網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

IRELAND.]

Re AN ARRANGING TRADER.

[IRELAND.

ship can reasonably carry. Freight is only payable | But, notwithstanding, I fortunately have in this upon what was carried and delivered, and, according to the regular rule, if any part is not delivered it cannot be claimed for. If the plt. meant to make a contract contrary to the usual one, he should have employed more express terms.

MELLOR, SHEE, and M. SMITH, JJ. concurred.

Judgment affirmed.

Attorneys for plt. Clarke, Woodcock, and Ryland, for C. Taddy.

Attorneys for defts., Upton, Johnson, and Uptons, for Lowndes and Co.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY (IRELAND). Reported by JOHN LEVY, Esq., Barrister-at-Law.

IN BANKRUPTCY.

May 1867.

(Before MILLER, J.)

Re AN ARRANGING TRADER. (a) Ship's Registry Act-Incompleted contract-Interest in ship supplied with necessaries, for which an apparent owner of a part is sought to be made liable. Where a party is in treaty for the purchase of a part in a ship, which ends in his becoming an apparent owner of a fourth in that ship, but never has any beneficial interest in it, such party will not be held liable for necessaries supplied to that ship before he became part owner. To make a contract complete there must be mutuality, and both parties must distinctly agree upon the terms which are to be the foundation of that contract.

This case came before the court upon charge and discharge. The chargeants were the Messrs. Spriggs, merchants in Liverpool, who supplied the ship Fanny with necessaries. The liability was disputed on the ground that at the time the goods were supplied the dischargeant had no beneficial interest in the vessel.

Kernan, Q. C. appeared in support of the charge. Heron, C. C. and Daniel were in support of the discharge.

The facts appear in the judgment of Miller, J. MILLER, J.-My desire in this case would be to go as far as the facts and law could possibly admit in enabling the chargeants to recover the full amount in value of the goods honestly supplied for the benefit of the vessel in question, as against the owners of it whoever they might be. While, if I looked alone to the case of either Stewart, who was an undoubted owner of a part (if not the whole) of the vessel, or the arranging trader, the alleged owner of a part of that vessel as spread upon the record before me, where I find, on the one hand, Stewart resorting to the expedient of antedating the bill of sale in the face of a correspondence which must have made the clumsiness of it transparent to any person; and on the other hand, the arranging trader (with equal recklessness in the face of the same correspondence, fully placed before him upon the charge) alleging upon his oath that the bill for 2371. 14s. 3d. was given for the accommodation of Stewart, which he must have known to have been untrue, there is much that is calculated to throw suspicion upon the case presented by either Stewart or the arranging trader.

(a) From the Irish Law Times.

case documentary evidence, including a written correspondence (although not, perhaps, the whole of it) which will afford to me some security that I shall not be much misled by the allegations of either as regards the rights of third parties. After the most careful consideration which I can give to it, the whole question in this case appears to me to be concluded, on the record before me, by the right underdocuments. Nothing is more important as regards standing of the contract as evidenced upon the all mercantile interests than that, before legal liabilities should be attached to contracts, such contracts should be unambiguous and complete. You may spell out a contract from many documents, or from many shreds of many documents; but from whatever evidence the contract may be collected, such contract, when taken as a whole, should comprise within it all the elements which go to form a valid contract, and for that purpose be complete in itself. The foundation of the claim of the chargeants rests mainly upon the fact whether there was such a contract between Stewart and the arranging trader as to vest a beneficial owner ship in the vessel, for which the goods were supplied, in the arranging trader; and, if so, whether the arranging trader acquired any such beneficial ownership in that vessel prior to these goods being supplied by the chargeant, for which he claims a right to prove in this matter. The treaty between Stewart and the arranging trader about the vessel commenced upon the 8th Sept. 1865, when Stewart wrote to the arranging trader, stating: "If you wish I will go half with you in her purchase if the vessel can be obtained on reasonable terms." In a further portion of the same letter, after stating that she would be got for 9001, he writes: "I believe that I can get the payment-part cash and part bill-so that about 2501. would be the cash each would want for the present." That letter was followed by another from Stewart, dated Sept. 15, in which he states: "I have bought the Fanny today for 950l., the lowest that would be taken; "(and further) "I shall be glad to hear from you as soon as possible, as I shall require to know my arrangements for cash matters. I can manage about 2001. for you here, so if you do not care to provide more in money you could take a fourth share, and I can do this for you without asking any cash until the vessel earns it." Thus far there was nothing but a proposal on the part of Stewart that the arranging trader should take either a half share upon specified terms, namely, one half of the purchase money to be paid in cash, and the other half by the acceptance of the arranging trader, or to take a fourth share, without the advance of any cash the brig Fanny, which Stewart stated that he had already purchased. The next letter which appears upon the evidence is a letter from the arranging trader to Stewart, dated the 18th Sept. 1865, in which he says: "If you think well of it I will be able to take one half of the brig Fanny, same as the Rogal William, and let both their earnings go together." In that letter nothing is said as to the requirements, on the part of Stewart, that in the event of the arrang ing trader taking one half share in the vessel he (the trader) must pay one half in cash, but contented himself with stating "that if Stewart thought well of it he would take one half share in the vessel." Stewart perceiving that omission of an important portion of his proposal, wrote a further letter on Sept. 29, stating: "I should have replied to your last letter sooner, until seeing what arrangement I should make in paying for the Fanny." In a further portion, "I shall be very happy for you to take one half in her, and as I shall require to pay for her here on Tuesday I will want you to send me 2351. in cash, and I inclose you my draft at three months for

