..page 276

17

assistance, quære, whether she is entitled to salvage remuneration, even though she is not to blame for the collision. (Adm. Div.) The Beta; The Peter Graham 16. Collision-Two ships in danger-Services to one -Benefit to other-Right to reward from both.— Where two vessels are in collision, and a salvor renders service to one, without a request from or engagement by the other, and the latter is thereby rescued from a position of immediate danger, such service being a direct benefit to both vessels, entitles the salvor to salvage reward from both. (Ct. of App.) The Vandyck 17. Costs-Action brought in improper amountSmall award-Both ships owned by same owner.— Where a steamship, disabled by the breaking of her crank-shaft, was towed a distance of about thirty miles without danger or risk by another steamship belonging to the same owners as the disabled vessel, and fifteen of the crew of the towing vessel instituted a salvage action in the sum of 5000l. against the vessel towed, and arrested the vessel, cargo, and freight therein, the Court held such services to be salvage services, but of so slight a character that on a value of 105,500l. it awarded 15l., and ordered the salvors to pay all the costs of the action, expressing disapprobation both at the institution of the action in the High Court, and at the arrest of the vessel for such an amount. (Adm.) The Agamemnon 92 18. Costs-Tender-Payment into court-Practice. Where in a salvage action defendants with their statement of defence tender and pay into court a sum of money in satisfaction of the plaintiffs' claim, and plead such payment into court, and the sum paid in is held to be sufficient, the court will order the defendants to pay the plaintiffs' costs up to the date of the delivery of the statement of defence, unless the circumstances of the case render it just and expedient to order otherwise. (Adm. Div.) The William Symington 19. Damage to salving ship-Cost of repairs-Demurrage-Evidence-Amount recoverable.-In a salvage action evidence of the specific injuries sustained by the salving ship and the cost of repairs thereof, and of demurrage during repairs, was tendered in the Court of Admiralty, and rejected. Held, in the Court of Appeal (Baggallay and Lindley, L.JJ.), that the judge is bound to receive such evidence, and to include the loss shown in his award, except in cases where such evidence is immaterial by reason of the property saved being too small in value to satisfy such loss, or by reason of the services being so trifling as to render it unjust that the loss sustained by the salvors should be borne by the owners of the salved property, or where from other circumstances it is obvious that the court cannot give an amount sufficient to cover the loss; but, per Brett, M.R., that the admission of such evidence is entirely in the discretion of the judge, subject to his award being reviewed by the Court of Appeal in the event of its being shown that the rejection of the evidence improperly affected the amount of the award. (Ct. of App.) The City of Chester......

293

311

20. Damage to salvor-Interest-Right to recover.— Interest on the amount of loss and damage sustained by rendering salvage services is not recoverable by salvors. (Priv. Co.) The De Bay 156 21. Damage to salving ship-Loss of profit—Evidence-Admissibility-Right to recover.-Where in rendering salvage services a ship has sustained actual damage and loss of profit which is capable of being accurately ascertained, evidence of the amount thereof is admissible on behalf of the

22. Damage to salvors-Loss of profits-Right to recover.- -Where the steamship S. having broken down twelve miles east of Scarborough, was, in twenty-four hours, towed into the Tyne at different intervals, by the steam trawlers M. and F. A. and the smack S., and the master of the smack S. having entered into an agreement with the master of the steamship S., whereby he was, for the sum of 201., to procure assistance, had informed the trawler M. of the whereabouts of the steamship S. only on condition of sharing in the salvage earned by the M., the Court, on a value of 10,5521. 9s. 2d., awarded to the M. 2001. in respect of the salvage, and 1001. for loss of profits and for repairs, to the S. 10l. and to the F. A. 70%. 140

(Adm.) The Sunniside

23. Damage to salvor-Loss of profits-Right to recover-Evidence.-In a salvage action evidence of the loss of profits and damage sustained by the salving vessel is admissible as an element to be considered in awarding remuneration; but evidence of loss of profits is not to be taken in ordinary cases as a fixed figure always to be allowed as in the nature of damages. This rule does not apply with the same force to actual damage sustained. (Adm.) The Sunniside...... 140 24 Damage to salvor-Depreciation in value-Loss of charter-Right to recover.-Salvors are entitled to recover for general depreciation in the value of a sailing ship in consequence of the damage sustained, and for loss of charter-party if proved. (Priv. Co.) The De Bay

