SUBJECTS OF CASES. ...page 288 owner's default. (Ex. Ch. from C.P.) Stanton v. Richardson; Richardson v. Stanton.... 17. Charter-party-Delay of outward voyage by excepted perils-Arrival after expected time-Contract not wholly frustrated-Duty of charterer to load.-Where by a charter-party it is agreed that a ship shall proceed forthwith to a foreign port and there load a cargo for the charterers, taking an outward cargo for the benefit of the shipowner, subject to usual perils excepted in the charterparty, the exception to the perils of the seas applies to the outward voyage; and if the vessel proceeds on her outward voyage as quickly as possible, consistently with the operation of the perils excepted, and arrives within such time that there has been no such delay as to frustrate the object of the contract from a commercial point of view, the charterer is bound, notwithstanding that the ship arrives at the outward port after the expected time, to provide the stipulated cargo at the port; and if he neglects to do so he is liable to an action for not loading according to charter-party, although he may offer a cargo at another neighbouring port. (C.P.) Hudson and another v. Hill and another... ......... 18. Charter-party-Freight-Advance before voyage begins-Not freight-No lien for.-A charterparty, providing that the freight shall be at certain specified rates, and that a certain sum shall be advanced in cash on signing bills of lading and clearing at the custom house of the port of shipment, and that for the security and payment of all freight, dead freight, demurrage, and other charges, the master or owners shall have an absolute lien and charge on the said cargo or goods laden on board, does not, after the loading and clearing of the ship, but before she sails and before the signing of the bills of lading, give the master and owners a lien upon the cargo loaded for the sum agreed to be advanced, such advance not being freight, and no freight having been earned. (L. C. & L. JJ.) Ex parte Nyholm ; Re Child 19. Charter-party-Demurrage-Lay days— Civil commotion. &c. excepted in favour of chartererDefault in loading-What will exempt.-Where a charterer by his charter-party undertakes to load a ship within certain given lay days "accidents or causes occurring beyond the control of the shippers or affreighters, which may prevent or delay her loading or discharging, including civil commotion, strikes, riots, stoppage of trains, &c., always excepted," or to pay demurrage, he cannot excuse default in loading within the lay days by giving evidence of general disturbance and cessation of work in the district about the time; but to exempt himself from liability must show a disturbing cause, actually preventing the loading of the particular ship. (Adm.) The Village Belle. 20. Damage to cargo-Bill of lading-Excepted perils-Damage by other causes-Liability of shipowner.-A shipowner carrying goods under a bill of lading, by which he contracts to deliver in good order and condition, certain perils excepted, is bound to deliver in that condition, unless prevented by those perils, and is responsible for any damage to goods occasioned otherwise than by those perils. (Adm.) The Chasca... 21. Damage to cargo-Bill of lading-Perils of the seas Barratry of crew-Excepted peril-Liability of shipowner.-Injury to cargo damaged by sea water during a voyage, in consequence of the barratrous act of the crew in boring holes through the sides of the ship for the purpose of scuttling her, is not a loss by perils of the sea, within the 278 165 228 600 meaning of the usual exception in a bill of lading, such as will exempt the shipowner from his liability for the damage under his contract to deliver in good order and condition. (Adm.) Id....page 600 22. Damage to cargo-Perils of the seas-Bill of lading-Policy of insurance-Barratry-Scuttling ship-Even if damage to cargo by sea water caused by the barratrous act of the crew in boring holes through the ship for the purpose of scuttling her, loss would come within the meaning of the words," perils of the seas," in a policy of insurance, it is not included in those words as used in a bill of lading. (Adm.) Id.... 600 23. Damage to cargo-Condition at time of shipment-Onus of proof.-In a suit against shipowners for damage to cargo, the onus is upon the plaintiffs to show in the first instance that the goods were shipped in good order and condition, before they can call upon the shipowners to show excuse for the injury done to the goods (overruled, see p. 551). (Adm.) The Prosperino Palasso ... 