Topic the
rat betree

as ti vest & 2222
* for w

De arranging ta
ranging traRY ANDRI

ership in that rews: 72
Pied by the charge

to prove in this cat
wart and the am

menced upon the s ode to the anniba h I will go half with el can be obtained to make er portion of the same lettz. 27 would be got for 9 at I can get the p

-so that about 250, walk2

Q. B.]

HUDSON V. EDE.

[Q. B.

Mellish, Q. C. (Archibald with him) argued for the plt.

2877. 14s. 3d., which please return accepted. This The facts and arguments are embodied in the
makes a fourth bill and a fourth cash for you, which judgment.
is as much as I can possibly manage. I have your
bill, 2004, to pay here on Monday, and when paid I
shall be out of cash on your account between 300l.
and 4007., and which the balance of freight and last
voyage of Royal William and advance of freight will
not square.” Thus far Stewart, as sole purchaser
of the vessel, would not accede to the arrangement
of the arranging trader becoming a purchaser in it,
except upon very specific terms as to the payment
or provision for the purchase-money for that one
half, and assigning reasons for these specific terms.

MILLER, J. having gone minutely into all the facts of the case, said that there was evidence sufficient in the case to show that there had not been a completed contract, and that the arranging trader had not any beneficial or other interest in the brig Fanny at the date at which the goods were supplied, and consequently that Stewart could not have acted as ship's husband of that vessel by the authority or for the benefit of the arranging trader. I necessarily must disallow the claim of the Messrs. Spriggs, the chargeants; but inasmuch as the arranging trader has not made this case by his discharge, but has further, in order to get out of what he apprehended would have been held to have been his contract, alleged that his acceptance for 2371. 14s. 3d. was for the accommodation of Stewart, which he must have known to have been altogether untrue, upon which he naturally supposed much would depend, I shall not give him any costs in this matter. I have the satisfaction, however, of feeling that I am not doing much injury to the Messrs. Spriggs, as upon the evidence of one member of the firm they had never heard of the arranging trader in the transaction until the failure of Stewart in the month May 1866, and therefore could not have supplied the goods upon the personal security of the trader.

want for the present Es 1 by another from Norther h he states: "I have dvazird -9, the lowest that

"I shall be glad to hear fr sible, as I shall require to kama for cash matters. I can ou here, so if you do not care to oney you could take a fourth sign

Charge disallowed without costs.
Solicitor for the arranging trader, Daniel,
Solicitor for Messrs. Spriggs, Denric.

Sir G. Honyman, Q. C. (Gibson with him) for the deft.

