SUBJECTS OF CASES. The the usual form, the only exception contained in it being the exception of "perils of the sea." Kate, while sailing up the Thames, collided with a steamer, and was sunk, and the cargo lost. In an action to recover the value of the cargo the jury found that the collision was caused by the Kate starboarding her helm, but that there was no negligence on her part. There was no finding as to the steamer. Held, that the loss was not occasioned by a peril of the sea. (Ct. of App., reversing Hawkins, J.) Woodley and Co. v. Michell and Co. page 71 21. Excepted perils-Bill of lading-Damage to cargo-Unseaworthiness.-The excepted perils in a bill of lading have no application to the case of a ship sailing in an unseaworthy condition; and hence they are no defence to an action brought for loss or damage to the charterer's goods occasioned by such unseaworthiness. (Adm. Div.) The Glenfruin.............. 22. Excepted perils-Bill of lading-Liability for damage to cattle-Foot-and-mouth disease-Unseaworthy ship.-A clause in a bill of lading exempting shipowners from responsibility for cattle, whether arising from their escape from the steamer, or for accidents, disease, or mortality," and limiting their liability to 51. per head, docs not exempt them from liability for loss occasioned by their failing to provide a fit ship, as the clause. applies only to things occurring during the voyage, and the shipowners are therefore liable for injury by foot-and-mouth disease caused by their negligence in not cleansing the ship before the commencement of the voyage. (Q. B. Div.) Tattersall v. The National Steamship Company Limited 23. Excepted perils-Bill of lading-Negligence of master and crew-Collision between ships belonging to same owners-Both ships to blame-Division of damages. Where a vessel carrying cargo under a bill of lading providing against loss and damage from collision and loss or damage from any act, neglect, or default whatsoever of the pilots, master, mariners, or other servants of the owners in navigating the ship, collides with another vessel belonging to the same owners by reason of the joint negligence of both vessels and the cargo is lost, there is no liability under the contract of carriage, as such loss is covered by the above exceptions, but the owners are liable in tort for the negligence of their servants on board the vessel not carrying the cargo, and in such circumstances the Admiralty Court rule as to the division of damages applies, and the shipowners are liable for half of the loss. (Ct. of App.) The Chartered Mercantile Bank of India, &c. v. The Netherlands India Steam Navigation Company Limited 64 24. Excepted perils-Dangers and accidents of the sea- Charter-party Bill of lading-Rats.Damage to cargo caused by sea water entering through a pipe which has been gnawed through by rats, where there is no negligence on the part of the master and crew, and all reasonable precautions have been taken to keep down rats, is a danger or accident of the seas" within the meaning of a charter-party and bill of lading. (Lopes, L.J. Since reversed by the Court of Appeal. See next volume.) Pandorf and Co. v. Hamilton, Fraser, and Co. 25. Freight-Advance of Charter-party. Final sailing from port-Limits of port-Commercial or fiscal. Where a charter-party provides for an advance of freight within a specified time from final sailing of the vessel from her last port in the United Kingdom, and the vessel is towed 413 206 65 568 26. Freight-Lien-Bill of lading-Incorporation of charter-party-Rights of consignees.-Where by a bill of lading freight is payable at a certain rate and other conditions as per charter-party," and by the charter-party freight is payable at a higher rate, and the shipowner is given an absolute lien on the cargo for freight, the shipowner has no right as against the consignees, who were not the charterers, to detain the cargo to enforce payment of freight at the rate mentioned in the charter-party, the conditions as to freight mentioned in the charter not being incorporated in the bill of lading, and the consignees being entitled to delivery upon payment of the freight mentioned in the bill of lading. (Ct. of App.) Gardner and Son v. Trechmann 66 558 27. Freight and demurrage-Bill of lading-Incorporation of charter-Inconsistent clause-Cesser of liability clause.-The words in a bill of lading paying freight and all other conditions as per charter-party so far as they are consistent with the bill of lading, and therefore a charterer and shipper who is also the consignee and receiver of a cargo under a bill of lading containing the above words is not exempted from liability for demurrage at the port of discharge by reason of a clause in the charter-party stating that the responsibility of the charterer is to cease as soon as the cargo is on board, the vessel holding a lien upon the cargo for freight and demurrage. (Ct. of App., affirming Q. B. Div.) Gullichsen v. Stewart Brothers.... 