150 24. Damage to cargo-Bill of lading—“ Good order and condition"-"Quantity and quality unknown"-Condition at time of shipment-Onus of proof. There is no rule of law by which the consignee of goods under a bill of lading, stating goods to have been shipped in good order and condition, and containing the words "quantity and quality unknown," is bound to show that the goods were shipped in good order and condition, or fail in his suit against the shipowner for damage done to the cargo; but failing proof of the condition of the cargo when shipped, the consignee is bound to show that the damage which is sustained is traceable to causes for which the shipowner is responsible. The Prosperino Palasso (ante, p. 158) disapproved of. (P.C.) The Ida. 551 25. Damage to cargo-Straining-Perils of the seas excepted-Stowage.-Damage to cargo caused by the oozing of wine from casks through straining in bad weather is damage occasioned by perils of the seas, and the shipowners are, under the usual exceptions, exempt from liability therefor where the cargo is properly stowed, or is stowed in snch a manner that the master is not responsible for bad stowage. (Adm.) The Catharine Chalmers 598 26. Damage to cargo-Charter-party-Stowage by charterer's stevedore-Liability.--Where a charterparty stipulates that a vessel is "to be stowed by charterers' stevedore, at risk and expense of vessel," and a cargo is supplied by the charterers and is stowed by their stevedore, the shipowner is not responsible for damage occasioned by bad stowage. Blakie v. Stenbridge (6 C.B., N.S. 874) followed. (Adm.) Id. 27. Delivery of goods-Port-Place of delivery— Bill of lading-Freight--Shipowner's duties and rights. -The duty of a shipowner to deliver goods at the usual place of delivery of a port, to which he has contracted to carry under a bill of lading stipulating only that the goods shall be delivered at the port without any particular part of the port being named, is an implied duty only, and does not amount to an engagement to go to the usual place in all events and under all circumstances. The shipowner's express contract is to deliver in the port, and if it be impossible to deliver at the usual place of delivery by reason of the prohibition of the port authorities, or other accidental cause, the contract is not dissolved, but may be performed by the master being ready to give delivery at some other convenient part of the port, and keeping the cargo in that place for a reasonable time ready for delivery, and the shipowner will thereupon be entitled to his freight. (P.C.) Brown (app.) v. Gaudet (resp.); Cargo ex Argos 598 ..... SUBJECTS OF CASES. 28. Delivery of goods-Bill of lading-Landing of goods--Shipowner's duty.--A bill of lading by which a shipowner contracts to deliver at a port, "the goods to be taken out within twenty-four hours after arrival or pay demurrage," does not absolutely require that the shipowner should be ready, not merely to deliver, but also to land the goods in the port, or that the merchant should be able, on receiving them, to land them, but it casts upon the merchant the duty of taking the goods out of, or at all events from alongside the ship; hence, if it should be impossible to land the goods, by reason of a prohibition of the port authorities, the shipowner may still perform his part of the contract if he be ready to deliver the goods to the merchant in the port without landing them. (P.C.) Id... page 29. Delivery of goods-Demurrage-Expenses- Bill of lading-Default of consignee.-When goods carried under a bill of lading, by which the shipowner is to deliver at the port of destination, and the merchant is to take them out within twentyfour hours or pay demurrage, cannot be landed at, but may be delivered within, that port, the shipownercannot recoverfrom the merchant demurrage and expenses claimed in respect of attempts to land the goods at other ports, before he is ready to give delivery at the port of destination; but he may recover expenses incurred, in consequence of the default of the merchant in taking delivery, after he is ready to give delivery at that port, in hiring a vessel to store the goods, if thereby the merchant is relieved from the demurrage payable in respect of the detention of the ship. (P.C.) Id. 30. Delivery of goods-Freight-Time of payment— General average-Demurrage-Lien-Detention of cargo by master-Liability.