i-law.com

SOUSSANIS v. LIVERPOOL MARINE & GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 1

Marine insurance-Practice-Delay in prosecution of action-Claim by Greek plaintiff under policy covering goods on voyage from Constantinople to Poti in 1920-Writ issued 1926-Order for ship's papers in 1926-Points of defence delivered in January, 1934-No further steps taken by plaintiff to prepare for trial-Action dismissed by MacKinnon, J., in December, 1934, for want of prosecution-Appeal by plaintiff -Request for more time.

THE "CAPULIN."

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 3

THE "ELLINICO."

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 6

Collision between British steamship Manxman and Greek steamship Ellinico in River Mersey-Manxman, having left landing stage, turning to starboard in river to proceed down; Ellinico also bound down-Starboard helm signal blown by Manxman - Porting by Ellinico-Duty of vessel turning in river-Absence of qualified pilot on Manxman's bridge when vessel leaving landing stage-Look-out.

EVANS v. EMPLOYERS' MUTUAL INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, LTD.

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 13

Motor insurance-Claims under policy (1) in respect of car damage; (2) to be indemnified in respect of third-party claims-Sums paid by insurance company to meet car damage-Subsequent repudiation of further liability on ground of misstatements in proposal form-"Q.: For how long has proposer and proposer's driver (i) held a driving licence? (ii) had a practical experience of motor-car driving? A.: Five years"-Estoppel-Authority of company's agent-Whether company had constructive notice of right to repudiate at time when they, by their conduct, represented that the policy was valid-Position of company's employees considered-Whether policy affirmed by reason of retention of premium - Ambiguity - Arbitration - Award that claimant's answer was untrue, but that the company at all material times had knowledge that the answer was untrue, and that that knowledge, being possessed by the company's servants deputed to receive it, must be imputed to the company; and that therefore the company were estopped from repudiating liability.

BEN LINE STEAMERS, LTD. v. JOSEPH HEUREUX (LONDON), LTD.

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 20

Indemnity-Bill of lading-Shipment of galvanised sheets-Mate's receipt describing condition as "several bundles dirty before shipment"-Refusal by ship to issue clean bills of lading without indemnity form shippers-Following indemnity agreement signed by shippers: "In consideration of your handing us clean bills of lading, by the above vessel, for . . . 225 bundles galvanised sheets . . . the mate's receipt for which bears the following clause, viz.:-'Several bundles dirty before shipment,' we hereby undertake and agree to pay on demand any claim that may arise, and to indemnify you against all consequences of your so doing"-Damage claim by consignees against ship settled-Claim by ship against shippers under indemnity agreement-Defence by shippers that their agreement to indemnify was based on their acceptance of the description "dirty" in the mate's receipt of the condition of the sheets on shipment; that "dirty" in the trade meant merely dirty from mud or dust; that the sheets in fact were "wet-stained" or "damaged by fresh water" and should have been so described; that the description "dirty" was wrong; and that accordingly the shippers were not further liable than if the sheets had arrived in what was technically described as a "dirty" condition - Responsibility of ship's representative in describing the condition of goods on shipment.

THE "ROSEWORTH."

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 24

Charter-party - Discharging expenses (Heysham)-"Cargo to be . . . taken from alongside at merchant's risk and expense . . . and being so loaded shall therewith proceed to Heysham . . . and there . . . deliver the same in the manner customary at Heysham"- Custom to deliver into railway wagons on the quay-Cargo so delivered-Payment by shipowners of railway company's (owners of port) account- Claim against consignees for proportion of charge applicable to that part of the discharge from the ship's rail- Meaning of "alongside."

THE "UMONA" AND THE "SIRIUS."

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 29

Collision between plaintiffs' barges and steamship Umona in Bugsby's Reach, River Thames-Barges moored in barge roads on south side of river- Umona bound down, navigating on north side of river; steamship Sirius bound up-Umona crossing river to get upon her proper down-river course -Port wheel action taken by Sirius to pass vessel turning in river-Speed of Sirius-Umona's engines put astern in order to avoid collision with Sirius, resulting in her falling off to starboard and colliding with the barges- Whether port helm signals of Sirius heard by Umona-Look-out-Thames By-laws, Rule 34.

THE "VADDER GERRIT."

