditions as per charter-party," and the cargo in loaded, and 300 300 145 403 advances paid, and the charterers become consignees also, they are nevertheless exempted from the payment of freight, the bill of lading making no new contract. (P. C. Div.) Barwick v. Burnyeat, Brown, and Co. ..page 376 20. Lighterage-Contract-"Merchant's risk and expenses "" Cargo at A. as customary Custom.-Where a charter-party stipulates that a ship shall load a full cargo at one of several ports, including A., the cargo "to be brought 66 to, and taken from alongside at merchants' risk and expense," and these words are in print, and the charter-party further contains the words cargo at A. as customary' in writing, the latter words work an exception to the former, and if the custom at A. is for the shipowner to repay to the charterer any reasonable lighterage paid by him, the charterer can recover the same from the shipowner. (Q.B. Div.) Scrutton v. Childs 21. Loading-Breach of charter-Foreign Government-Liability of shipowners.-Where a charterparty provides that a ship shall, after loading Idead weight at a port, proceed to a first-class Spanish port where "a steamer with cargo from a foreign port can load at by Spanish law without risk of detention by Customs authorities," and the ship having, as known to the charterer when making the charter-party, loaded Government stores at the first port, is ordered to Valencia, and is there unable to load, by Spanish regulations prohibiting ships carrying stores from loading; the shipowner commits no breach of charter in not loading, and the charterer cannot recover against him. (Ct. of App.) Cunning. ham v. Dunn and another 373 595 22. Seaworthiness-Warranty-Time of sailing.— The warranty of seaworthiness implied in a charter-party attaches at the time of the ship's sailing on her voyage and is not exhausted on her proceeding in a seaworthy condition to her loading berth. (Q. B. Div.) Cohn v. Davison... 374 23. Shipowner-Charterer-Demise of ship-Liability of shipowner-Terms of contract.-Where a shipowner lets his ship to a charterer under a charter-party, by which the shipowner is to provide a full crew and pay them their wages, and to find all ship's and engine stores, and the charterer is to find coals for the engines, and to have the direction of the ship for the purposes of trading between certain ports, the shipowner remains responsible for the negligence of the crew who are his servants. (C. P. Div.) The Omoa and Cleland Coal and Iron Company v. Huntley 501 24. Warranty of class-Time-Duration-Insurance on cargo.-Where a charter-party describes a ship as newly classed "A 14, record of American and Foreign Shipping Book," such description is only a warranty that she is so classed at the time of the making of the charter-party, but is not a warranty that she is rightly or will continue so classed. Hence, if shortly after the making of the charter-party the certificate of classification is cancelled and the charterers cannot insure on cargo, there is no action for breach of charter-party against the shipowner. (Ct. of App.) French and Sons v. Newgass and Co....... 574 See Carriage of Goods, Nos. 15, 21-Collision, No. 7-Marine Insurance, Nos. 10, 12-Wages, No. 1. COLLISION. 1. Assistance to injured vessels-Merchant Shipping Act 1873.-The Merchant Shipping Act 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 85), s. 16, having imposed upon the master of every ship, in case of collision with SUBJECTS OF CASES. ...page 16 16 another ship, a duty, "if and so far as he can do so without danger to his own vessel, crew, and passengers (if any), to stay by the other vessel until he has ascertained that she has no need of further assistance, and to render to the other vessel, her master, crew, and passengers (if any), such assistance as may be practicable and as may be necessary to save them from any danger caused by such collision;" this duty is not discharged by a steamship, where, it being practicable and safe to lower a boat to render assistance, although possibly dangerous to stay by the injured ship, she continues her voyage without lowering her boat, and merely hails and signals for other vessels to go to the assistance of the injured ship. (Adm.) The Adriatic 2. Assistance to injured vessels-Merchant Shipping Act 1873-Onus of proof-A ship failing to render assistance to another with which she has been in collision, and showing no reasonable cause for such failure, will be held to blame for the collision, unless proof be given to the contrary on her behalf. (Adm.) The Adriatic........ 8. Compulsory pilotage-Burden of proof-Contributory negligence.