The following cases were cited:
Kearon v. Pearson, 7 H. & N. 386;
Barrett v. Dutton, 4 Camp. 333;
Pringle v. Mollett, 6 M. & W. 80,

[ocr errors]

June 29.-BLACKBURN, J.-In this case the deft. chartered the plt.'s vessel, the Tria, by a charterparty, of which the material parts are, that the vessel should proceed "to Sulina, or outside if not sufficient depth of water to load the ship, or so near thereto as she may safely get, and there load from the agents of the merchant a complete cargo of grain or seed, at shipper's option, sufficient grain or seed to ballast the vessel to be supplied, if required, before final discharge of outward cargo; time so occupied not to count as lay days; the cargo to be brought to and taken from alongside the ship at the port of loading and discharge at the charterer's expense and risk; thirty running days to be allowed the said merchants (if the ship be not sooner dispatched for loading and unloading), and ten days on demurrage, over and above the said laying days, at 67. a-day, 'detention by ice and quarantine not to be reckoned as laying days.' It is on the construction to be put on these latter words that the question depends; the other stipulations in the charter-party being material only so far as they explain the meaning of this provision. The ship was delayed, during the time as to which the dispute has arisen, not by ice in the port of Sulina rendering impossible the access to her of lighters from which cargo might, ia the usual course of the Danube grain trale, have been transferred to her hold, but by the obstruction of the navigation between Sulina and ports higher up the Danube, by reason of the river becoming frozen over. It appears that at the port of Sulina itself there are no storehouses available to the merchants in which cargoes of grain may be kept for loading vessels; the grain is kept at ports higher up the river; and, according to the course of the grain trade of that river, cargoes are brought by steam-lighters down the river and over the bar at its mouth, to ships awaiting their loading at Sulina Galatz one of those ports, is stated in the case to be situate about 105 miles from Sulina, the passage of the steam lighters between the two ports being a run of eighteen to twenty hours in fine weather, and of two to three days in bad weather. Ibrail, for the storehouse of which the captain of the Tria acting as agent for the deft., fixed on the 27th Nov. a cargo for that vessel, is higher up the river than Galatz. The Tria was at Sulina ready to receive her cargo on the 29th Nov., and the laying days commenced from that date. The cargo which it was intended to put on board, and which in fact was afterwards put on board, was at that time at Galatz. On the 5th Dec. (an unusually early date for the obstruction of the navigation by ice) the Danube became frozen over above Sulina, and so continued until the 8th Feb, of the ensuing year. It was well known to persons in the grain trade at London, Constantinople, and Sulina, before and at the time of effecting the charter-party, but not known to the plt. or his broker, that when there is ice in the Danube between Galatz or the other storing places at Sulina, the navigation becomes difficult for steam lighters, and when the river is frozen, impossible, Between the 29th Nov., when the Tria was ready to This was a special case stated without pleadings receive her cargo, and the 16th Dec., that is, for for the opinion of the court. more than half the time allowed for loading and 2 M

his for you without asking any to sel earns it." Thus far there wa posal on the part of Stewart th ler should take either h cified terms, namely, one half d

ney to be paid in cash, and the de ceptance of the arranging trait burth share, without the draf The brig Fanny, which Stewart sa already purchased. The next le upon the evidence is a letter fr trader to Stewart, dated the which he says: "If you think wed to take one half of the brig William, and let both their ear In that letter nothing is said to on the part of Stewart, that in th ing trader taking one half sare (the trader) must pay one half in himself with stating "that if Se

[ocr errors]

of it he would take one half h ed Stewart perceiving that omissi th portion of his proposal, write Sept. 29, stating: "I should have last letter sooner, until seeing

the

ve

19

should make in paying for the f portion, "I shall be very happy

and as I shall requir

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
Reported by T. W. SAUNDERS and C. W. LOVESY, Esqrs.,
Barristers-at-Law,

May 17 and June 29, 1867.

HUDSON V. EDE.

Ship-Charter-party-Laying days - Demurrage—
Detention by ice.