130, 200 28. Lien of shipowner-Delay by negligence of shipowner-. -Discharge-Reshipment-Right to carry on-Freight. When a cargo has been shipped, and the voyage is delayed by an accident not within the perils excepted in the contract of affreightment (to wit, a collision caused by the negligence of the carrying ship), in consequence of which the cargo has to be discharged, the shipowner has a lien on the cargo for the purpose of enabling him to earn his freight, and the cargo owner is not entitled to insist on delivery of the cargo without payment of freight before the completion of the voyage on which the freight is to be earned, but the shipowner may insist upon reshipping the original cargo if it is capable of being carried on. (Adm. Div.) The Blenheim... 522 29. Loss of cargo-Measure of damage-Collision— Both ships to blame-Admiralty Court rule.--The Admiralty Court rule that in cases of collision the damages are to be equally divided where both ships are to blame, does not apply to actions for breach of contract of carriage brought by owners of cargo against the carrying ship to recover damages for loss of, or injury to, their goods, and hence the plaintiffs in such actions are entitled to recover their full damages from the owners of the carrying ship. (Adm. Div.) The Bushire... 416 30. Loss of cargo-Negligence of shipowner-Measure of damages-Advance freight-Premium of insurance. Where goods are shipped under a charterparty providing for an advance of freight within a month of the ship sailing "lost or not lost," and the advance is duly paid, but the ship and cargo on the voyage are lost by the negligence of the shipowners or their servants, the damages recoverable being the value of the cargo at its point of destination, the cargo owners are en 31. Practice-Interrogatories-Damage to cargoAnticipation of defendant's case-Inadmissibility. -Where, in an action by the shipper of goods against the shipowner for non-delivery, the defendant admits that the goods were not delivered, and alleges that he was prevented from delivering them by the perils excepted in the bill of lading, interrogatories for the purpose of showing that the ship was unseaworthy when she left port, and sank soon afterwards in consequence of a cock being left open, are inadmissible, the interrogatories not being based upon facts which must inevitably occur in the ordinary course of the voyage, and there being nothing to show that they were not purely hypothetical, as well as being objectionable, on the ground that the plaintiff's case was complete on the admission of non-delivery, and that they were administered merely for the purpose of anticipating the defendant's case. (Q. B. Div.) Grumbrecht and others v. Parry 176 20 32. Practice-Interrogatories-Damage to cargoDetails of navigation-Duty to inquire from agents. -In an action for damage to cargo the plaintiffs are entitled to answers to interrogatories respecting the details of the navigation of the vessel at the time the loss occurred, if the shipowners' servants or agents possess the necessary information and it would come to their knowledge in the ordinary course of business; and they are not excused from answering on the ground of want of personal knowledge of the facts inquired about. (Ct. of App., reversing Q. B. Div.) Bolckow, Vaughan, and Co. v. Fisher and others........ 33. Warranty of seaworthiness-Bill of ladingLatent defect-Breaking of screw-shaft.-The warranty of seaworthiness implied in a bill of lading is an absolute warranty that the ship shall be in fact fit for the voyage, and not merely that the shipowner shall take all reasonable care to make her so fit; and hence a latent effect in the screw-shaft existing prior to the commencement of the voyage, and resulting in the breaking of the shaft, is a breach of the shipowner's warranty of seaworthiness, although the shipowner may have taken all reasonable precaution in the selection of the shaft. (Adm. Div.) The Glenfruin... 413 See County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction. CARRIAGE OF PASSENGER. 1. Passenger's ticket-Exceptions from liability— Loss of life-Collision-Negligence.-Under a contract by ticket for the carriage of a passenger by sea containing a notice that the shipowners will not be responsible for any loss, damage, or detention of luggage under any circumstances; nor for the maintenance or loss of time of a passenger during any detention of their vessels, nor for any delay arising out of accidents, nor for any loss or damage arising from perils of the seas, or from machinery, boilers, or steam, or from any act, neglect, or default whatsoever of the pilot, master, or mariners, the shipowners are not liable in an action for the loss of life of a passenger caused by the negligence of their servants in a collision with another ship. (Ct. of App., affirming Q. B. Div.) Haigh v. The Royal Mail Steam Packet Company 47, 189 2. Passenger's ticket-Exceptions from liability— Loss of luggage-Negligence.