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 36

Practice-Collision between motor vessels Pinguin and Vadder Gerrit in River Thames - Pinguin sunk - Vadder Gerrit arrested - Judgment finding both to blame-Arrangements made for appraisement and sale of Vadder Gerrit - Notice of appeal by Vadder Gerrit-Motion by Vadder Gerrit to expedite appeal and to postpone sale meanwhile.

R. & W. PAUL, LTD. v. WHEAT COMMISSION.

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 37

Wheat Act, 1932 - Middlings - Parcels imported by plaintiffs-Whether liable to quota payments as flour-Arbitration under By-law No. 20 (S.R. & O., 1932, No. 588) made by Wheat Commission "for giving effect to the provisions of this Act"-Plea of res judicata-Validity of by-law-Jurisdiction of Court-Whether Wheat Commission protected by the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893.

THE "ZEPHYROS."

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 55

Collision between American steamship Effingham and Greek steamship Zephyros in Barking Reach, River Thames-Both vessels bound up river- Effingham overtaking Zephyros - Agreement between vessels when abreast that Zephyros should go ahead of Effingham - Speeds - Whether Effingham drew clear ahead of Zephyros-Responsibility of overtaking vessel-Lateral distance between vessels-Allegation by Effingham that the collision was brought about by the faulty port helm action of the Zephyros, or, failing that, that the collision was unexplainable-Whether falling together due to interaction.

IN RE NAUTILUS STEAM SHIPPING COMPANY, LTD. (APPLICATION OF GIBBS & CO.)

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 65

Companies - Winding - up - Collision between steamship Pear Branch and sailing vessel Dharma in 1925 - Pear Branch arrested-Released on execution of joint bail bond by shipowners and ship's agents-Judgment against Pear Branch-Liability met by ship's agents - Reimbursed by shipowners through their insurers-Winding-up of shipowning company-Further claim against Pear Branch-No assignment of policies-Application by ship's agents that they were entitled, on meeting the further claim of the Dharma, to be subrogated to the rights of the Pear Branch against their insurers - Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act, 1930.

THE "LONDON CORPORATION."

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 67

Collision - Damages - Reference - Dragging collision between steamships Benguela and London Corporation while laying up in River Blackwater-Both admittedly to blame-Amount of repair damages agreed-Subsequent agreement by owners of Benguela to sell her to shipbreakers-Effect of collision upon price-Whether Benguela still entitled to recover her agreed damages for repairs from London Corporation even though they were not executed.

THE "BALTARA."

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 71

Collision between steamships Cresco and Baltara in Lower Pool, River Thames -Cresco leaving Surrey Commercial Dock entrance to turn down river; Baltara bound down-North-east gale -Flood tide-Cresco light-Plaintiffs' case that Baltara was guilty of a bad look-out-Defendants' case that Cresco came out at an improper time and that she endeavoured to turn in an improper manner-Effect of wind and tide on Cresco-Anchor dropped in endeavour to complete her turn.

THE "PENELOPE."

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 77

Collision between British steamship Fauvette and Panamanian steamship Penelope in North Sea-Vessels on crossing courses - Visibility-Allegation by Penelope that weather was foggy and that the Fauvette failed to comply with the regulations for fog- Duty of vessels on crossing courses.

THE "DEMOCRAT."

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 82

Negligent navigation-Claim by dependant of boatman struck and killed by defendants' motor ketch Democrat while in boat made fast to starboard bow of motor vessel Bessie Gould anchored in River Taw-Democrat, abreast of Bessie Gould, manoeuvring to anchor astern-Touching aground of Democrat's bow-Swing of stern towards Bessie Gould-Contributory negligence-Inevitable accident-Onus of proof.

THE "TSIROPINAS."

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 87

Salvage-Services rendered by three pilots to Greek steamship Tsiropinas in Bristol Channel-Serious damage sustained by Tsiropinas in collision when leaving Barry-No. 3 hold flooded-Well deck awash-Vessel boarded by pilots, safely beached and after temporary repairs taken to Barry.

LEWIS v. CHRISTENSEN.

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 91

Negligence-Personal injuries sustained by stevedore engaged in unloading steamship in Surrey Commercial Docks- Collapse of gangway-Liability of shipowners.

MACMILLAN v. ORIENT STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY, LTD.

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 93

THE "VADDER GERRIT."