By a chater-party it was stipulated that the vessel
"should proceed to S., and there load a complete cargo
of grain, &c. Thirty running days to be allowed the
said merchant, if the ship be not sooner dispatched,
for loading and unloading, and ten days on demurrage
over and above the said laying days at 61. per day.
Detention by ice and quarantine not to be reckoned
as laying days." There are no storehouses at S. for
the deposit of grain which is stored at different places
higher up the Danube, and brought thence in lighters
down the river to ships waiting for cargo at S. The
ship was delayed, not by ice at S., but by reason of
the river above S. becoming frozen so as to prevent the
transport of grain from the higher portion of the river
to S.:

Held, that the clause as to "detention by ice," &c., was
inserted for the protection of the merchant, and that
it was immaterial whether the detention were caused by
ice at or above S.

MARI. CAS.-VOL. II.]

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

Between

[Q. B.

unloading, several vessels lying in the port of Sulina | the party best acquainted with the trade for were loaded with grain, their cargoes having been which the ship is taken up, and with the brought down the river between the 29th Nov. and difficulties which may impede the performance the 5th Dec. It may be inferred that in the usual by him of his contract. Words, therefore, course of shipment at Sulina the lighters were away in a charter-party, relaxing in his favour a clause there for some time for the convenience of the ships by which an allowance to him for time of a specific to be loaded from them It was expressly agreed object, in the interest of the ship, precisely limited, that sufficient grain used to ballast her should, if must be read as inserted for his requirement, and required, be supplied before the final discharge of construed at least with this degree of strictness her outward cargo. No cargo had been provided against him that they should not have put upon by the deft. even for this purpose, and the entire them any addition to their obvious meaning. Neverdischarge of the outward cargo was thereby delayed theless, where that meaning is ambiguous, as it is until the 6th Dec., when other ballast was taken in in the present case, we think that it must be by the captain. From the 16th to the 20th Dec. the port gathered from the surrounding circumstances to of Sulina was frozen, and all communication between which the charter-party was intended to apply. the ships in it and the shore was cut off. Now, the stipulation that " detention by ice" should the 24th and the 27th, the other vessels which have not be regarded as laying days must be taken to been referred to as having been loaded between the mean that those days in which ice made it im29th Nov. and the 5th Dec., were unable to start on possible to bring cargo alongside, and to go on with their respective voyages. It was not disputed that the loading, should be excluded. But inasmuch as the days during which the port of Sulina was frozen from the nature of the case the cargo had to be over, so that all communication with the shore was brought down the river after the arrival of the ship, cut off, were not to be reckond as laying days; but the loading would be equally interrupted and dethe question is, whether the days during which the tention equally ensue by reason of the navigation of river above Sulina was frozen, though Sulina itself the river becoming impeded by ice as it would be by was free, are to be reckoned as lay days, in which case the lighters being prevented from coming alongside the plt. is entitled to recover; or are to be considered of the vessel in the port. It was very properly adas "detention by ice," in which case the deft. has mitted that those days in which the port was frozen paid enough money into court, and is entitled to so that there could be no communication with the judgment. It was contended on behalf of the plt. shore were to be excluded, inasmuch as detention that the words "detention by ice not to be reckoned by ice would occur so soon as the lighters, by which as lay days" must be construed with reference to the grain was to be conveyed to the ship, were prethe object for which, in the preceding clause, the vented from getting access to her. But as we have lay days are stated to be allowed-namely, for seen, the cargo is to be brought to the ship, not from loading and unloading; and that no obstruction by the port of Sulina, but from the storehouses at the ice is within the meaning of those words except an ports up the river; and the lighters are as much preobstruction by ice in contact with, or near or about vented getting to the ship by reason of ice in the the ship, and interposing such a barrier against the one case as in the other. It is true that though access of lighters alongside of her as practically to these facts were well known to persons in the grain prevent or interrupt the actual work of loading. trade at London, Constantinople, and Sulina, before For the deft. it was contended that, regard being and at the time of the effecting of the charter-party, had to the circumstances under which shipments they were not known to the plt. and his broker; take place at the mouth of the Danube, and par but the ignorance of the plt. and his broker ticularly to the fact that the storehouses which cannot effect the question as to what was the supply grain to ships lying at Sulina are at a dis- way in which in the port cargo could be brought tance of 100 miles from that port, the words "deten- alongside the vessel, or how detention in the tion by ice" must be taken to include, not only the loading of the vessel could arise. Now, I think, prevention and interruption by ice of the actual on the statement, the only way in which cargo work of loading-that is, of bringing alongside the could be brought was down the Danube, and, ship in lighters, and transferring from them to the consequently, that the freezing up of the Danube ship's hold cargo brought down to Sulina in fulfil- immediately above Sulina, rendered it impracticable ment of the charter-but the delay of the ship's to bring any cargo alongside. If there had been loading by reason of the detention by ice of lighters the railway or any other practicable mode by which during any part of the time allowed for loading and cargo might have been brought by land to Sulina, unloading, and at any distance from Sulina. The or if the lower part of the Danube had been left solution of the question depends upon the inference free, so that cargo might have been brought from of fact to be drawn from the statement as to the some place in the Danube, though the ice blocked nature of the port of Sulina which have already up the river below the place where the cargo was been set forth. The merchant, by the charter-party, laying, we might have come to a different concluengages to bring down the cargo at the port of sion; but as it is we think the defendant is entitled loading, and to receive it at the port of discharge to judgment. The fact that had the deft. used within the laying days, and he is answerable for greater diligence he might have loaded the ship any detention arising from his failure to do so from before the navigation was interrupted, does not whatever causes, unless he protects himself by a much, therefore, affect the question. The deft, was stipulation, and the stipulation "detention by ice entitled to the benefit of the whole of the laying and quarantine not to be reckoned as laying days days, and would have had full time to load his cargo was clearly meant to protect the merchant. But but for the interruption to the navigation by ice. for this stipulation, although the ice or quarantine He is entitled to the advantage which the stipulation prevented the merchant from bringing cargo along- gives him, and the loss arising from the detention side the ship according to his contract, the ship- must fall on the shipowner who has agreed to these owner would be entitled to recover for the detention of his ship every day beyond the laying days. Moreover, to use the words of Lord Ellenborough, in Brook v. Hodgson, 4 M. & S. 267, "the merchant is the adventurer who chalks out the voyage which is to furnish the subject matter out of which the freight is to accrue." He is in most cases, as he certainly was in the present instance,