-Where, by a charterparty and bill of lading, freight is "to be paid on unloading and right delivery of the cargo,' the master having a lien by common law for freight and general average, and a lien by contract for demurrage, the payment of the freight and the delivery of the goods are concurrent acts in which all that is required from the owner of the cargo is readiness and willingness to pay at the time of delivery; and before paying any sum for general average, the owner of cargo is entitled to be satisfied that the amount claimed is the result of a proper adjustment; and if the owner of cargo on arrival of the ship in port, and before discharge, refuses to pay the amount claimed for freight and general average before the amount due is finally ascertained, but offers to pay a large proportion of the freight, and, there being no doubt as to his solvency, to sign an average bond for the payment of the general average when ascertained, but the master, nevertheless, insists upon retaining the cargo on board ship until his lien for freight and general average is satisfied, detention by the master is not wrongful, but, quære, can he impute the delay in the discharge to the owner of cargo or claim for demurrage on that ground? (P.C.) Miedbrodt v. Fitzsimon; The Energie....... 31. Delivery of goods-Mate's receipt-Short delivery-Liability of shipowner-Freight. Where a mate gives a receipt purporting to represent the amount of goods shipped on board a ship, and the charterers pay the consignor for the amount so represented, and also pay the master freight on that amount, but a smaller amount is delivered; the giving of the receipt is not such an act of negligence in itself as will entitle the charterers to recover from the shipowner the amount paid in excess to the consignor if all that was actually shipped was delivered; but the 32. Delivery of goods-Bill of lading-Where responsibility of shipowner ceases.-Where goods shipped under a bill of lading containing the words, " To be delivered from the ship's deck, where the ship's responsibility is to cease," arrive at their port of destination, and the usage of that port is that goods are unloaded by the dock company at the expense of the shipowner on to a quay, and then that the consignee should send lighters into which the goods are delivered also by the dock company and also, if within a specific time, at the expense of the shipowner, the shipowner is not responsible for the loss of any of the goods after they have been unloaded on to the quay in accordance with the usage. (C.P.) Petrocochino and others v. Bott 310 33. Delivery of goods-Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Act 1862, sect. 67.-Landing and warehousing cargo-Default of consignee-Wilful default not necessary. To justify the master of a ship in lading or warehousing a cargo under the Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Act 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 63), s. 67, by which it is enacted that where the owner of goods imported "fails to land and take delivery thereof, and to proceed therewith with all convenient speed" by the time named in the charter-party, &c., "the shipowner may land and unship the said goods," and warehouse them, it is not necessary that the failure of the owner of cargo should be a "wilful default" in landing, &c.; but the master is at liberty to land the goods whenever the delivery of them to the owner within the proper time has been prevented by circumstances, whether the latter is or is not to blame. (P.C.) Miedbrodt v. Fitzsimon ; The Energie.. 555 34. Delivery of goods-Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Act 1862, sect. 67-Landing and warehousing cargo-Lien-Stop order-Excessive amount -Wrongful detention. The provisions of the Merchant Shipping Aot Amendment Act 1862 (ss. 67 and 68), giving power to a master to land and warehouse a cargo, and give notice of his lien to the warehouseman, enable the master to retain his lien but do not extend it to charges not due at the time of landing, and if the master wilfully, and for the purpose of exacting from the cargo owner charges for which he has no lien, places upon the goods a stop order for an excessive amount, which the cargo owner is compelled to pay before he can obtain his goods, the landing and detention of the goods for that amount is a wrongful act, for which the owner of cargo may recover. (P.C.) Id.... 555 35. Delivery of goods-Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Act 1862, sect. 67-Landing and warehousing cargo-Lien for freight and general average-Stop order-Payment of part.-Where a master lands and warehouses goods under the Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Act 1862, and to preserve his lien for freight and general average, places on them a stop order for the amounts claimed, and one of those amounts is paid by the cargo owner, it becomes the duty of the master to reduce the stop order to the amount for which he can after such payment reasonably claim a lien, and his refusal to do so amounts to a wrongful detention of the cargo. (P.C.) Id. 36. Delivery of goods-Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Act 1862, sect. 67-Lien-Claim exceeding amount due.