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 97

Collision between Dutch motor vessel Pinguin and German motor vessel Vadder Gerrit in Bugsby's Reach, River Thames-Pinguin bound down; Vadder Gerrit bound up river-Port helm action taken by Pinguin to pass astern of sailing barge tacking up river -Signal blown by Pinguin inviting Vadder Gerrit to pass green to green- Signal blown by Vadder Gerrit accepting -Signal not heard by Pinguin but acceptance inferred from broadening of Vadder Gerrit's lights-Subsequent hard-a-starboarding by Pinguin, it being assumed from the opening of the red light of the Vadder Gerrit (in altering course for the bend in the river) that she wished to pass red to red-Dispute as to whether Vadder Gerrit opened her red - Speeds - Look-out.

THE "WIRUMAA."

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 103

Salvage-Services rendered by British steamship Farfield to Estonian motor vessel Wirumaa disabled in English Channel off Start Point-Engines broken down-Vessel towed to Torbay -Difficult weather conditions.

WEST, LTD. v. WRIGHTS (COLCHESTER), LTD. (CORPORATION OF COLCHESTER, THIRD PARTIES). (THE "OLIVE MAY.")

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 105

Bad berth-Damage to plaintiffs' motor barge Olive May-Charter by plaintiffs to M Ltd.-Barge to load coal at Keadby and to proceed to "Colchester as ordered or so near thereunto as she may safely get, and there deliver the same alongside any wharf, vessel or craft, as ordered, where she can safely deliver"-Coal consigned to defendants under bill of lading incorporating charter-party terms-Barge taken alongside P Wharf and subsequently to another wharf to unload-Contention by plaintiffs that damage to barge was sustained at P Wharf, which was alleged to be under defendants' control; further, that the barge being invited by defendants to unload at an unsafe berth, there was a breach of contract by the defendants in that the barge could not safely deliver in accordance with the terms of the charter-party - Corporation of Colchester joined as third parties.

HEATHER BAILEY & CO., LTD. v. WILLIAM CORY & SON, LTD.

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 109

Contract-Wharf contractors-Excavated material-"Trade units"-Agreement between plaintiff and defendant wharfingers that defendants should be permitted to cart certain materials over plaintiffs' wharf, the defendants to pay plaintiffs (inter alia) "a sum equal to 112d. per trade unit on all goods passing over [plaintiffs'] wharf"- Meaning of "trade unit" - Whether term attributable only to one-horse cartload or also to van or lorry load- Account between parties.

BOULTON AND ANOTHER v. HINKLEY.

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 113

Negligence - Motor accident - Plaintiffs injured by defendant's motor cycle- Actions for damages undefended as company with whom defendant was insured was in liquidation.

THE "ARPAD."

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 115

Bill of lading-Short delivery (wheat)- Measure of damages-Payment into Court-Costs dependent upon Registrar's award of damages-Purchase by plaintiffs of wheat shipped in defendants' vessel-Resale-Non-delivery by defendants of 47 tons-Assessment of damages by Registrar on basis that, there being no market value, plaintiffs were entitled to restitutio in integrum -Report upheld by Bateson, J.-Set aside by Court of Appeal (Greer and Maugham, L.JJ., Scrutton, L.J., dissenting), it being held that damages must be assessed on the basis of the value of the wheat at the date of discharge -Further reference to Registrar -Report-Motion in objection by defendants on grounds (1) that the plaintiffs' claim for agency should not have been allowed; (2) that a deduction should have been made of an amount covering discharging expenses and trade discount; and (3) that a payment into Court by the defendants to meet a claim by co-plaintiffs for short delivery of another parcel of wheat shipped in defendants' vessel, that claim failing, should be allocated to the plaintiffs' claim.

THE "RADSTOCK."

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 121

Negligence-Bad berth-Damage sustained by plaintiff's vessel Radstock While lying at berth alongside defendants' coal tip at Penarth Harbour- Vessel's back broken-Admission by defendants that damage occurred while vessel was lying at their berth- Gradual accumulation of coal on berth, resulting in hardening of surface- Berth dredged and levelled by defendants five weeks before-Evidence of other vessels as to condition of berth and of damage received since dredging operations.

THE "WHITEABBEY."