terms.

Judgment for the deft.

.EDE.

C. P.J

WHITSTABLE FREE FISHERS v. FOREMAN.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Reported by W. GRAHAM and M.W. MCKELLAR, Esqrs.,
Barristers-at-Law.

Jan. 28, 29, and 30, and July 8, 1867.
WHITSTABLE FREE FISHERS v. FOREMAN.

[C. P.

from time immemorial, continually down to the
present time, taken the sum of 1s. from every vessel
casting anchor within the limits of the anchorage
ground now in their possession, whether the anchor-
age were voluntary or from necessity. Since 1828
the plts. have not demanded anchorage tolls from
any vessels sailing into and anchoring within the
railway harbour, unless such vessels have previously

Claim for anchorage dues-Immemorial payment-cast anchor on their anchorage ground.
Ownership of the soil-Buoys, beacons, and lights-
Evidence of existence of a port-Consideration to the
public.

Plts. ars owners of oyster beds, which lie to the north and east of the anchorage ground. There are no buoys or beacons to indicate the anchoring ground, except those maintained by the plts. in order to mark the bounds of their oyster beds.

Plts. also keep two boats, which are called watch boats, and are moored on the boundary of the oyster bed and the anchorage ground. They are maintained for the protection of the plts.' oysters from thieves, and also to warn vessels from attempting to come to the anchorage ground, when from the state of the tides they would be likely to ground upon and injure the oysters. Since the year 1858 these watch boats have been provided with lights; the light on the outer boat is put out when there is less than thirteen feet of water where the boat is moored, and the light on the inner boat when there is less than seven feet of water at her moorings. These boats are compelled to leave their moorings in very rough weather.