25. Life salvage-Agreement-Authority of master. -Semble, a master has no authority to bind his owners by an agreement to save the lives of himself and crew, as his owners have no beneficial interest in the subject-matter of such a contract. (Ct. of App.) The Renpor

26. Life salvage-Agreement-No property saved— Right to reward.-Where the steamship R. being in imminent peril of total loss, her master on behalf of himself and his owners entered into the following agreement with the master of the steamship M. L.: "It is hereby agreed between Thomas Gibb, the master of the above steamer, and Robert Osborn, master of the steamship R., that the above steamer M. L. agrees to stay by me until I am in a safe position to get to port, for the sum of 12001., my vessel being badly holed in starboard bow near collision bulkhead;" and in pursuance of the agreement the M. L., at great risk, stood by the R. until she sank, when the M. R. took off her master and crew; it was held (affirming Sir R. Phillimore), that no life salvage was recoverable, as no property had been saved, and that neither master nor owners were liable under the contract, as the condition "until I am in a safe position to get to port had not been fulfilled. (Ct. of App.) The Renpor.......

27. Life salvage-No property saved-Right to reward.-Life salvage is only recoverable where ship, cargo, or freight is saved so that a fund out of which the award can be paid is realised; hence ineffectual attempts to save the property, though rendered at express request, give no claim to life salvage. (Ct. of App.) The Renpor 28. Incomplete service without benefit-Ship ultimately saved-No right to reward.-Where salvors in answer to a request for assistance render services which through no fault of theirs

156

98

98

98

are ineffectual, and leave the vessel in distress in a worse position than the one in which they found her, they are entitled to no reward, even though the vessel be ultimately saved by other salvors. (Adm. Div.) The Cheerful ..page 525 29. Incomplete but beneficial service-Vessel ultimately saved-Right to reward.--Where a vessel engaged in rendering salvage services is compelled in consequence of the nature of her cargo to abandon the service before it is completed, she is not deprived of her right to reward if by the services already rendered she has brought the vessel she is assisting from a position of danger into a position of comparative safety, and the vessel is ultimately saved. (Adm.) The Camellia 197 30. Misconduct of salvors-Forfeiture-Diminution. -Misconduct on the part of salvors, other than criminal misconduct, works a diminution, but not a total forfeiture of reward. (Adm. Ct. of Cinque Ports.) The Marie......

31. Misconduct of salvors-Loss of ship-Forfeiture of award-Counter-claim for damage to ship.— -Where salvors, having taken possession of a derelict vessel, whose crew had taken refuge on board the salvors' vessel, improperly refused to put back the crew or take the proffered assistance of a tug, although they themselves had no local knowledge, and then brought the derelict to anchor in an improper place, in consequence of which she was lost, the Court, although the ship and cargo were subsequently raised, and realised 30751., refused to give any salvage remuneration, and condemned the plaintiffs in costs, but dismissed the counter-claim for damages. (Adm.) The Yan Yean.. 32. Practice Pleading Tender - Payment into court. In the defence in a salvage action the mere offer by the defendants to pay a sum named in an agreement made prior to the rendering of the services without payment into court is a bad plea. (Adm.) The Nasmyth 33. Practice - Pleadings Admission of factsR. S. C., Order XIX., rr. 4, 5.-In salvage actions the plaintiffs in their statement of claim should state fully the material facts of the service, and if such facts are admitted by the defendants, the court will not allow the plaintiffs at the hearing to amplify them by evidence, except on special grounds. (Adm.) The Hardwick 34. Practice-Costs-Higher scale-Value of property salved-R. S. C., Order LXV., r. 9.-In a salvage action, where the value of the salving ship, together with cargo and freight, was 80,000l., of the property salved 42,000l., and the award 2400., the Court refused to allow costs on the higher scale, the rule being that in the absence of special circumstances of difficulty or urgency costs on the higher scale will not be allowed. (Adm.) The Horace

Form

35. Practice Pleadings EvidenceR. 8. C., Order XIX., rr. 4, 5, 7.-In salvage actions it may be proper in some cases, owing to the practice of the court that where the defendants admit the facts alleged in the statement of claim, the plaintiffs are not allowed to give any evidence at the hearing, to use a fuller form of statement of claim than that given in the example in the appendix to the Rules of the Supreme Court 1883, and approaching more nearly to the old form. (Adm.) The Isis... 36. Practice-Pleadings-Form-R. S. C., Order XIX., r. 7.-In a salvage action where the plaintiffs had delivered a statement of claim in the form No. 6, sect. 3 of Appendix C to the Rules of the Supreme Court 1883, the Court, on motion by the defendants, ordered the plaintiffs