-Semble, that a master is not liable merely because he lands and warehouses goods under a stop order for a sum in excess of 555 SUBJECTS OF CASES. .page 555 the amount due to him if he bona fide claims a lien for that sum. (P.C.) Id..... 37. Delivery of goods-Mersey Docks Act Consolidation Act 1858, sect. 36-Master porters-Short delivery-Liability.-The Mersey Docks Act Consolidation Act 1858, seot. 36, making the master porters, appointed under that Act to discharge cargoes in the Mersey Docks, responsible for any loss, damage, or injury sustained by the cargoes discharged by them during the receiving, weighing, and loading off by the master porters or their servants, does not in any way discharge the shipowner from his liability existing before he delivers to the master porter, and his responsibility for short delivery remains unaffected by the Act. (Adm.) The Emilien Marie.... 38. Freight-Abandonment of ship and cargo by crew- -Brought in by salvors-Right of shipowner to recover freight-Sale of cargo by court-Refusal of shipowner to consent.--Where a ship,injured by collision without fault of her master and crew, is abandoned by them, and is afterwards taken possession of and brought in safely into port by salvors, who institute a suit against ship and cargo, the shipowner, having by the abandonment put an end to his contract of carriage, loses all claim to have the cargo put into his possession to enable him to carry it on and so earn his freight, and all claim to be paid full freight out of the proceeds of the cargo, if sold by order of the court. Nor can the shipowner have any claim for pro ratá freight unless there be a new contract express or implied to pay the same, and if the shipowner refuses to consent to a sale of the cargo by the court, when applied for by the salvors and owner of cargo, unless he be paid full freight, no such contract can be implied. (Adm.) The Kathleen 39. Freight Charter and sub-charter-Bills of lading signed without knowledge of sub-charter-Lien for freight-Delivery without prepayment-Right of recovery of freight.-Where the master of a ship enters into a charter-party with a shipbroker by which it is agreed that goods shall be carried at a certain-named freight, and the shipbroker, without authority from the master, enters into a second charter-party, relating to the same ship and to goods of the same character and quantity, with merchants agreeing that the goods shall be carried to the same port but at a higher rate of freight than that named in the first charter-party; and it is agreed in both charter-parties that the freight shall be prepaid and that the shipowner shall have an absolute lien for freight, and the merchants ship the goods without knowledge of the first charterparty; and the master, without knowledge of the second charter-party, receives the goods and signs bills of lading for them, making the freight payable as per charter-party, and without taking prepayment carries and delivers the goods; the shipowner cannot recover the freight from the merchant after payment of the same by the latter to the shipbroker, because there is no contract between the shipowner and the merchant. There being no consensus ad idem the bill of lading is no contract, as it does not refer in the minds of the shipowner and merchant to the same charterparty, nor is there any implied contract to pay freight other than as agreed upon by the charterparty signed by the merchant. (Q.B.) Smidt v. Tiden 40. Freight-Charter-party-Lump freight-Short delivery-Excepted perils-Rights of shipowner.Where by a charter-party, it is agreed that a ship shall load a full and complete cargo to be provided by the charterers or their agents, freight to 514 367 307 be paid in a lump sum fixed by the charter-party, and after the loading of the cargo part thereof is lost without default of the shipowner, by perils excepted in the charter-party, but the remainder is duly delivered according to the charter-party, the charterers are not entitled to deduct from the lump freight a sum proportioned to the amount of cargo which has been so lost; but the shipowner is entitled to his full freight. The Norway (B. Robinson & L. 404) followed. v. Knight. (C.P.) .page 19 Merchant Shipping Company (Limited) v. Armitage. (Q.B. and Ex. Ch.)... .51, 185 41. Freight-Charter-party-Freight payable on invoice quantity shipped-Bill of lading-Quantity and quality unknown-Right of shipowner.