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 128

Negligent navigation - Grounding of plaintiffs' motor vessel Stirlingshire in Crosby Channel, River Mersey- Stirlingshire bound up; defendants' steamship Whiteabbey bound down- Visibility - Ebb tide - Porting by Whiteabbey into Stirlingshire's water, Whiteabbey crossing Stirlingshire's bows and striking buoy on south side of channel-Stirlingshire's engines having been put astern to avoid the Whiteabbey, put full speed ahead to avoid fouling the Whiteabbey and the buoy-Grounding of Stirlingshire- Whether due to negligent navigation of Whiteabbey-Contention by Whiteabbey that the Stirlingshire was navigating in her wrong water; was proceeding at an excessive speed; and that, even if the Whiteabbey was at fault in crossing the channel to her wrong side, the Stirlingshire could have avoided grounding by the exercise of ordinary skill and care.

[This report is reprinted, with acknowledgments, from the St. John's "Evening Telegram."] THE "SILVER CITY."

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 135

Collision between plaintiffs' schooner Ethel Collett and defendants' steamship Silver City off Torbay Head (N F.)- Silver City towing schooner I'm Alone II-Absence of towing lights on Silver City-Ethel Collett fine on port bow-Sinking of Ethel Collett with loss of all on board-Respective duties of steamer and sailing vessel when approaching one another-Starboard helm action, followed by hard-a-starboard helm action taken by Silver City, but no whistle signals given- Look-out-General navigation of Silver City-Conduct of crew after collision -Collision Regulations, Arts. 3, 20, 21, 28.

NIPPON MENKWA KABUSHIKI KAISHA (JAPAN COTTON TRADING COMPANY, LTD.) v. DAWSONS BANK, LTD.

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 147

Bank-Conversion-Principal and agent- Estoppel-Sale of rice by S K to plaintiffs -Rice pledged to defendant bank in security for an advance-Rice in mill managed by B M (acting under general supervision of bank)-Plaintiffs given delivery order and invoice, signed by S K, countersigned "O.K., B M"-Payment made by plaintiffs to S K - Absconding of S K without having paid off bank's security-Refusal by bank to give delivery-Effect of letters "O.K."-Authority of B M -Whether bank entitled to assert its security against the plaintiffs' claim to delivery-Difference between waiver and estoppel.

MONTAGU v. PROVIDENT, ACCIDENT & WHITE CROSS INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 153

Motor insurance-Practice-Stay of action -Accident-Injuries to passenger- Assured sued passenger-Judgment in passenger's favour-Action for indemnity brought against insurance company by assured-Stay by Horridge, J., on ground of arbitration clause in policy-Discretion of Court -Multiplicity of litigation.

CLELAND v. LONDON GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 156

Motor insurance-Non-disclosure-"Have you or your driver ever been convicted or had a motor licence endorsed?" "No" - Further declaration by assured that "I have withheld no information whatever which might tend in any way to increase the risk of the insurance company or influence the acceptance of this proposal"-Convictions against assured for garage breaking, forgery, breach of recognisances, shopbreaking and stealing furs and jewellery-Bankruptcy of assured-Claim by plaintiff under Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act, 1930.

MARIS AND ANOTHER v. LONDON ASSURANCE.

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 158

Marine insurance-Loss-Sinking of Greek vessel at night after striking submerged rock off the island of Brusnik, in the Adriatic Sea-Claim by plaintiff shipowners (master and first mate of vessel)-Contention by underwriters that vessel was wilfully cast away- Plaintiffs' financial circumstances- Careless navigation of vessel in fine weather and smooth sea-Vessel abandoned soon after striking rock-Captain and crew saved-Chart and official log brought away-Submerged rock not marked on chart-No evidence of previous preparation or that master or crew brought away more than the barest belongings-Onus of proof-

BAKER v. PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY.

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 177

Negligence-Personal injuries sustained by workman loading barge-Plaintiff and three other workmen engaged in stacking sacks of wheat dropped from elevator into barge-Four men engaged in dropping sacks-Plaintiff injured by falling sack-Res ipsa loquitur-Contention by defendants that sacks were dropped in strict rotation and that it was the practice for bargemen to wait until a sequence of four sacks had been dropped before commencing stacking.

MONROE BROTHERS, LTD. v. RYAN.

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 179

Charter-party-Breach-Charter entered into on Aug. 2, 1933, between plaintiff shipowners and defendant charterers -"Expected ready to load [Hamburg] about Sept. 11"-Vessel in fact not ready to load until Sept. 17-"Charterers or owners not to incur liability for loss arising from frosts, floods, strikes, lock-outs of seamen, workpeople or other persons necessary for the performance of this charter-party, disputes between masters and men, and any other unavoidable accident or hindrances of what kind soever, beyond charterers' or owners' control" - Intermediate charter entered into on Aug. 31 between plaintiffs and W. Co. to load stone in Cornwall-Delay in arriving at Hamburg owing to adverse weather conditions during her performance of the intermediate charter-Claim by plaintiffs for balance of freight admitted- Counterclaim by defendants for extra cost of discharging cargo owing to late arrival at port of discharge-Right of plaintiffs to rely on exceptions- Whether plaintiffs broke their contract with the defendants in entering into intermediate charter.