-Under a contract by ticket for the carriage of a passenger containing (inter alia) a condition that the shipowners will not be responsible for any loss or damage to luggage in any circumstances" the shipowners are not liable for the loss of a passenger's luggage, even though occasioned by negligence. (Ct. of Ex.) Thompson v. Royal Mail Steam Packet Company ......... ..page 190 n. See County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction. CATTLE. See Carriage of Goods, No. 22. CAUSA PROXIMA. See Marine Insurance, Nos. 10, 16, 17. CESSER CLAUSE. See Carriage of Goods, No. 27. and CHAIN CABLES AND ANCHORS ACT 1874. Warranty Application-British and foreign ships. -The 4th section of the Chain Cables Anchors Act 1874 providing that contracts for the sales of chain cables shall, in the absence of an express stipulation to the contrary, be deemed to imply a warranty that the chain cable has been tested and stamped in accordance with the Chain Cables and Anchors Act 1864 to 1874 applies to all contracts for the sale of chain cables, and is not confined by the provisions of sect. 3 to contracts for the sale of chain cables for the use of British ships. (Q. B. Div.) Hail v. Billingham and Sons CHARTER-PARTY. 538 1. Authority to charter-Master-Absence of 3. Authority to charter Master - Holding-out 5. Cancellation clause- Port of loading. Nonarrival of ship-Excepted perils.-The cancellation clause in a charter-party being for the benefit of the charterers, and the arrival of the ship on a date therein named being a condition precedent to the duty of the shipowner to load, the excepted perils mentioned in the charter 1124 75 1125 75 75 SUBJECTS OF CASES. ..page 360 party have no application to such a clause, and hence, where the ship is prevented by these perils from arriving at the port of loading by the date mentioned, the charterers have the right to cancel. (Q. B. Div.) Smith v. Dart 6. Port-Limits of Commercial or fiscal.-In construing a charter-party, the word "port" is to be understood in its ordinary commercial sense, and not as defined for fiscal purposes. (Ct. of App.) Price v. Livingstone 13 Sailing Ship Garston Company v. Hickie and Co. 499 7. Practice-Evidence-Stamp Act 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 97), ss. 15, 67, 68-Execution abroad.A charter-party wholly executed by both parties thereto abroad, is duly stamped so as to be admissible in evidence if it has been stamped within two months after it has been first received in the United Kingdom as provided by sect. 15 of the Stamp Act 1870, and it is not necessary that such a charter-party should be stamped under sect. 68 of the same Act. (Adm. Div.) The Belfort - 291 8. Practice-Evidence-Stamp Act 1870-Form of Stamp. Semble, that a charter-party wholly executed by both parties thereto abroad must be stamped with an impressed stamp, and not with an adhesive stamp. (Adm. Div.) The Belfort... 291 9. Practice Misdirection - Construction Safe loading place. In an action for breach of charterparty, an expression of opinion by the judge that certain port is a safe loading place" is not a misdirection if he leaves the question to the jury. (Q. B. Div.) Smith v. Dart......... See Carriage of Goods, Nos. 12 to 18, 24 to 27Collision, No. 13-Marine Insurance, Nos. 1, 8, 9, 10, 11-Master's Wages and Disbursements, Nos. 8, 9, 10 Salvage, No. 24-Shipowner, No. 9Wages, No. 5. COALING. See Collision, No. 3. COLLISION. 360 1. Compulsory pilotage-Duty of master to interfere -Fog-Liability of owners.-Although the pilot in charge of a ship by compulsion of law is under ordinary circumstances solely responsible for getting the ship under way, yet, if the weather is so bad by reason of fog or other circumstances as to make navigation manifestly perilous and to give rise to a plain prospect of danger, it is the duty of the master to interfere, and he is to blame if he permits his vessel to get under way in such circumstances. (Adm. Div.) The Oakfield 575 2. Compulsory pilotage-Duty and power of pilotPosition of anchor.-The position of an anchor, which is required for letting go in a port, is within the discretion of the pilot in charge, and if damage is occasioned to another vessel by reason of the anchor so being placed with a compulsory pilot's consent or directions, the owners are exempted from liability for such damage. (Ct. of App.) The Rigborgs Minde.... 3. Compulsory pilotage Exemption Passing through limits of pilotage district-Coaling-Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Act 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 63) s. 41.-Where a steamship is passing through the limits of any pilotage district in the United Kingdom, on a voyage between two places, both situate out of such district, but stops at a port within that district for the purpose of coaling only, the provisions of sect. 41 of the Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Act 1862 do not exempt her from compulsory pilotage, the words "loading 123 .......... or discharging" therein mentioned not being confined to cargo. (Ct. of App., affirming Adm.) The Winston ..page 143, 274 4. Compulsory pilotage-Lights-Breach of regulations-Duties of master and pilot.-The exhibition of an improper light, or the failure to carry the regulation lights, is not excused by the fact that it was done in obedience to the orders of a compulsory pilot, it being the duty of the master to see that the lights required by the regulations are carried. (Adm. Div.) The Ripon ............ 5. Compulsory pilotage-Order by pilot on suggestion of master.-Exemption of owners.