The plts., the owners in fee of the manor of Whitstable,
which includes oyster fisheries and an anchorage
ground, claimed a right to demand a toll from all ships
anchoring upon their soil. In support of this claim
evidence was adduced that the plts. and those under
whom they enjoy possession had taken tolls from time
immemorial; that the plts. now keep buoys, beacons,
and lights to mark the bounds between their oyster-beds
and the anchorage ground; that these buoys, beacons,
and lights had been kept up at various times and at
intervals during a long period, but there was no
proof of their continued existence from the commence-
ment of the custom to take tolls; that before and since
the time of legal memory Whitstable had been men-
tioned in official and private documents as a port;
that in ancient times there was a place within the
manor for the unloading of merchandise; and that
the right to take tolls had been expressed to be con-
veyed to the plts. with the possession of the ground:
Held, upon a special case in which this evidence was set
out, that the maintenance of the buoys, beacons, and
lights, and the advantages which the public derive there-
from, taken in connection with the ownership of the
soil of the anchorage ground, are a sufficient consider-light
ation to support the legality of the plts.' claim; that
the payment having been made from time immemorial,
it ought to be referred to a legal origin if there be
anything to support it; that very slight evidence is
necessary in order to support a right which has been
uninterruptedly enjoyed from time immemorial, the
legality of which the court is almost bound to presume;
and that, therefore, the circumstances of this case were
sufficient to make this claim good, according to the rule
laid down by the H. of L. in Gann v. The Free
Fishers of Whitstable, 12 L. T. Rep. N. S. 150.
This was a special case, stated by consent for the
opinion of the court. The following analysis will
be sufficient to show the effect of the judgment:

the party best acquainted with which the ship is taken up difficulties which may impede the by him of his contract. W in a charter-party, relaxing in his by which an allowance to him for tine d object, in the interest of the ship, pres must be read as inserted for his requ construed at least with this degree i against him that they should not have: them any addition to their obvious mes theless, where that meaning is ang in the present case, we think th:1 gathered from the surrounding ci which the charter-party was inte Now, the stipulation that "detention not be regarded as laying days m mean that those days in which is possible to bring cargo alongside, and the loading, should be excluded. Bu from the nature of the case the carpa brought down the river after the ami the loading would be equally interr tention equally ensue by reason of the the river becoming impeded by ice 11 the lighters being prevented from coming of the vessel in the port. It was very mitted that those days in which the pr so that there could be no commemor shore were to be excluded, inasmuch by ice would occur so soon as the ligh the grain was to be conveyed to the s vented from getting access to her. But seen, the cargo is to be brought to the s the port of Sulina, but from the store ports up the river; and the fighters an vented getting to the ship by reassa d one case as in the other. It is tra these facts were well known to persons trade at London, Constantinople, and and at the time of the effecting of the c they were not known to the pit s but the ignorance of the pit and cannot effect the question as to way in which in the port cargo e alongside the vessel, or how dee loading of the vessel could arise. on the statement, the only way in could be brought was down the consequently, that the freezing up immediately above Sulina, rendered to bring any cargo alongside. I the railway or any other practicable cargo might have been brought by or if the lower part of the Danube free, so that cargo might have been some place in the Danube, though the up the river below the place where laying, we might have come to s sion; but as it is we think the defend to judgment. The fact that had greater diligence he might have la before the navigation was interrupted much, therefore, affect the question entitled to the benefit of the whole days, and would have had full time but for the interruption to the He is entitled to the advantage which gives him, and the loss arising from must fall on the shipowner who has

terms.

[ocr errors]

Vessels sailing into the anchorage ground at night derive some aid from the lights in the watch boats, but are chiefly guided by a light on shore from the railway company's harbour. The ordinary course of navigation for vessels intending to make the anchorage at Whitstable is to sail along the "Ridge" one of the boundaries of the anchorage) until the in the harbour bears south, then to steer straight on. There is another mode of entering the anchorage ground through a channel called the "Eddy hole," which lies between the "Street" (another boundary) and "Ridge." The buoys which indicate the limits of the plts.' oyster beds also point out this channel. It is a safe channel for but it is unsafe and not ordinarily used for loading fishing boats and vessels of small draft of water,

vessels.

[graphic]

South Eastern Railway Company in the harbour The light exhibited on shore is maintained by the constructed by them on the land purchased from the plts. in 1828. This light is always shown, and affords most valuable aid to vessels endeavouring to make the anchorage ground; the members of the plts.' company are forbidden by their bye-laws to dredge or work, and they do not, in fact, dredge or work, on their oyster beds after dark.