THE "KATE."

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 185

Negligence - Bad berth - Damage to plaintiffs' motor vessel Kate at Rolle Quay, Barnstaple - Responsibility of first and second defendants -Lease by first defendants (harbour authority) to second defendants of frontage between second defendants' offices and edge of quay-Second defendants granted right "to berth and moor vessels for the purpose of loading and discharging" at the demised premises "and to use the mooring posts and Rolle Quay for the like purpose on a frontage on the River Yeo corresponding with the frontage of the lessees' flour mills"- Vessel carrying cargo for second defendants - Damage sustained by vessel during discharge at second defendants' crane situated on quay beyond office frontage-Whether second defendants in occupation of that part of quay-Knowledge of defendants of condition of berth-Whether also known to master of vessel.

BRITAIN STEAMSHIP COMPANY, LTD. v. LOUIS DREYFUS & CO.

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 196

Charter-party - Discharging expenses (grain in bulk)-"(13) If the vessel is destined for two ports of discharge, and the master is not so informed at the time of loading, so as to enable him to arrange the stowage, it is agreed that the vessel is to be left in seaworthy trim to proceed between ports of discharge" - Instructions given to master to discharge 214,500 bushels at Avonmouth and 109,514 bushels at London and/or Avonmouth -London as first port of discharge- Almost whole of optional cargo discharged at London-Part remaining cargo bagged by ship at London in accordance with Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, Schedule 18, and Board of Trade Regulations, and bulked at Avonmouth for discharge into elevators -Cost of bagging and bulking- Whether recoverable from charterers- Meaning of "seaworthy trim"-Construction of Clause 13-Award that charterers were not liable - Case stated.

MACKAY v. LONDON GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 201

Motor insurance-Concealment-Proposal form-Third party injured by plaintiff's car-Claim by plaintiff to be indemnified in respect of award of damages-"Has any office or underwriter refused, cancelled or declined to accept or renew such insurance, or required an increased premium or special condition? No"-"Have you or your driver ever been convicted or had a motor licence indorsed? No" -Assured insured three years before (when minor) with Ocean Company in respect of motor cycle-Ocean Company's policy carrying £2 10s. excess clause (their usual practice with minors)-Assured fined 10s. for driving motor cycle without efficient brakes (loose nut)-Right of insurers to repudiate on ground of concealment.

GRAUDS v. DEARSLEY.

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 203

Marine insurance-Loss-Sinking of Latvian vessel in Bay of Biscay- Claim by plaintiff that vessel sank "as the result of an explosion on board and/or by reason of the fracture or failure of the sea connections of the port boiler blowdown pipe and/or by reason of the fracture or failure of the said pipe"-Defence that vessel was wilfully cast away with the privity of the plaintiff or her husband (joined as co-plaintiff during the course of action) -Cause of loss-Evidence for plaintiffs that vessel sank from admission of water through opening in her side caused by damage to cock and appurtenances connecting blowdown pipe of port boiler with sea; that such damage was due to striking a floating object some days before loss; that there being a leak in the condenser the chief engineer opened the cock and valve of pipe and that an explosion followed, with an inrush of water; and that there was an excess of steam preventing steps being taken to save the vessel- Distress signals sent out and vessel abandoned immediately-Sinking of vessel over three hours later-Evidence of sinking and of weather conditions; of commercial integrity and financial stability of male plaintiff; of the absence of communication between

the plaintiffs and crew for a considerable period before the loss; and that the original plaintiff was the registered owner of the vessel but that the management and full control was in her husband's (co-plaintiff's) hands- Alternative claim by plaintiffs for loss by barratry-Absence of motive of officers and crew-Onus of proof.

THE "SUCARSECO."*

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 238

General average-Contribution by cargo- Collision between carrying and non-carrying vessels - Both to blame - General average expenses incurred by carrying vessel-Cargo carried under bill of lading incorporating Jason Clause-Contribution made by cargo- Right to recover from non-carrying vessel.

THE "NORNA."

