ADM.] DIGEST OF MARITIME LAW CASES. AD of the Camp Kelly 1241 Aade Apri the charter, take this case of inward-bound ships out | cited by Twiss, Q. C. and Clarkson against the of the exemption in this 59th section? I think that tomry bondholder:-As to foreign law: De Louis, D The Prince George, 4 Moore P. C. 21. As to arrest is is a difficult question to grapple with. Does this sec-bottomry: The Augusta, I Dod. 288; The Aurora Wha Gald tion mean, that wherever the port in question is sub- Rep. 104; The Osmanli, 7 Notes of Cases, 322. As to ject to a charter, whether applicable to a particular remedy for general average contribution: The bow la cleugh, 7 Moore P. C. 234; Birkeley v. Preagram | iz case or not, the 59th section still will apply? I am 221. As to the Admiralty Court disclaiming jaris not satisfied of that. Now, having gone through the questions of general average: The Constance, 4 Non 58th and 59th sections, and having mentioned all that Cases, 514: (The North Star, A. C., Feb. 23. 1960; 2 73, 76, Adm.; 2 L. T. Rep. N. S. 261; 1 Lasa 49, 21 occurs to me with regard to the exceptions, there is a lachlan on the Law of Merchant Shipping, 156) matter still further to be considered, and that is, whether or not there was not some previous statute, GENERAL SHIP. not hitherto adverted to, which applied to the port of Hull. Now, I find there was such a statute, and that was the General Pilot Act of the 52 Geo. 3, c. 39. There provision was made for the port of Hull, which was continued by the 6th section of the General Pilot Act of Geo. 4. The result of the whole case is, that I must hold that the taking of this pilot was compulsory, and the owners of the Killarney are not responsible for the damage occasioned by the default of the pilot alone. With respect to the costs up to the time of the finding of the Trinity masters, each party must pay their own; but from that time I shall condemn the defts. in the costs. DIGEST OF MARITIME LAW CASES (EXCEPTING SALVAGE AWARDS.) FROM 1837 TO 1860. 1230. "The shipper of goods by a general ship m sist on having them relanded and returned to him paying the freight, and indemnifying the master and the consequences of the bills of lading signed by Sundry cases cited by R. E. Turner, and Shee, Serpt, by a plaintiffs, and by Willes, contra, and commented per the court: (Tindal v. Taylor, Q. B., Nov. 1 and 2, 4 E. & B. 219; 3 C. L. Rep. 199; Shee's Tenterdea, See No. 218 hereof.) 1231. A custom for a general ship to wait on the till she gets full freight should be recognised only limits her so waiting within a reasonable time: (C) tice's direction to a jury in O'Halloran v. Wilson, C. F lin, Shipping Gazette, Dec. 22, 1854) GIVING WAY. (See "Collision.") GLOUCESTER CANAL DUES. 1232 Usage for shipowner to pay them in the cas ves els carrying timber between Gloucester and Ca Newport or Bristol: (Cobbledick v. Walker, Gloucester C. L May 7, 1853, Shipping Gazette) GOLD DUST. 1233. Shipowners held exempt from liability for les gold dust, the value of it not having been stated in the of lading, in accordance with the 503rd section of March [N.B.-The LAW TIMES REPORTS, N. S., will give all the Maritime Shipping Act: (Williams v. The African Steam Shy Law Cases decided from Michaelmas Term 1839. This Digest will contain all (except the Salvage Awards) decided from 1937 to Nov. 1859. A Digest of the Salvage Cases during the same period is appearing in the LAW TIMES.] GENERAL AVERAGE. pany, C. E., June 16, 1856; see Harrison's Digest, GOVERNMENT. (Sce also the title "Average," 158, and "Foreign Adjust-titution to the owners of a private armed brig destroyed by ment.") 1226. Question as to Admiralty jurisdiction in cases of general average, or claims for loss on cargo sold to pay necessary disbursements of a ship at an intermediate port: (La Constancia, A. C., July 28, 1846; 10 Jur. 849; 4 Notes of Cases, 677; Pritchard's Digest, 32, 93; see also The North Star, 29 L. J. 73, Adm.; Maclachlan on the Law of Merchant Shipping, 588.) 