- -Where a pilot in charge of a vessel by compulsion of law gives at the suggestion of the master an improper order which brings about a collision, such interference by the master does not transfer the responsibility of the pilot to the master so as to deprive the shipowners of the defence of compulsory pilotage to an action to recover the damages occasioned by the collision. (Adm. Div.) The Oakfield 6. Compulsory pilotage-Port of Hull-Change of pilots-Hull pilot Act (2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 105, Local and Personal), ss. 22, 36, 41.-Pilotage is compulsory on vessels coming into the port of Hull, and, where the vessel is going into dock, remains compulsory until she reaches her ultimate destination in the dock, and does not cease because the vessel anchors in the river waiting the tide to go into dock. The fact that the pilot who brings her to an anchor leaves her there, and she is taken on by another pilot in consequence of an arrangement among the Humber pilots, does not affect the compulsion. (Ct. of App.) The Rigborgs Minde 7. Costs-Both ships to blame-Defendant exempt by compulsory pilotage-No counter-claim.-The rule that where both ships are found to blame for a collision each party bears his own costs is to be followed in a case where the defendants' ship, which does not counter-claim, is held to be exempt from liability on the ground of compulsory pilotage. (Ct. of App.) The Rigborgs Minde 8. Costs Claim and counter-claim- Cross refer ence. In cases of collision, where both vessels are held to blame, and the amount of damage is referred to the registrar, and less than one-fourth is struck off the respective claim and counterclaim of the plaintiffs and the defendants, the costs of substantiating the plaintiffs' claim at the reference will be borne by the defendants, and the costs of substantiating the defendant's counterclaim at the reference by the plaintiffs. (Adm.) The Mary The Savernake 9. Costs-Reference-Withdrawal of part of claim -Amount allowed.-Where a plaintiff in a reference in a collision action withdraws a large item of his claim at the reference and not before, and he recovers less than two-thirds of the amount originally claimed, but more than two-thirds of the amount which remains after his withdrawal of the above item, the original amount of his claim before withdrawal is the claim upon which costs are to be given, and he is not entitled to his costs. (Adm.) The Eilean Dubh 365 575 123 123 33 34 n. 154 10. Costs-Both ships to blame-One exempt by reason of compulsory pilotage-Appeal-Decree below varied.-Where the Court of Appeal varies the decision of the Admiralty Court, finding one vessel solely to blame for a collision, by finding both vessels to blame, each party bears his own costs, both in the court below and in the Court of Appeal, and the fact that the owners of one are exempt from liability on the ground of com 11. Damages-Advance as against freight-Bill of lading and policy assigned as security-Right of holders to recover-Shipowners' cargo.-Where cargo is shipped on the shipowners' account and money is advanced to them by persons who take as security an assignment of a policy of insurance on the freight, and a bill of lading signed by the master and indorsed by him with a receipt of a sum of money on account of freight named in the bill of lading, and the ship is run down and sunk by the negligence of another vessel, the persons advancing the money as holders of the bill of lading have sufficient interest in the goods and freight to entitle them to recover from the owners of the wrong-doing vessel the sum of money advanced on account of freight. (Adm.) The Thyatira 12. Damages-Both ships to blame-One exempt by reason of compulsory pilotage-Amount recoverable. Where in an action of collision it is held that it was occasioned by the fault of both vessels, but one of such vessels is exempt from liability on the ground of compulsory pilotage, the latter vessel is entitled by the Admiralty Court rule to recover half the damages sustained by her in the collision, and is not limited to the difference between half her damage and half the damage of the other ship. (Ct. of App.) The Hector 13. Damages-Consequential-Loss of charter-party. -Where a vessel by reason of a collision brought about by the wrongful navigation of another vessel, is obliged to abandon a charter-party, the loss arising from the abandonment of such charter is a loss caused by the collision, and as such must be made good by the wrong-doing vessel. (Adm.) The Consett.... 14. Damages-Division of-Breach of regulations by one ship-Both to blame.-Where two vessels are damaged by collision, for which both are to blame, one for wrongful navigation and the other for a breach of the Regulations for Preventing Collision at Sea, it not being shown that such breach could not possibly have contributed to the collision the damages are to be divided between the parties, according to the Admiralty Court rule. (P. C.) The Hochung; The Lapwing 15. Damages-Latent damage not caused by collision -Repair required by Board of Trade surveyor— Liability for.