--When a ship is chartered to load a cargo of grain and deliver at a British port by a charter-party, by which freight is to be paid at so much for a given quantity shipped, and in the event of any part of the cargo being delivered in a damaged condition the freight to be payable "on the invoice quantity taken on board, as per bill of lading, or half freight on damaged or heated portion, at captain's option," and the cargo is shipped under a bill of lading naming the quantity shipped, but the captain, before signing the bill of lading, writes thereon "quantity and quality unknown,' signing of this memerandum will not take away the captain's right to be paid freight on the invoice quantity, if on arrival he claim by notice to the indorsee of the bill of lading to be paid in that way. (C.P.) Tully v. Terry.. 42. Freight-Bill of lading-Lump freight-Short delivery. The whole freight, if a lump sum, named in the bill of lading is payable to the shipowner carrying under it, although a less quantity of goods than the quantity named in the bill of lading be delivered. (Ex.) Blanchet v. Powell's Llantwit Collieries Company Limited..... 61 224 43. Master-Powers and duties of-Agent for ship- See Bills of Lading-Charter-party-Marine CARRIERS. See Carriage of Goods-Marine Insurance, CAVEAT TO PREVENT RELEASE. CHARTERED FREIGHT. See Carriage of Goods, Nos. 39, 40, 41-Marine Insurance, Nos. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23. CHARTERER. SUBJECTS OF CASES. See Carriage of Goods, Nos. 4, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 26, 31, 39, 40-Collision, No. 17-Marine InNo. 23-Necessaries, No. 3. surance, CHARTER-PARTY. 1. Advances for disbursements-Indorsement on bills of lading-Insurance-Right to recover back.A charter-party stipulating "sufficient cash for ship's disbursements to be advanced the master against freight, subject to interest, insurance, and 2 per cent. commission; and the master to endorse the amount so advanced upon his bills of lading," entitles the shipowner to rely upon an insurance of advances so made being effected by charterers, who, by the charter-party stipulate for and receive the right to charge the premium, and in case of the loss of the ship on her voyage the neglect to insure will preclude the charterers from recovering back the advances. (H. of L. Sc. App.) Watson and Co. v. Shankland and ..page 115 2. Breach of contract to receive cargo-Other vessels engaged-Rise in price of goods-Damages.— Where, by a charter-party, it is agreed that the shipowner shall have a ship ready at certain others time to receive a cargo for a foreign port, and the shipowner fails in the performance of his contract, and in consequence thereof the charterer is obliged to charter other vessels at a higher rate, and to pay a higher price for his cargo, the price having risen during the delay occasioned by the shipowner's default, the charterer is entitled to recover as damages against the shipowner the loss sustained by the chartering of the other vessels and the difference in the price of the cargo, provided that the shipowner does not show that the cargo has by reason of the rise in price become of greater value in the foreign port. (Ex.) Featherstone v. Wilkinson..... 3. Charterer Demurrage Cesser of liability— Cargo loaded-Lien for freight and demurrage.Where a charter-party between shipowner and charterers provides a number of loading days and the rate of discharge per working day, that ten days on demurrage for all like days above the said days shall be paid at a specified rate per day, and that the charterer's liability shall cease when the ship is loaded, the captain or owner having a lien on cargo for freight and demurrage, the demurrage days mentioned include such days at both the port of loading and the port of discharge, and the charterer's liability for all demurrage at the port of loading ceases on the ship being loaded. (Ex. Ch. from Q.B.) Kish v. Cory; Francesco V. Massey.. 4. Demurrage-Shipowner's lien-Detention beyond demurrage days.-Semble, the shipowner's lien for demurrage includes a claim for damages caused by detention beyond the demurrage days. (Ex. Ch. from Q.B.) Kish v. Cory 31 593, 594n. 593 5. Warranty-Ship expected to be at a port.Where, by a charter-party, it is expressed that a ship "is expected to be at" a port on a given date, these words are in a nature of a warranty that the ship will be at the port named on that date, and an action is maintainable for a breach of that warranty. (C.P.) Corkling v. Massey... 18 6. Warranty-Ship "expected to be at a port”— Breach-Plea of knowledge of plaintiffs as to ship's engagements.-A plea that at the time of making the above agreement, the ship was engaged upon certain voyages, as was well known to the plaintiff, and that the charter-party was made subject to the condition that the ship or was COLLISION. 