23

27

135

364

199

218

155

...page 155

under Order XIX., r. 7, to deliver a further and better statement of the nature of their claim, and ordered the costs of the motion to be costs in the cause. (Adm.) The Isis 37. Sale of ship and cargo before judgment-Deterio. ration in value-Order for sale-Default action.— Where in a salvage action in which no appearance had been entered it was alleged upon affidavit that the ship and cargo were daily deteriorating in value, and that large expenses were being incurred in respect of the charge of the property, and that the plaintiffs had been in communication with the owners as to a sale, the Court, on motion by the plaintiffs prior to decree, ordered an appraisement and sale of the property, (Adm.) The Anna Helena

38. Tender-Costs-Practice.-In a salvage action it is not necessary that a tender should be accompanied with an offer to pay the plaintiffs' costs up to the date of tender. (Adm. Div.) The William Symington

............

See Carriage of Goods, No. 6-Collision, No. 20 -General Average, Nos. 3, 4-Practice, Nos. 42, 43-Wages, No. 1.

SEAMAN'S DISCHARGE.

Refusal of certificate-Penalty-Action-Merchant Shipping Act 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 104), ss. 172, 524. Sects. 172 and 524 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1854 inflicting a penalty of 101. upon any master who shall fail to give a seaman a certificate upon his discharge, and directing the whole or part of the penalty to be applied in compensating the seaman, exclude the seaman from instituting an action for damages against the master for withholding the certificate, his only remedy being the penalty inflicted by the Act. (Q. B. Div.) Vallance v. Falle.......

SEA WATER.

See Carriage of Goods, No. 24.
SEAMAN.

See Collision, No. 29-Seaman's Discharge-Wages.

SEAWORTHINESS.

See Carriage of Goods, Nos. 21, 22, 23-Salvage,
No. 12.
SERVICE.

See Bottomry, Nos. 3-Practice, Nos. 40, 41.

SET-OFF.

See Principal and Agent.

SHIPOWNERS.

1. British ship-British owners-Foreign registry -Liability-Merchant Shipping Acts.-Semble, where a ship is owned by an English limited company, which for the purpose of carrying on business in a foreign country is registered in that country as a foreign company, and the ship is also registered there, the ship is nevertheless a British ship, and, although not having a British registry, is subject to all the liabilities of a British ship. (Ct. of App.) The Chartered Mercantile Bank of India, &c., v. The Netherlands India Steam Navigation Company Limited 2. Conspiracy of shipowners to exclude others-Restraint of trade-Cause of action-Injunction— Damages. The Court will not grant an interim injunction to restrain the existence of a combination of shipowners offering advantageous terms to shippers confining their shipments to the combination's ships, which combination is alleged by other shipowners to be a conspiracy for the pur

61

293

280

65

pose of ruining them by driving away the trade from their ships, where the parties complaining do not show that they will suffer irreparable injury by the continuance of the combination, and where it appears that if the plaintiffs establish their case they will recover ample compensation by way of damages. (Q. B. Div.) Mogul Steamship Company Limited v. McGregor, Gow, and Co. page 467 3. Conspiracy of shipowners to exclude othersRestraint of trade-Indictable offence-Right of action. A combination by shipowners offering advantageous terms to shippers confining their shipments to the combination's ships, and alleged by other shipowners to be a conspiracy entered into for the object of ruining them by driving away the trade from their ships may be an indictable offence, and therefore actionable. (Q. B. Div.) Mogul Steamship Company Limited v. McGregor, Gow, and Co.........