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 243

Collision between motor vessel James M. and steamship Norna in River Witham estuary - James M. inward bound to Boston (Lines.); Norna outward bound -James M. sunk-Dispute as to place of collision - Contention by plaintiffs that Norna should have waited for the James M. to pass clear before leaving dock-Dispute as to whether James M. sheered into Norna's water or Norna sheered into James M.'s water-Effect of wind and tide on Norna.

CHUNG HWA STEEL PRODUCTS & TRADING COMPANY, LTD. v. GLEN LINE, LTD.

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 248

Bill of lading-Short delivery-Pilferage -Cases of wool gabardine sent from Bradford to London by train, put in shed at dock and then shipped in defendants' steamship to Shanghai- Cases opened during transit, part of contents abstracted and cases resealed- Shortage discovered on vessel's arrival at Shanghai-Claim by consignees against shipowners-Onus of proof- Evidence as to opportunities of stealing goods during transit on land and sea.

PLUMB v. RAE.

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 252

Negligent navigation-Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff on board dredger moored in Rye Harbour-Entry of defendant's small motor yacht-Collision with moorings of dredger-Attempt by plaintiff by use of winch to slacken moorings on approach of yacht- Plaintiff injured by winch-Responsibility for accident-Obstruction in river - Dredger exhibiting proper mooring lights-Duty of person navigating yacht in such circumstances.

RONALD v. GILMARTIN.

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 256

Employers' Liability Act, 1880-Claim by dock labourer against his employer (stevedore) for personal injuries sustained while employed as one of gang to unload the steamship Meta-Gang engaged by F, also employed by defender, upon his (defender's) instructions (F engaged the gang of 15 labourers and thereafter directed their operations and occasionally assisted in unloading at hatch No. 1; they were bound to obey his orders and were subject to dismissal by him at any moment; they received their daily wages through him and he himself received a higher rate of wage from the defender than that which was transmitted through him to the men)-Pursuer injured owing to negligence of F in discharging his duties as hatchmouthman in that he failed to give the winchman the appropriate signals when a load was being raised from the hatch- Defence of common employment - Whether F engaged in superintendence within the meaning of the Employers' Liability Act-Sect. 1 (2) provides that a workman shall have the right to recover compensation from his employer if he is injured "by reason of the negligence of any person in the service of the employer who has any superintendence entrusted to him whilst in the exercise of such superintendence"-Sect. 8: "The expression 'person who has superintendence entrusted to him' means a person whose sole or principal duty is that of superintendence, and who is not ordinarily engaged in manual labour."

MOORE v. CUNARD STEAM SHIP COMPANY, LTD.

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 269

Workmen's compensation-Total or partial incapacity-Injury to dock labourer - Compensation paid on ground of total incapacity-Compensation subsequently reduced-Application by workman to County Court Judge-Finding of Judge that applicant's incapacity had ceased-Evidence of medical witnesses-Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, Sect. 9. Workmen's compensation-Appeal-Order of C.A. dated Nov. 24, 1933, remitting proceedings to arbitration-Award dated Jan. 12, 1934-Notice of appeal (against order of Court of Appeal) dated May 15, 1934-Competency of appeal.

ALGEMEENE BANKVEREENIGING v. LANGTON.

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 275

Insurance - Banker's policy - Claim by Belgian bank-Practice of bank to issue bonds to customers paying in money on deposit-Bonds originally issuable by bank manager upon his signature alone-Instructions to bank manager to use new form of bond requiring counter-signature by two directors-Misappropriation by bank manager of customers' deposits by use of old form-Whether recoverable by bank under policy covering losses incurred "by reason of any money . . . in which they are interested, or the custody of which they have undertaken, and which now are . . . or at any time during the said period of 12 months may be in or upon their own premises . . . being (while so in or upon such premises . . .) lost, destroyed, or otherwise made away with by . . . theft, robbery or hold-up, whether with or without violence, and whether from within or without, and whether by the officers, clerks and servants of the assured or any other person or persons whomsoever"- Authority of bank manager-Liability of bank in respect of forged bonds-Point of law not raised at trial-Discretion of C.A.-Estoppel- Meaning of "theft."

THE "STAGHOUND."

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 286

Collision between steamships Nina and Staghound in Manchester Ship Canal -Nina outward bound; Staghound inward bound-Staghound proceeding under hand steering gear-Sheer into Nina-Allegation by Staghound that the Nina was navigating in her wrong water, that the Staghound was consequently forced to starboard and that in starboarding she smelt the ground and sheered across the canal-Angle of blow-Speeds.