304 213 1. Breach of regulations Excuse of prior collision -Responsibility for prior collision to be considered. Where a ship seeks to excuse her failure to comply with the sailing regulations and with a seaman-like precaution, by showing that such a failure was in consequence of her being disabled in a prior collision, it is material to inquire whether the prior collision was due to her default, the result of inevitable accident. Semble, if the prior collision be due to the default of the ship so seeking excuse, and if her subsequent failure to comply as aforesaid contribute to the collision proceeded for, she will be to blame therefor (Priv. Co.) The Kiobenhavn .... 2. Crossing ships-Sailing ships-ClosehauledLuffing-Sailing Rules, Arts. 12 & 18.-Where a ship close hauled is bound to keep her course luffing as close to the wind as she can without losing headway is not a deviation within Article 18 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, such as will render her liable for a collision with another vessel, whose duty it is to keep out of her way. (Priv. Co.) The Aimo; The Amelia 96 3. Crossing ships - Steamships - Taking pilotsSpecial circumstances-Sailing Rules, Arts. 14 & 19. Two vessels bearing down at the same time from different directions upon a well-known pilot station to take pilots on board are to be treated as crossing vessels within the meaning of Art. 14 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, if their courses, if continued, would intersect; and the fact of their seeking pilots at the same place is not such a special circumstance within the meaning of Art. 19 as will take them out of the operation of the rule requiring that the ship which has the other on her own starboard hand shall keep out of the way of the other. (P. C. Affirming Adm. Ct. Vol. p. 475). The Ada; The Sappho 4. Crossing ships Steamships- Taking pilotsKeeping course-Sailing Rules, Arts. 14, 18, 19.Where a vessel is approaching a pilot station to take a pilot, and has, as regards another vessel doing the same thing, the right to keep her course she has a right to keep sufficient headway on her to give her steerage way, so as to get on her proper course after taking a pilot, and is not bound within Art. 16 to stop and reverse. The other vessel is bound to stop and let her take her pilot or to take some other means of avoiding her. (P. C.) The Ada; The Sappho.. 5. Crossing ships-Steamships-"Keeping out of way” -Porting-Stopping &c.-Sailing Rules, Art. 14. -Art 14. of the regulations for preventing collisions at sea, which provides that "if two vessels under steam are crossing so as to involve risk of SUBJECTS OF CASES. page 264 collision the ship which has the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way of the other," is not to be construed so that "keeping out of the way" means in all cases porting; a vessel may within the meaning of that article keep out of the way by stopping, or by going ahead, or by starboarding, or by porting, or by going astern, as the circumstances of the case may require. (Priv. Co.) The Nor 6. Damage by salvor-Gross negligence—Liability. -Where damage is inflicted upon a ship by another engaged in rendering salvage services to the former, the Court of Admiralty regards the negligence of the salvor less severely than it does the negligence of a vessel wholly unconnected with the injured vessel, but will condemn the salvor in the damage where he has been guilty of gross negligence and want of proper navigation. (Adm.) The C. S. Butler; The Baltic 7. Danger of Collision-Wrong manœuvre— e-Liability -A vessel which, having performed her own duty, is thrown into immediate danger of collision by the wrongful act of another is not to be held liable if at that moment she adopts a wrong manœuvre. (Priv. Co.) The Nor 8. Fog-Ferry boats-Crossing river-Liability for damage. A steam ferry boat continuing to cross and recross the river Mersey during a dense fog takes upon herself the responsibility incident to such a course, and is not entitled to set up public convenience against the probability of loss of life and property; but she will be liable for any damage done to other vessels with which she may come into collision, provided those vessels take the precautions required by law to warn her of their position. (Adm.) The Lancashire 9. Fog-Steamship-Duty to anchor-Liability.Where a steamship, whilst in a good and wellknown anchorage ground, enters a dense fog, it is her duty to anchor at once; and if she neglects to do so, and continues her course, she will be to blame for a collision ensuing, provided that the other vessel has done all that the law requires. (Adm.) The Otter ............ 