4. Co-owners-Order for an account-District regis-
trar- Report No appeal.-Where a district
registrar has made an order in an action in the
Admiralty Division for an account between the
part owners of a ship that the accounts be filed,
and that they be proceeded with, it is too late to
take objection to his making such order after he
has reported, there having been no appeal against
such order (Adm. Div.) Gowan v. Sprott
5. Co-owners-Order for an account-District regis-
trar-Report-Objection to-R. S. C., Order VI.,
r. 1.-Where an action is instituted in an Admi
ralty District Registry by part owners of a ship
against the managing owner thereof for an account
and the writ claims an account under Order III.,
r. 8, and an order for the filing of the accounts
is made under Order XV., r. 1, and the account is
proceeded with pursuant to order, and the dis-
trict registrar reports thereon, such report is to
be treated as the usual report in an Admiralty
Court Action, and if the defendant seeks to take
objection thereto, he must do so according to
the provisions of Order LVI., r. 11, otherwise the
plaintiff will be entitled to judgment thereon.
(Adm. Div.) Gowan v Sprott
6. Co-ownership action-Claim by managing owners
-Amounts left unpaid-Co-owners proceeded
against-Stay of execution-Costs-Delay.-A
managing owner, who had not delivered accounts
for nine years, instituted a co-ownership action
for settlement of accounts, and for payment of
the balance found due to him, and claimed certain
items in respect of materials supplied to the ship
for which he had not paid, and for which the
defendants were being sued in the Queen's Bench
Division. The registrar in his report allowed the
plaintiff these items. Upon application to con-
firm the report, and for judgment, the Court
decreed payment of the amount found due by the
registrar, but stayed execution until the defen-
dants were protected against the claims in the
Queen's Bench Division, and refused the plain-
tiff the costs of the action upon the ground of
delay in rendering his accounts. (Adm. Div.)
The Charles Jackson

7. Co-ownership action-Managing owner-Unpaid claims. Quære: Is a managing owner entitled to recover against his co-owners in respect of sums of money due to third parties on account of the ship, but which he has not paid? (Adm. Div.) The Charles Jackson

8. Co-ownership action-Sale of ship-Minority and majority owners.-The High Court of Justice (Admiralty Division) will not, in a co-ownership action, order the sale of a ship on the application of either minority or majority owners, unless the

467

288

288

399

399

applicants prove strong necessity for so doing. (Adm. Div.) The Marion...

..page 339

9. Expenses of voyage-Liability for-Time charter -Voyage charter.-Where a ship, having been chartered out and home under a time charter, is being brought home under a voyage charter in consequence of the time charter having been broken, the purchaser of shares purchasing during such homeward voyage is not liable for losses incidental to the voyage out under the time charter. (Adm. Div.) The Meredith......... 10. Managing owner· Right to remuneration Commission profits.-Semble, that a managing owner may be entitled to some reasonable sum as a commission on profits, although he owns shares in the ship and no express agreement as to his remuneration has been entered into. (Adm. Div.) The Meredith

Registrar's

11. Practice Co-ownership action report Time for objection-Extension. - The Court will not extend the time for objecting to the registrar's report in a co-ownership action without special grounds being shown by the party seeking to object. (Adm. Div.) Gowan v. Sprott

See Carriage of Goods, Nos. 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 23, 28, 31, 32, 33-Collision, Nos. 11, 16, 17-Wrecks and Casualties, Nos. 3, 4.

SHIPPER.

See Bills of Lading Act, No. 1—Carriage of Goods, Nos. 3, 31-Charter-party, No. 3.

SHIPPING CASUALTIES INVESTIGATIONS ACT 1879.

See Wrecks and Casualties.

SMUGGLING.

See Marine Insurance, Nos. 17.

SOLICITOR.

See Practice, Nos. 40. 42, 43, 44.

SPEED.

See Collision, Nos. 58, 60, 62 to 70, 72, 81, 84.

STAMP ACT 1870.

See Charter-party, Nos. 7, 8-Marine Insurance Association.

STAY OF PROCEEDINGS.

See Collision, No. 35-Limitation of Liability,
No. 10-Practice, Nos. 22 to 25.

STEAM STEERING GEAR.
See Collision, Nos. 21, 22, 23.
STOPPAGE IN TRANSITU.

1. Duration of transit-Lien for freight-Notice to
shipowner-Unpaid vendor-Sub-sale-Delivery
order. Where the master of a ship retains a lien
for freight upon the cargo, the bill of lading of
which cargo has been indorsed by the purchaser
as security for an advance, the fact of a sub-sale
and handing over of a delivery order for the cargo
to the sub-purchaser, and actual receipt by him
of part, does not put an end to the transitus, and
the unpaid vendor has, upon giving due notice,
the right to stop the purchase money payable by
the sub-purchaser, after discharging the advance
on the bill of lading. (H. of L.) Kemp v. Falk
2. Notice to shipowner-Notice to master-Duty to
forward.-Per Lord Blackburn: Notice of stop-
page in transitu given to a shipowner is not

400

400

288

1

TOWAGE.