1227. The expenses of discharging and reshipping cargo to enable the ship at an intermediate port to repair damages sustained by stress of weather, give rise to a claim of general average, as decided in The Copenhagen, 1 Rob. 289; and Plummer v. Wildman, 3 M. & J. 482; sundry cases cited by Willes for the demurrer, and James Wilde contra: (Hall v. Janson, Q. B., Jan. 24, 1855; 3 C. L. R. 742; 4 Ell. & Bl. 500; 24 L. J. 97, Q. B.; 1 Jur. N. S. 571; see also Wilde, B.'s observations in the case of The Bombay, 1860, shorthand writer's notes.) 1228. A policy effected by shipowner on money advanced on account of freight which was at his risk heid to be subject to general average: (Hall v. Janson, Q. B., Jan. 24, 1855; 3 C. L. R. 737; 4 Ell. & Bl. 500; 24 L. J.97, Q. B.; 1 Jur. N. S. 571; see notes on this case under the titles Average (General), 158 b, and Freight 1171.) 1229. Whether the expense of getting a stranded ship off the ground after the discharge of the cargo, is particular average on ship or general average? (The Snowdon: Job, &c. v. Langton, Q. B., June 11, 1856; 26 L. J. 97, Q. B.; Arnould, 922, 932; W. Rep. 641. See full report of Lord Campbell's judgment, Shipping Gaz tte, April 24, 1857; Moran v. Jones, Q. B., April 21 and 22, 1857; 6 Ell. & Bl. 779; 3 Jur. N. S. 109; 26 L. J. 187, Q. B.; Arnould, 933; Harrison's Digest, 103; W. Rep. 503; Maclachlan on the Law of Merchant Shipping, 574, 575. Sce No. 158 c hereof and note.) 1229 a. A vessel bound from IIamburgh to Buenos Ayres incurred a heavy general average at Exmouth. To defray a part of the expenses a portion of the cargo was sold. The ship proceeded on her voyage, and on arrival the general average was adjusted at Buenos Ayres, which the court deemed a correct mode of proceeding. A large balance of sales of cargo, on the adjustment of general average was found to be repayable to the consignees: Held. that they could not take a bottomry bond on ship and freight for the return voyage to England, in security of this balance; it not being proved that the ship might by the law of Buenos Ayres have been arrested for the amount due: case of Augusta, 1 Dod. 283, commented upon by the court. A claim for general average does not constitute a lien on ship, in favour of the proprietors of the cargo. Cases 1231. United States Government held liable to make ra British ships of war in 1814 in the harbour of Fara, the Government having failed to obtain redress from the l'e tuguese Government, and submitted the claim to arbitra without the claimant's consent: (American case: O of brig Armstrong v. United States, U. S. Court of Claims M. L. R. 137, July 1856.) GOVERNMENT VESSELS. (See "Salvage.") 1234 a. Claims of Admiralty for damage to a shipwar employed in rendering salvage services: (The Thew,) Hag. 14; Harrison's Digested Index, 1839.) 1234 b. Claims of ships-of-war assisting British merchantmen: (The Rapid, 3 Hagg. 419; Harrison's Digested Indes, 1840.) GRAIN. Corn.") (See 1235. Partial loss of wheat in bulk by being pumped out. is a particular average, and by the terms of the usual memorandum in a policy of insurance is not recoverable from underwriters unless the ship be stranded: (Hills v. London Assurance Company, C. E., Nov. 25, 1839; 5 M. & W. 569, Arnould, 1058; Phillips, 1773, 1777.) 1236. Evidence as to the number of cubit feet occupied by one quarter of Indian corn: (Warren v. Peabody, C. PJan. 16, 1849; 8 C. B. 800; 14 Jur. 150; 19 L. J. 43, C. P., Shee's Tenterden, 182.) 1237. Liability of underwriters, where sea-damaged corn is sold at an intermediate port, although it could be dried and reshipped and taken forward as a merchantable article to its destination: (Reimer, &c. v. Ringrose, Northern Circuit, York, March 20, 1850, and C. E, Feb. 26, 1851; 6 Ex. 263; Arnould, 1018. See No. 896 to 898; and Rosette v. Gurney, No. 2267) 1238. Claim for alleged deficiency in the rendering of a cargo of wheat at Gloucester, as compared with the French weight in the bill of lading: (Ertand v. Barrett, Gloucester C. C., June 11, 1850, Shipping Gazette.) GRATUITY. (See "Wages.") 1239. Claim of master of ship to gratuity not stipulated for in charter-party for Mediterranean royage: (Leslie v. Rickaby, Shields C. C., Nov. 19, 1853, Shipping Gazette.) 