BRITISH OIL & CAKE MILLS, LTD. v. MOOR LINE, LTD.

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 292

Bill of lading - Discharging expenses (bulk cottonseed at Southampton)- Discharging processes: (1) trimming; (2) bushelling and bagging; (3) hoisting to scale; (4) weighing; (5) discharging overside either into lighter or truck-Custom in discharge of other grain and seed cargoes at Southampton for ship to provide stevedores to trim and hoist to scale and for receivers to employ S.R. (dock authority) at inclusive rate to do bushelling and bagging, weighing, and discharging overside-Evidence that in case of cottonseed cargoes ship up to 1930 provided stevedores to do bushelling and bagging and that receivers employed S.R. only for weighing and discharging overside; that in certain subsequent cases receivers arranged for S.R. to include bushelling and bagging in their inclusive rate, the shipowners agreeing to repay to the receivers the cost of bushelling and bagging-Refusal by shipowners in present case to pay cost of bushelling and bagging-Obligation of shipowners-Alleged custom -Ascertainment of weight.

RICHMOND v. NORWICH (RIVER YARE) COMMISSIONERS.

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 297

Negligent navigation-Sea-going vessel- Great Yarmouth Port & Haven River By-laws, 1909-Information preferred by Norwich (River Yare) Commissioners against master of motor vessel Actuality for failing to navigate his vessel with care and caution upon the River Yare, contrary to By-law No. 24 -Appendix to By-laws: "We [the Commissioners] do make the following by-laws for the registration annually . . . and control of pleasure boats and other vessels not being sea-going boats or vessels . . . and for other purposes . . ."-Applicability of by-laws- Contention by master that the by-laws did not apply as the Actuality was a sea-going vessel-Fine imposed by Court of Summary Jurisdiction-Case stated.

OCEAN TRAWLERS, LTD., v. MARITIME NATIONAL FISH, LTD.

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 299

Charter-party-Frustration-Impossibility of performance-Claim by shipowners for hire of trawler St. C-Charter fixed from year to year-Renewal at reduced rate of hire in July, 1932, for further year from October, 1932-Amendment to Fisheries Art (R.S. Canada, 1927) by addition of Sect. 69A in June, 1929, making it an offence to fish with vessel with otter trawl except under licence from the Minister of Fisheries, it being left to the Minister to determine the number of vessels eligible to be licensed, and to issue regulations defining the conditions in respect of licences-Regulations published in August, 1931-St. C fitted with otter trawl-Four other trawlers, fitted with otter trawling gear, also operated by charterers- Application by charterers for licences- Licences granted for three trawlers- Nomination by charterers of three trawlers other than St. C-Notification by charterers to shipowners that St. C was available for redelivery- Contention that charter was discharged owing to its performance becoming impossible -Implied term.

A/S. OCEAN v. BLACK SEA & BALTIC GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., AND OTHERS.

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 305

Marine insurance-Ice damage-Plaintiffs' vessel damaged by ice-Policy taken out with defendant underwriters "being on Norwegian conditions, according to the [Norwegian Insurance Plan] of 1930. . . . It is specially agreed that this policy covers ice damage irrespective of percentage" - Norwegian Insurance Plan - Par. 76 (6): "Franchises: In the case of particular average damage to the ship, the insurance is effected without liability for the first

THE "INGRID HORN."

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 312

Collision between British steamship Swainby and German motor vessel Ingrid Horn in North Sea off South Goodwin Light-vessel-Vessels on opposite courses-Weather foggy in patches -Starboarding by Swainby to pass unnamed vessel port to port-Further starboarding by Swainby on sighting Ingrid Horn-Failure of Swainby to signal her alteration of course-Vessels then on crossing courses with Ingrid Horn the give-way vessel-Porting by Ingrid Horn, followed by hard-a-starboarding just before collision-Misinterpretation of Swainby's lights- Swainby mistaken for drifter-Lookout -Collision Regulations, Art. 28.

THE "NORTONIAN."

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 317

Collision between British steamships Goodleigh and Nortonian in Cardiff Roads -Goodleigh at anchor, heading to tide; Nortonian inward bound-Goodleigh commencing to heave in her anchor cable preparatory to proceeding into docks-Allegation by Nortonian that the Goodleigh was foul of the channel and that she came ahead across the tide after heaving in her anchor cable- Look-out-Attempt by Nortonian to cross ahead of Goodleigh-Goodleigh's engines put astern.