1

1. Agreement to pay for work done and to be done -Master's authority-Ship lost-Liability of owners.-The steamship W. having found the steamship A., on the 12th Feb. off Cape Finisterre in a disabled condition, towed her in heavy weather until the 14th Feb., when, in consequence of the condition of the A., the master of the W. proposed to abandon her. However, at the desire of the master of the A., it was agreed in writing that the W. should "stand by the A. as long as possible, and that the W. and the owners were to be paid for the time and towing already done and to be done from the 12th Feb. 1883." The W. thereupon again took the A. in tow, but on the 16th Feb., owing to stress of weather it was found necessary to abandon her, after which she was totally lost. In an action for towage against the owners of the A., the Court held that the agreement entered into by the master of the A. was a reasonable one, and one which, in his position of agent ex necessitate for his owners, he had an authority to enter into, and awarded the plaintiffs the sum of 400l. in respect of the services rendered prior to and after the agreement. (Adm.) The Alfred. 2. Contract-Breach-Damage-Notice restricting towage conliability for negligence.-A term in tract, by which tug owners exe pt themselves from liability for damage or loss occasioned by the negligence or default of their servants, covers damage occasioned in con equence of the act of the master taking in tow to many vessels at a time in contravention of a statutory bye-law of the port in which the towage takes place, although the number of vessels causes the tug to be of insufficient power for the service. (Ct. of App., affirming Adm.) The United Service ...55, 170

214

page 580

TRINITY MASTERS.

See Collision, Nos. 40, 43-Practice, No. 46.
TYNE NAVIGATION RULES.
See Collision. No. 92.

UNDERWRITERS.

See Marine Insurance-Practice, No. 41.

VENDOR AND PURCHASER.

See Sale of Goods-Sale of Ship-Stoppage in Transitu, No. 1.

VICE-ADMIRALTY COURT.
See Necessaries, No. 3-Practice, No. 23-Wages,
No. 3.

VICE-ADMIRALTY COURTS ACT 1863.
See Necessaries, No. 3.

WAGES.

470

1. Freight-Abandonment-Ship brought in by salvors-Cargo delivered on demand.-Where a salving ship takes a crew off a vessel in distress and puts men board of her, refusing to allow her own crew to return, and the two vessels are in company navigated into port, there is no such abandonment of the ship as to put an end to the contract of carriage, and subsequently there will be freight due upon the consignees requiring delivery of the cargo, such freight being pro ratá, assuming the port not to be the port to which the cargo ought to have been taken under the contract of carriage. (Adm. Div.) The Leptir...... 411 2. Jurisdiction-Foreign ship-Foreign law-Protest of consul.-In an action for wages and damages for wrongful dismissal brought by persons domiciled in England against a foreign ship, in which they had served under articles signed in a port of the country to which the ship belonged, in which action imprisonment, hardship, and ill-treatment were alleged, the Court refused to interfere with the discretion of the judge below in declining to exercise jurisdiction

against the protest of the consul, which alleged that, by the law of the country to which the ship belonged, all disputes relating to the ship, or claims against the owner or master, were to be referred to and decided by the tribunals or consuls of that country. (Ct. of App. from Adm.) The Leon XIII. 3. Jurisdiction

.page 25, 73 Joint

Vice-Admiralty Court action by six seamen-Order in Council-2 Will. 4, c. 51, s. 15-Merchant Shipping Act 1854, 8. 189.-A vice-admiralty court has jurisdiction to entertain an action for wages and compensation for wrongful dismissal brought by any number of mariners not exceeding six, under Order in Council pursuant to 2 Will. 4, c. 51, provided that the total amount found due to all the plaintiffs conjointly exceeds 501., although the amount found due to each is less than that sum. (Priv. Co.) The Ferret

94

4. Seamen Date to which wages recoverable-Merchant Seamen Act 1880.--The time up to which a seaman is entitled to an action to recover his wages under the Merchant Seamen Act 1880 is to the date of certificate of chief clerk in Chancery, or report of registrar in Admiralty. (Ch. Div.) Re The Great Eastern Steamship Company ; Claim of Williams and others 511

5. Seamen Engagement by master

Agent for owners-Charter-party-Rights as to wages.—A master who, though appointed by the owners of the vessel, yet under the terms of the charterparty thereby becomes the charterers' captain, is as between the owners and the seamen the agent of the owners, and hence seamen engaged for a voyage are not bound to look into the title of the master who appoints them to ascertain whether he is the captain of the owners or the charterers. (Ch. Div.) Re The Great Eastern Steamship Company; Claim of Williams and others 6. Seamen-Foreign-going Ship-Lien-Voyage not proceeded upon.-Seamen engaged by the owners or their agent for a voyage upon a foreign-going ship are entitled to a lien for their wages upon the ship, and the proceeds of sale thereof, although the engagement of the seamen has not been in writing, and although the ship does not proceed upon the voyage. (Ch. Div.) Re The Great Eastern Steamship Company; Claim of Williams and others