-Where a ship is damaged by collision and on opening her up to effect the repairs rendered necessary by the collision, certain parts of her not injured by the collision are found to be rotten and have to be renewed by order of the Board of Trade official, the cost of such renewal cannot be charged to the collision damage, although such parts, but for such opening up would have lasted some years. (Adm. Div.) The Princess 147 101 .34 n. 16. Damages-Loss of freight-Shipowners' cargoAssignment of freight-Assignees right on loss of ship. Where shipowners ship their own goods in their own ship they may, by indorsement of a bill of lading naming the right of freight, assign under the name of freight the enhanced value of the goods at the port of destination so as to give the assignees a right of action against wrong-doers causing the loss of ship and cargo. Whether the amount assigned under the name of freight is within the enhanced value is a question for inquiry. (Adm.) The Thyatira 17. Damages-Measure of-Cargo owned by shipowner-Freight-Value at destination.-In a case of total loss at sea by collision, a shipowner who has cargo of his own on board is entitled to 39 451 147 recover, in lieu of freight, what would have been the enhanced value of the cargo at its destination, less the expenses of earning that value, and that is the proper form of claim, and not a claim for expenses in making the ship fit for sea, &c. (Adm.) The Thyatira ...page 178 18. Damages-Measure of-Delay-Loss of market. -Where by reason of a collision between two steamships, occasioned by the negligence of one, goods carried by the other are delayed in transit. damages for loss of market are not recoverable from the owners of the wrong-doing steamer, such damages being too remote by reason of the uncertainty of the duration of a sea voyage. (Ct. of App.) The Notting Hill 241 19. Damages-Measure of-Loss of fishing-Average profits-Registrar and merchants. Where the plaintiff in a damage action claimed for demurrage upon the basis of loss of fishing during repairs, and the registrar and merchants estimated that loss by taking the average catch of similar vessels during the period of repairs, the court, on objection to the registrar's report, confirmed the report with costs. (Adm.) The Risoluto..... 20. Damages-Measure of--Salvage consequent on collision-Commission on bail.-In a damage action the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover as part of their damages a sum paid by them as commission on bail given in an action brought against their ship by salvors whose services were necessitated by the collision. (Adm. Div.) The British Commerce 33 93 335 21. Dangerous machine-Steam steering gear-Duty to maintain efficient-Absence of negligence.— The rule that a man is bound to maintain his property in such a condition that it is not dangerous to the public, applies to fixed and immovable property only, and not to movable chattels, and hence does not apply to a ship and the parts thereof, so as to make the shipowner, in the absence of negligence, liable for a collision caused by a defect in the construction in the ship's steam steering gear. (Adm. Div.) The European 417 22. Dangerous machine-Steam steering gearLatent defect-Absence of negligence-Public Highway. The user of a ship steered by steam steering gear in a crowded river is not the user of a dangerous machine in such a way as to render the shipowner, in the absence of negligence, liable for damages resulting from a collision occasioned by a failure of the steering apparatus. (Adm. Div.) The European.. 23. Dangerous machine-Steam steering gearLatent defect-Previous failure-Evidence of negligence. Where a ship comes into collision in a crowded river with another vessel by reason of her patent steam steering going wrong and getting out of control, and it is shown that such steering gear has on a previous occasion gone wrong in a similar way, and that after being carefully examined by a competent engineer, who has not been able to discover any defect, it has been replaced in the ship without alteration, such user in a crowded river, the hand gear on the ship being available, is evidence of negligence, rendering the shipowner liable for the damage occasioned by the collision. (Adm. Div.) The European.... 24. Danube Regulations, Titre 2, cap. 2, art. 34Duty of vessels as to side of river-Fog.-Under art. 34, cap. 2, titre 2, of the Danube Regulations, directing that, where two steamships meet going in opposite directions, "ils sont tenus de se diriger de telle sorte qu'ils viennent tous deux sur tribord. A cet effet le bâtiment qui remonte le fleuve doit appuyer vers la rive gauche, et celui 417 417 SUBJECTS OF CASES. qui descend vers la rive droite," vessels going down the river are bound to keep to the right bank, and if a vessel in a mist after sunset keep to the left bank and come into collision with another vessel, the breach of the rule is negli gence. (Priv. Co.) The Yourri; The Spearman. 458 25. Humber Navigation Rules-Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea-Merchant Shipping Act 1873, s. 117.