1240. A payment in addition to wages, extorted mutinously by the crew of a ship from the master, is illegal, and may be set off against their claim for wages. An agree ment to such effect required from the captain, when a ship was in distress, would not be binding. An actual gratuity paid voluntarily to a seaman he is entitled to retain. Law DM.] the Ex parte DINGWALL AND Co., re W. Walker. subject somewhat fully expounded by Lord pbell in charging a jury: (The Banker's Daughter; Coulborn, Q. B., Dec. 16 and 22, 1854, Shipping ette.) GREASE CASKS. 241. Leakage of grease casks shipped at Duenos Ayres: derson, &c. v. Chapman and Willis, Liverpool Assizes, ril 6, 1839, Shipping Gazette.) GROUNDING. 242. Damage to a ship (insured for twelve months in t and at sea) by taking the ground at the place where it intended she should, and where she did discharge her go: held not to be a claim on underwriters, no accidental cumstance having occurred. The beach was hard, ngly, and uneven. The vessel subsided on the shore at receding of the tide in the usual and expected course; t on taking the ground listed towards the beach about two nks, and a creaking noise was heard as if something was caking: (The Elizabeth; Magnus v. Buttermer, C. P., n. 29, 1852; 11 C. B. 876; 5 B. & Ald. 161; Arnould, 1, 881; Phillips, 1087; Shee's 4th edit. of Marshall on surance, 389, referring to Fletcher v. Inglis, 3 B. & A. 5.) Mr. Phillips questions the soundness of this deci n. 1243. A vessel was compelled for safety to run into an inrmediate port, the tidal harbour of Sauzon, on the French ast, and by reason of its being low water at the time took e ground: Held, that this was a stranding. The court unded on Wells v. Hopwood, 6 B. & Ad. 20; Kingsford v. 'arshall, 8 Bing. 458; s. c. 1 L. J., N. S., 135, C. P.; nd Bishop v. Pentland, 7 B. & C. 219, and laid much stress pon the circumstance that the vessel was not in safety beore grounding. It would have been different if after entering ic harbour in safety she had subsequently settled down ith the ebb tide and so taken the ground: (Corcoran v. furney, Q. B., Jan. 31, 1853; 1 El. & Bl. 456; 26 L. J. 113, 2. B.; Arn. 884; Phill, 1758.) GUANO. = 1244. Charterer failing to furnish a cargo of guano at chaboe, the master held entitled to take a cargo of guano on his own account, the profits of which would belong to he shipowner: (Lidgett v. Williams, Ch. C., April 30, 1845, Shipping Gazette) 1245. Liability of shipowner failing to load a cargo of guano at Ichaboe, according to contract of affreightment, in consequence of there being an insufficient supply of guano there on the ship's arrival: (Hills v. Sughrue, Secondaries Court, April 9, 1846; Harrison's Digested Index, 3110, 15 M. & W. 253; Shee's Tenterden, 191; Maclachlan on the Law of Merchant Shipping, 462.) 1246. Commission of 41. 12s. 6d. per cent. found due to shipbroker on freight of a charter-party from Ichaboc, though the vessel did not get a full cargo of guano: (Hill v. Kitching, May 14 and June 8, 1816; Harrison's Digested Index, 97; 3 C. B. 299.) GUERNSEY. 1247. Wrecked goods sold at Guernsey held subject to Queen's weights duties the same as other goods: (Moore v. Le Marchant, Royal Court, Guernsey, 1850, Shipping Gazette.) 1248. Steamers held not bound to take a pilot in entering the harbour of St. Peter-Port (Sir W. Collings dissenting): Hughes v. Manger, Royal Court, Guernsey, March 1850, 1249. The Queen's Receiver held bound to perform his duties at Guernsey in wreck and salvage cases gratuitously. Question as to application of Norman law: (Ranwell v. Tupper, Royal Court, Guernsey, Dec. 3, 1850, Shipping Guernsey Star) Gazette) gested Index, 1844. HARBOUR DUES. 1250 a. Cases relative to payment of harbour duties:Brune v. Thompson, 4 Ad. & F.I., N. S. 543; Ilarrison's Digest, 1810. As to Ramsgate harbour duties: Pelly v. Rose, Dowl. & Lo. 601; 13 L. J., N. S., 155, Ex.; Harrison's Di1251. Harbour master arrested by order of Admiralty Court for carrying off and selling part of a vessel's rigging, &c., to pay harbour dues, though the vessel had been arrested by warrant of the Admiralty Court. He was released on giving bail to answer any damage and expenses caused by his act. Reasons for the court prohibiting such a lawless course: (The Harmonie, A. C., March 17, 1841, 1 W. Kob. 179; Pritchard's Digest 29) 1252. Verdict against harbour master for loss by giving ship an improper berth. Question arising under rule of the [BANK. port requiring shipmasters, under a penalty, to remove their vessels as directed by the harbour-master. Before Parke, B.: (The John and Henry; Cobbold v. Tunno, Norfolk Circuit, Ipswich, Aug. 4, 1862, Shipping Gazette.) 