THE "KATE."

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 321

Bad berth-Damage to motor vessel K at Rolle Quay, Barnstaple-Responsibility of first and second defendants-Lease by first defendants (harbour authority) to second defendants of frontage between second defendants' offices and edge of quay-Second defendants granted right "to berth and moor vessels for the purpose of loading and discharging" at the demised premises "and to use the mooring posts and Rolle Quay for the like purpose on a frontage on the River Yeo corresponding with the frontage of the lessees' flour mills"-Damage sustained by vessel during discharge at second defendants' crane situated on quay beyond office frontage-Whether second defendants in occupation of that part of quay-Knowledge of defendants of condition of berth-Decision of Sir Boyd Merriman, P., that both defendants were to blame-Claim by second defendants to be indemnified by first defendants-Allegation that damages flowed from first defendants' breach of covenant in the lease to keep the berth in good order and condition-Contention by first defendants that damages claimed were too remote.

THE "HEIRE."

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 325

Collision between American steamship Steel Ranger and Norwegian steamship Heire in Gallions Reach, River Thames -Steel Ranger leaving dock and crossing river to take up her down-river course; Heire bound up river-Steamship Damsterdijk turning in river preparatory to entering dock-Allegation that vessels were obscured from each other by Damsterdijk - Look-out - Speeds-Whistle signals-Thames By-laws, Rule 34.

THORNTON v. FEHR & CO.

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 330

Principal and agent-Broker acting for undisclosed principal-Liability of broker-London Oil & Tallow Trade- Custom-"We have this day brought for you [F. & Co., defendants] according to the Rules of the London Oil & Tallow Trades Association" about 50 tons of tallow at a certain price c.i.f. "(Signed) F. C. & Co., Brokers" [plaintiffs]-Sold note sent in similar terms to B. & Co., also signed by plaintiffs as brokers-Principals not disclosed -Invoice rendered by B. & Co. to plaintiffs-Payment against shipping documents by plaintiffs to B. & Co. and by defendants to plaintiffs-Presentation of documents to ship-No tallow on board-Claim by defendants against plaintiffs for repayment-Contention by plaintiffs that they were not liable as brokers-Request by defendants for arbitration-Refusal by plaintiffs to arbitrate-Plaintiffs' arbitrator appointed by Association-Award that by custom of the trade the plaintiffs were liable-Action brought by plaintiffs for a declaration that the award was null and void.

HARWOOD v. ANTWERP QUAY, LTD.

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 336

Negligence-Personal injuries-Claim by plaintiff against defendant wharfingers for injuries sustained while loading cases on to motor lorry on defendants' premises-Cases loaded by means of wire slings belonging to defendants- Plaintiff injured by frayed sling- Allegation by plaintiff that sling was unfit for use.

DANNEBERG v. WHITE SEA TIMBER TRUST, LTD.

(1935) 51 Ll L Rep 338

Charter-party-Ice Clause-Claim by shipowners against charterers for damages for detention-Delay in reaching and leaving loading port (Leningrad) - "(1) In the event of the port of loading being inaccessible by reason of ice, or in case ice sets in after vessel's arrival at port of loading, the charterers undertake to arrange for the provision by the port authorities of icebreaker assistance if required by the captain, free of expense to the steamer, the steamer complying with official instructions and rules issued by the authorities concerning icebreaker assistance. . . . (2) Icebreaker assistance to be rendered free of expense to the steamer within 48 hours of receipt by the captain of port (at loading port) of master's or owner's notification of arrival at the edge of ice, or when leaving port 48 hours after notification by the master of readiness to leave. (3) Time lost by the vessel in waiting for icebreaker assistance at the edge of ice and when leaving the loading port in excess of the time provided for in Clause (2) to count as demurrage and/or detention and to be paid by charterers at the rate of £20 per day or pro rata from which time days saved in loading and/or discharging shall be deducted. (4) The charterers shall not be responsible for any loss of time during passage through the ice and/or any loss or damage caused to the steamer by ice or for any detention on passage through ice."-Construction- Obligation of charterers-"Undertake to arrange for the provision by the port authorities of icebreaker assistance"- Effect of sub-clause (4)-Whether charterers given necessary notification- Waiver.

Lloyd's Law Reports