-The rules for the navigation of the river Humber are regulations contained in or made under the Merchant Shipping Acts 1854 to 1873, within the meaning of sect. 17 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1873; and hence their infringement will be visited with the result prescribed by that Act. (Adm. Div.) The Ripon.. 365 26. Humber Navigation Rules, arts. 2, 11-Anchor light astern-Stern light-Special circumstances. -Where a two-masted vessel. in pursuance of art. 2 of the Rules for the Navigation of the River Humber, carries a second riding light astern in the position therein prescribed, and continues to carry such light after she gets under way and is crossing the river for the purpose of warning vessels going up or coming down of her position, the carrying of such a light at such a height above the deck is a breach of the regulations, and cannot be deemed to be the showing of a stern light within the meaning of art. 11, or warranted by the "special circumstances of the case," within art. 24. (Adm. Div.) The Ripon 27. Launch-Necessary precautions-Crowded river. -The duty of persons in charge of a launch, to take reasonable precautions to warn other vessels navigating the river before the vessel is launched, is to be construed as meaning that they are bound to take the utmost possible precautions. (Adm.) The George Roper 28. Launch-Necessary precautions-Tugs in attendance-River Mersey.-Tugs in attendance on a launch in the river Mersey should be dressed with flags, and should give warning to approaching vessels that the launch is about to take place. (Adm.) The George Roper 29. Lien-Priority-Seamen's wages-Foreign ship. 30. Loss of life-Action for-Inquiry or refusal 365 134 134 120 254 577 32. Loss of life-Action in rem-Both ships to blame-Admiralty rule as to division of damages -Death of master-Right of recovery.-The ships A. and V. C. came into collision, for which both were found to blame, the A. for breach of the statutory regulations for preventing collisions referred to in sect. 17 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1873, the V. C. for improper navigation. The master of the A. was drowned. His personal representative brought an action in rem under Lord Campbell's Act against the owner of the V. C. to recover damages for his loss, Held, that though the deceased was deemed to have been guilty of contributory negligence by reason of the breach of the regulations, the Admiralty Court rule as to the division of damages was applicable, and the plaintiff was entitled to recover half the damages sustained by the loss of the deceased. (Adm. Div.) The Vera Cruz page 254 33. Loss of life-Both ships to blame-Identification with carrying ship-Contributory negligenceAction in personam-Lord Campbell's Act 1846 (9 & 10 Vict. c. 93).-Where passengers are killed in a collision between two ships for which both are to blame, the deceased are so identified with their carrying ship as to be deemed to be guilty of contributory negligence, and hence their personal representatives suing the owners of the non-carrying ship under Lord Campbell's Act can recover nothing. (Adm. Div.) The Bernina 34. Merchant Shipping Act 1873, s. 16-Duty to render assistance-Vessel injured-Showing lights. The duty to render assistance under sect. 16 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1873 is not confined to rendering actual assistance; but if a vessel whose duty it is to render assistance is so injured that the only assistance she can render is to burn rockets or hoist a globe light so as to indicate her position, she is bound to do so, and in default of so doing, she is, in the absence of proof to the contrary, to blame for the collision. (Adm.) The Emmy Haase Discontinu 35. Practice-Bail- Counter-claimance of principal action-Admiralty Court Act 1861 (24 Vict. c. 10), s. 34.-The power of the Admiralty Division under sect. 34 of the Admiralty Court Act 1861 to order an action to be stayed until bail has been given to answer a cross-action or counter-claim, does not extend to making an absolute order to give bail, and in a damage action in which the plaintiffs had discontinued after the defendants had counterclaimed, the court refused to enforce an order, made by the registrar, to give bail to answer such counter-claim. (Adm.) The Alexander 36. Practice-British and foreign ships-Depositions before Receiver of Wreck-Inspection of documents-Privilege. In a damage action, arising out of a collision between a British and foreign ship, copies of depositions made before the Receiver of Wreck by the crew of the British ship, and obtained from the Board of Trade by the owners of the British ship for the purposes of the action, are privileged, and inspection of them cannot be obtained by the owners of the foreign ship, even although the Board of Trade on the ground that no such depositions have been made by any member of the foreign crew, has refused to allow the foreign owners to see them. (Adm.) The Palermo 37. Practice-City of London Court-Warrant of Arrest Execution-Bailiff-Contempt of courtCounty Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act 1868 (31 &32 Vict. c. 71), ss. 23, 35.—A warrant of arrest issued in an action in rem, instituted for collision in the City of London Court, and directed to the high bailiff of the said court and others the 577 216 89 165 |