-In cases of collision, if it be proved on the part of the defendants that the accident occurred through the fault of a pilot compulsorily employed, the burden of proving that the defendants have been guilty of contributory negligence lies on the plaintiffs, and they must show such negligence either by direct proof adduced by themselves or from facts proved in the defendants' evidence. The Iona (16 L. T. Rep. N. S. 158; L. Rep. 1 P. C. 426; Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 479) explained. (H. of L.) Clyde Navigation Company v. Barclay and 390 4. Compulsory pilotage-Contributory negligence of defendants or their servants-Onus of proof.When the defence of compulsory pilotage is relied upon in a collision cause, the onus of proving negligence on the part of the defendants or their servants causing or contributing to the collision, is on the plaintiff. Clyde Navigation Company v. Barclay (1 App. Cas. 790; 36 L. T. Rep. N. S. 379) followed. The Iona (L. Rep. 1 C. P. 432; 16 L. T. Rep. N. S. 158) disapproved. (Ct. of App.) The Daioz 5. Compulsory pilotage-Pilot-Duty of-Vessel dragging.-Where a vessel under the charge of a pilot is at anchor and drags, it is the duty of the pilot to inform himself of the condition of affairs before taking steps to avoid damage arising from it, and not to wait till someone reports it to him. (Adm.) The Princeton.... others - 6. Compulsory pilotage River Mersey Vessel coming from sea-Docking.-Where a vessel coming from sea into the river Mersey with a pilot on board is prevented from docking, in consequence of the violence of the wind, or want of water, and anchors, but is to be docked as soon as circumstances permit, the employment of a pilot is, under the Mersey Docks Acts Consolidation Act, compulsory. (Adm.) The Princeton..... 477 562 562 217 and tear.-In estimating the loss sustained by a ship in a collision, a charter-party, previously entered into contingent on the arrival of the ship on a fixed date at another place but cancelled by the charterers by reason of the delay occasioned by the collision, should be taken into consideration, the amount recoverable in respect thereof being the freight that would have been earned under the charter-party, less deductions for freight actually earned after repairs and for expenses and saving of wear and tear, &c., which would have been incurred in the performance of the charter-party. (Adm.) The Star of India..page 261 9. Damages-Measure-Demurrage. In addition to such damages the shipowner is entitled to demurrage during the time he is detained for repairs at the usual rate allowed to ships. (Adm.) The Star of India 10. Dock-Control of dockmaster-Duty of crew.When a vessel enters dock with the permission and under the general directions of the dockmaster, and within the space over which his authority by statute extends, those on board of her are bound to use diligence and care to carry out the directions of the dockmaster in such a manner as to avoid doing damage to other vessels. (Adm.) The Cynthia 261 378 11. Latent defect - Absence of negligence · No liability.-The owners of a vessel are not liable for damage caused to another vessel in a collision occasioned by the sudden breaking down of an apparatus in which there is an inherent latent defect, in the absence of any negligence in the user of the apparatus. The William Lindsay (ante, vol. 2, p. 118; L. Rep. 5 P. C. 338; 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 355) followed. (Adm.) The Virgo 285 348 12. Liability - Act causing collision-Must be negligent to create liability.-Before a plaintiff in a collision cause can be deprived of his right of recovery against a negligent defendant by reason of an act done by the plaintiff, without which the collision would not have occurred, it must be shown that such act of the plaintiff was 122 negligent. (Ct. of App.) The Sisters 13. Liability-Dockmaster-Tug-Pilot.-A vessel leaving dock with a pilot on board, and within the space over which the dockmaster's authority extends by statute, is responsible for damage resulting from the use of a tug of insufficient power by her master, even when such tug is in the general employment of the dock company, there being no obligation on the dock company to supply a tug. (Ct. of App.) The Belgic 14. Lights Dumb barge-Steamer - NegligencePresumption.-When a collision occurs between a dumb barge without lights and a steamer on a dark night in the river Thames, there is no presumption of law that the steamer is to blame. It is in all cases necessary for those who allege negligence, causing a collision, on the part of another vessel, to prove it. (Ct. of App., reversing Adm.) The Swallow 15. LightsOvertaking vessel Light asternSignal. It is prima 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 371 |