1253. Liability of harbour master for damage arising through his neglect or misinanagement in conducting a ship into harbour: (The Dragon v. The Broeder Trouw, A.C., Dec. 19, 1852, Shipping Gazette.) HARBOUR MASTER. 1254. Ship relieved from responsibility for the consequences of mooring a ship at a place and in a manner strictly according to a harbour master's imperative orders: The Dolphin v. The Economy, A.C., March 30, 1855, Shipping Garette.) 1255. Verdict against dock master or superintendent and his assistants for damage to a vessel entrusted to his charge at the Government dock at Deptiord. Vessel laden with coals for Government. Caisson at dock entrance out of order, whereby the vessel could not get admission to dock, and was irreparably damaged. Before Crowder, J.: (The Eagle; Wright and another v. Pearn and others, C. P., July 8, Nov. 4, 1858, and Jan. 27, 1859, Shipping Gazette.) (To be continued.) He subsequently, as they stated, but he denied, placed in their possession certain deeds to secure the debt; but there was no memorandum of deposit or writing relating to the transaction, either to support their statement that the deposit was made to secure the whole debt, or his statement, that it was made only to secure a part of the debt. He had, however, since the deposit of the deeds paid to Messrs. Dingwall upwards of 700l., and claimed to have his deeds returned, and Messrs. Dingwall now applied to be declared equitable mortgagees of the property to secure the balance of their debt, and that the same might be sold and the proceeds applied in payment of the costs of the petition to this court, also of thecosts of the sale, and afterwards in satisfaction of their debt. Ernest Reed appeared for the assignees, and submitted that the rule, even when there was a written agreement, was not to give the costs of the petition out of the proceeds of the estate. That rule was recognised in Ex parte Garbutt, 2 Rose, 78. It was also acted upon in Ex parte Warry, 19 Ves. 472, where the court held that an equitable mortgagee, without a written agreement, must pay the costs of the petition for sale. So also in Ex parte Thorpe, 3 Dea. 85, it was laid down that where deeds were deposited, some with a written agreement and some without, the costs of the petition would be apportioned and allowed only where the deposit was accompanied by a memorandum in writing. In Ex parte Anderson also, 3 De G. & Sm. 660, the court refused to allow costs, there being no written memorandum accompanying the deposit of the leases, and, acting upon the authority of these cases, he apprehended that that part of the pre BANK. Ex parte DINGWALL AND CO. re W. WALKER. sent petition which referred to the allowance of costs to the petitioner would be refused, and that the court would oblige them to pay the whole of the assignees' costs in appearing to the petition. The order subsequently drawn declared dea tioners equitable mortgagees, directed a sale me management of the assignees, the funds arising from to be appropriated, first, in the payment c' costs of the assignees of and relating to fen secondly, in payment of the costs of the petition Mr. Commissioner FANE said there was a great mass of contradiction in the materials before him, but he was inclined to believe the statements of the peti-preparing the abstract of title and attending text tioners, and he should therefore hold them to be equitable mortgagees for the balance due to them, but inasmuch as there was no memorandum or writing respecting the deposit of the deeds, he should follow the very wholesome rule adopted in the cases cited, and direct the petitioners to pay the whole of the costs of this application to the court. then in payment of the balance due on their a and if there was a surplus it would be paid int estate; and if a deficiency the petitioners would liberty to prove for the deficiency. They once have liberty to bid at the sale, but they would pr the assignees the whole costs of and relating to appearance to the petition. END OF VOL. VI., N.S. |