7. Seamen-Termination of engagement-Merchant
Seamen Act 1880 (43 & 44 Vict. c. 16), s. 4.-The
words "at the end of his engagement" in the
Merchant Seamen Act 1880 (43 & 44 Vict. c. 16),
s. 4, sub-sect 1, mean the time at which a sea-
men's actual service terminates, and include the
natural effluxion of the agreement as well as the
discharge of the seaman in breach of the contract.
And therefore, to entitle a seaman to wages to
the date of final settlement, it is not necessary
that the whole term of his engagement should
have expired, but it is sufficient that his actual
service on board ship should have ended. (Ch.
Div.) Re The Great Eastern Steamship Com-
pany; Claim of Williams and others.......

See Collision, No. 29-Necessaries, No. 7.
WARRANT OF ARREST.

See Collision, No. 37-Practice, No. 7.

WARRANTY.

See Carriage of Goods, No. 33-Chain Cables and Anchors Act 1874-Marine Insurance, Nos. 19, 20-Salvage, No. 12-Towage, No. 4.

511

511

511

WRECKS AND CASUALTIES. 1. Appeal-Costs-Confirmatory evidence on appeal. Costs of an appeal will be giver against the Board of Trade if the decision of the appellate court is against the Board of Trade, and also costs of further evidence produced by the party proceeded against, if such evidence is produced merely to confirm the evidence given at the hearing below. (Adm.) The Famenoth......page 35 2. Appeal Further evidence-Application before hearing. An application for leave to adduce further evidence on appeal from the Wreck Commissioner should be made prior to the hearing of the appeal. (Adm.) The Famenoth

35

35

3. Appeal Shipowner-Shipping Casualty Investigations Act 1879.-By the provisions of the Shipping Casualty Investigations Act 1879, no right of appeal from the decision of the Wreck Commissioner is given to a shipowner, though he appear as a party at the investigation and be condemned in costs. (Adm.) The Golden Sea... 23 4. Costs-Shipowner-Improper ballast-Default of master.-Semble, where the loss of a ship is due to improper ballast bought by the master without the knowledge or presence of the shipowner, and the shipowner has placed no restriction on the master as to price, no such blame attaches to the shipowner as will justify the Wreck Commissioner in condemning him in the costs of the Board of Trade inquiry. (Adm.) The Golden Sea

5. Improper ballast-Purchase by master-Loss of ship-Suspension of certificate.-The loss of a vessel which is due to improper ballast, purchased by the master, he knowing it to be largely composed of dirt, and no restriction being placed upon him by his owners as to price, is sufficient reason for the Wreck Commissioner suspending the master's certificate. (Adm.) The Golden Sea

.........

23

23

35

38

6. Master-Error of judgment-Loss of life-Suspension of certificate-Merchant Shipping Act 1854, s. 242. An error of judgment committed by a master of a ship, under circumstances of great difficulty and danger, is not such a wrongful act or default, within the meaning of the Merchant Shipping Act 1854, s. 242, as will justify the suspension of his certificate, even where there has been loss of life. (Adm.) The Famenoth WRECKS REMOVAL. Harbour authority-Sunken wreck-Obstruction to navigation-Collision-Removal of Wrecks Act 1877 (40 & 41 Vict. c. 16), s. 4.-Where a vessel is sunk by striking upon a sunken wreck lying in a channel without sufficient warning of the position, which wreck the harbour authority, under the provisions of the Wrecks Removal Act 1877, s. 4, had previously taken possession of and partially removed at the time of the accident, semble, the language of the Wrecks Removal Act, s. 4, being permissive, the harbour authority is not liable under that Act for the damage done, but under a local Act by which the authority is empowered to receive a portion of the light dues from ships entering the channel,and is directed to apply them in maintaining, improving, regulating, and buoy. ing the channel, such authority is liable, as this latter Act casts upon the authority an obligation to remove the obstruction, and take the necessary means for warning vessels of its presence. (Kay, J.) Dormont v. Furness Railway Company 127 See Collision, Nos. 42, 93.

WRIT.

See Bottomry, No. 3-Practice, Nos. 40, 41.