10. Fog-Signal — Bell - Horn - Sailing ship.Where a sailing vessel in motion during a thick fog, instead of blowing a fog horn rings a bell, there is a presumption that the failure to blow the fog horn contributes to the collision, and, as the burden of showing that it was in no degree occasioned by that failure lies upon the sailing vessel, it is impossible to rebut the presumption. (U. S. Sup. Ct.) The Steamer Pennsylvania 11. Inevitable accident-Plea of-Onus of proofDuty to begin. In a cause of collision, where the defendants plead inevitable accident alone, it lies upon the plaintiff to show a prima facie case of negligence against the defendants, and the plaintiffs must therefore begin. (Adm.) The Abraham.... 12. Inevitable accident-Duty to keep courseDisabled ship unable to keep out of way-Sailing Rules, Art. 18.-Where it is the duty of a ship to keep out of the way of another, but she is unable to do so by reason of being disabled in a former collision, and the other ship, being unaware of her disabled condition, continues her course, under Article 18, a collision ensuing is the result of inevitable accident. (Priv. Co.) The Aimo; The Amelia 13. Launch-Reasonable precaution—Onus of proof. -It is the duty of those who launch a vessel to do so with the utmost precaution, and to give such notice as is reasonable and sufficient, according to local circumstances, to prevent injury happening to other vessels from the launch, and the burden of proving that these things have been done lies upon them. (Adm.) The Glengarry Notice of Where in - 230 230 14. Launch Reasonable precaution launch-General notice sufficient. launching a vessel in a river the usual precautions taken in that river have been taken, and the usual general notice that the launch was about to take place has been given, the persons having charge of the launch have performed all they are required to do by law, and no specific notice of the exact moment of the launch is required. (Adm.) Id. 15. Launch Notice of - · River Mersey. — In the River Mersey to give notice of a launch taking place it is customary to have the ship dressed in flags an hour or more before high water (about which time the launch takes place); to have tugs, one at least also dressed in flags, plying about some time before the launch in front of the yard where the ship is lying; and there are usually a number of small boats lying off ready to pick up timber when the ship comes away. (Adm.) Id. 230 16. Liability-Collision caused by negligence of third ship. Where a steamship, in order to avoid collision with another ship, is obliged by the wrongful act of that other ship to take measures which bring her into collision with a third ship, without any negligence on her own part, the Court of Admiralty will not hold her responsible for the damage to the injured vessel. Semble, that the owners of the injured vessel should proceed against the original wrongdoer. (Adm.) The Thames... 512 17. Liability in rem-Ship chartered-Crew charterers' servants.-A ship, chartered by her owners so that the whole control and management of ship and crew are vested in the charterers, is liable in a proceeding in rem for damage done to another ship by the negligence of her crew, although they are the charterers' servants. (Adm.) The Lemington 18. Lights-Duty of vessel at anchor-Trimming lamp no excuse. It being the duty of a vessel at anchor to carry a riding light always visible, no such excuse as that of taking the lamp down to be trimmed can be admitted, if the absence of the light brings about a collision. (P.C.) The C. M. Palmer; The Larnax 19. Lights-Distance visible-Deficiency-Merchant Shipping Act 1873, sect. 17-Infringment-Liability. A ship carrying side lights, which are visible only at the distance of about a mile, instead of at a distance of two miles as required by the regulations, infringes those regulations so as to make her liable to be deemed in fault under the Merchant Shipping Act 1873, sect. 17. (Adm.) The Magnet............. 475 94 478 20. Light-Deficiency-Distance visible-Merchant Shipping Act 1873, sect. 17-Liability.-Semble, that a ship carrying such lights must be deemed in fault, whether the deficiency of the light did or not contribute to the collision. (Adm.) Id...... 478 21. Lights-Obscuring of Merchant Shipping Act, 1873, sect. 17-Liability.-Semble, that where lights are so fixed that they are partly obscured from a particular point right ahead by the catheads of a ship carrying them, but are visible both above and below the catheads, there is no such infringement within the statute as will render the ship liable in a collision with another ship approaching broad on the starboard bow of the former. (Adm.) The Duke of Sutherland......... 478 22. Lights Screens-Shorter than regulation—Merchant Shipping Act 1873-Infringement.-The regulation as to the length of the screens of a |