Plts. are the Company of Free Fishers and Dredgers of Whitstable, in the county of Kent, incorporated by Act of Parliament, 33 Geo. 3, c. 42 (1793); they are the owners in fee of the ground situate within the sea limits of the manor of Whit-bited from the shore at Whitstable, and in constable, which is described as the anchorage ground. Deft. is the owner of a vessel called the Sancho Panza, a collier trading to Whitstable.

The action is to recover 3s., being the anchorage tolls of 1s. each, claimed by the plts. as the tolls payable by the deft. for casting anchor within or near this anchorage ground upon three separate occasions, viz., Sept. 14, Oct. 31, and Nov. 27, 1860. The ground on which the vessel anchored on Sept. 14 and Oct. 31 was within the anchorage ground somewhat below ordinary low water mark. Where the vessel anchored on Nov. 27 was between high and low water mark, upon ground which had been conveyed to the South Eastern Railway Company in 1828, and upon which a harbour had been constructed, which is described as the railway company's harbour.

Paragraphs 4 & 5 describe the position and boundaries of the anchorage ground and the railway company's harbour.

The plts., and those under whom they claim, have

For some years before 1816, no light was exhisequence the anchorage ground was frequently missed by vessels endeavouring to find it. In the year 1816, a man named Reeves, who filled the position of foreman to the plts.' company, exhibited a light from a mast erected on his premises. The expense of the light was borne by a contribution from the plts. and the shipowners of Whitstable. The company paid 10l. per annum, and the shipowners the sum of 5s. for each vessel. This contribution was made voluntarily, and was never demanded as a right by Reeves, or by the plts. The light was continued down to the year 1828, when, in consequence of the unsatisfactory manner in which the light was maintained by Reeves, the contribution ceased, and the light was for some time altogether discontinued.

In the year 1832, a man named Perkins, who was not in the employ of the plts., but was a sailmaker residing at Whitstable, exhibited a light from a window in his sail loft, and the expense was borne as before by contributions of the same amount.

C. P.]

WHITSTABLE FREE FISHERS v. FOREMAN.

as those formerly paid by the pits. and the ship- |

owners.

In the year 1838, a man named Richards, who was not in the employ of the plts., succeeded Perkins in the management of the light; he removed it from its former position to a pole in front of his house; the expense continued to be borne as before by voluntary contribution, but the light ceased to be exhibited with regularity about the year 1845.

In the year 1848 a person named George Clay, who was then in the employment of the SouthEastern Railway Company as master of their harbour at Whitstable, proposed to plts, and to the shipowners at Whitstable, to exhibit a light from the railway company's harbour, upon being paid 67. a year by the plts., and tonnage of 18. 4d. a ton upon vessels using the said harbour; to this arrangement the plts. and the shipowners agreed. The plts. discontinued their payments after two years, but the tonnage dues had been regularly paid to the SouthEastern Railway Company, and the light has been constantly exhibited.

The only proof of any payment by the plts.' company towards maintaining a light prior to the year 1816 are the following entries made in the books of the company by a former treasurer: 1777. June 29 -Paid Mr. Matthew Brown for one year's use of the light

1778. May 12.-Paid Matthew Brown for one year's use of the light

£3 30

4 4 0 The buoys and beacons maintained by the plts. have been so maintained during living memory. The books kept by former treasurers of the pits. contain, among others certain entries of payments for the use and repairs of the buoys, and for advertisements. The dates of these entries are in the years 1773, 1774, 1775, and 1776.

The only advertisements relating to this matter inserted in the Kentish Gazette about the date of the above entries were two which appeared in the papers of Dec. 15 and Dec. 18, 1773, by which notice was given that the plts.' company had lately put and placed down buoys to mark out and distinguish the boundaries of the nanor and royalty of Whitstable, and that every person who should thereafter trespass upon the company's free fishery and royalty by dredging for or taking any of the oysters, or do any damage to the said buoys belonging to the free fishers and dredgers, would be prosecuted for the same with the utinost rigour of the law.

The manor of Whitstable, anciently known as Northwood, was a subinfeudation of the barony of Chilham, and in the survey of Domesday is found in the possession of Odo, Bishop of Bayeaux. In the reign of Henry III., by an inquisition taken at their death, Richard and Rosina de Dover were found to have held of the King in chief the said barony of Chilham, and amongst other of its members, the manor of Northwood, worth in all issues of 217. 1s.

Subsequently, the manor came into possession of Alexander de Balliol, by courtesy, upon the death of his wife, Isabel, a descendant of Richard de Dover; and at the circuit of the justicesin-eyre for Kent, in the seventh Edw. I., assigned to hold the pleas of Quo Warranto, the said Alexander de Balliol, in right of his wife, claimed to have "without charter of old custom in his manor in the county certain liberties, to wit, at Whitstable, a free hundred court, &c., wreck of the sea, toll and warren; and that they and all the ancestors of the wife, from time whereof is not, &c., have fully used all these liberties." An inquisition being prayed, the knights chosen on the jury returned a verdict that the said Alexander, Isabel, and her ancestors, had

[C. P. immemorially and fully used the liberties, and had usurped nothing upon the Crown.

Upon an information of Quo Warranto in the 21st Edward I., the said Alexander de Balliol was summoned to answer why he claimed certain privileges and liberties at Whitstable, amongst which were free warren, toll of the sea, and toll with merchandise at Le Craston, or Greystone (a landing place within the manor, the exact position of which is not now known): and the said Alexander also claimed that his wife's ancestors, from the time of which memory is not, have had the aforesaid liberties, and warren, wreck, and toll, without interruption.

Alexander and his wife's ancestors "had always, The jurors said upon their oath, that the aforesaid

aforesaid as they claimed to have the same, except from time whereof memory is not, all the liberties Free-warren in certain newly-acquired lands; and that the said Alexander, as to the other liberties should go thereof without day saving the king's right, &c."

On the 3rd Jan., 19 Ed. 2, a commission was issued by the king, in which it was recited that certain treasonable letters had been landed from vessels along the coast of the Thames between

Reculver, Greystone, and Whitstable. These places

are alluded to throughout the commission as "the said ports and places."

In a proclamation, dated the 14th Aug., 20 Ed. 2, these places are also called "ports."

During the tenancy of the manor by a religious house called the College of Plecy, in Essex, in the year 4 Hen. 7, an award was made, by arbitrators appointed by the king, concerning a dispute as to the dredging of oysters at Whitstable. They found amongst other things that the oyster-ground was "parcel of the manor of Whitstable."

In a survey of the manor in 22 Hen. 8, among the holdings enumerated are divers fisheries cailed weirs, the localities of which are described as "the Strett, the Rigge, and the Beken." The two former are the banks which lie on the east and north of the anchorage ground.

In the 7th Elizabeth a special commission was directed out of the Court of Ex. to survey the port of Sandwich, and the number and condition of its creeks or members, and to certify which of them were the most frequented by merchants, and were fit to be continued for the receipt of customs. The certificate of the commissioners thereupon returned enumerates among the members and creeks of Sandwich, Whitstable, "ten miles distant from the said port towards the north." It proceeds to state the condition of the various members among which Dover and Faversham are declared to be in decay and "all the residue to be in good estate." The commissioners thus conclude: "All the creeks above-named, other than such as have officers attendant, do sometimes receive in and deliver out wares and merchandise, but [there are] none meet to have continuance, but only the said court of Sandwich, and the creeks of Dover, Faversham, Milton, and Rochester. Nevertheless, for the case of the county, it is thought meet that the creeks aforesaid, as well within the Isle of Thanet as elsewhere, be maintained and used for the transporting of corn, wood, and other commodities, out of one part of the realm into another part, making their entries and certificates to the next port or creek adjoining, where the said officers are resident; and that the said several creeks, as to this transporting of merchandise to or from beyond the sea, be utterly damned."

Dover, mentioned in the said inquisition, is now, and from time immemorial has been, one of the Cinque ports; Faversham is, and from time imane. morial has been, a port, and a limb of Dover.

« 上一頁繼續 »