i-law.com

IZZARD v. UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1936) 56 Ll L Rep 1

THE "CURLEW."

(1936) 56 Ll L Rep 16

Negligent navigation-Damage sustained by tug Bruno and her tow in collision with Battersea Bridge, River Thames- Bruno bound down river; sailing barge Curlew dropping down river with her anchor down-Anchor foul of moorings of P.L.A. dredger moored above centre arch of bridge-Curlew warned by dredger not to drop anchor-Curlew exhibiting "under way" lights-Contention by Bruno that she was misled by Curlew's navigation lights indicating that she was a vessel under way -Intention of Bruno to follow Curlew through centre arch-Helm action taken by Bruno to pass through No. 2 arch on realising that Curlew was blocking the centre arch-Collision with No. 2 arch-Port of London River By-laws, 1914-1934, Rule 14.

F. HILLS & SONS, LTD. v. BRITISH AIRWAYS, LTD.

(1936) 56 Ll L Rep 20

Bailment-Gratuitous bailees-Damage to light aeroplane-Plaintiffs' aeroplane accepted by defendants for custody in their hangar at Ramsey (I.O.M.)- -Aeroplane taken out of hangar by defendants' servants to permit defendants' aeroplane to leave-Plaintiffs' aeroplane blown over and damaged- Whether defendants gratuitous bailees or bailees for reward-Duty of defendants-Cause of accident-Alleged gust of wind-Whether "act of God"- Evidence of weather conditions.

THE "JOHN P. PEDERSEN."

(1936) 56 Ll L Rep 25

Collision between British steamship Maurice Rose and Norwegian motor tank vessel John P. Pedersen in St. Clement's Reach, River Thames, in fog-Maurice Rose, bound up river, riding to her port anchor heading to the tide on south side of river-John P. Pedersen bound down river with tug fast ahead-Ebb tide-Dispute as to whether Maurice Rose was sounding her bell for fog-Speed of John P. Pedersen-Whether reduced on entering fog-Look-out-Thames By-laws, Rule 28 (h).

BEN LINE STEAMERS, LTD. v. COMPAGNIE OPTORG, OF SAIGON.

(1936) 56 Ll L Rep 30

Charter-party - Discharging expenses - Stevedoring charges-Vessel chartered for carriage of rice and maize from Saigon to Havre and Dunkirk-Dispute as to stevedoring rates payable by owner - "Charterers' agents to nominate stevedore at loading port and discharge ports, provided rates charged are not higher than captain can get the work done by other good stevedores"-Stevedores nominated by charterers - Stevedoring contract previously entered into between owners and J & H whereby J & H agreed to discharge owners' steamers at Havre and Dunkirk at a rate in fact less than that charged by charterers' nominees- Discharge effected by charterers' nominees under protest by owners- Contention by owners that they were entitled to refund of charges in excess of those provided by contract with J & H - Whether contract rate applicable-Award in favour of charterers - Case stated - Question for opinion of Court: Whether owners were entitled to recover sums claimed.

FIRTH SHIPPING COMPANY, LTD. v. MORTON'S TRUSTEES.

(1936) 56 Ll L Rep 35

Berth-"Free port" (Scotland)-Grant from Crown to defenders of Barony of Aberdour "with the port and harbour thereof with full power, privilege and liberty of repairing the said port of Aberdour or of building, making and erecting a free seaport and harbour in any other part of the aforesaid Barony of Aberdour . . . and of uplifting all and sundry small customs, anchorages, dock silver and ground leave and all other duties and emoluments of the said port and harbour of Aberdour" - Pursuers' vessel berthed alongside pier in Aberdour Harbour - Allegation that vessel sustained damage on taking ground-Bottom not level - Claim against defenders - Pursuers' averments held by Lord Ordinary to be irrelevant, it having been assumed by his Lordship that it was common ground between the parties that there was no revenue available for the provision of a harbour-master or for dredging, and that all sums received had been expended on the upkeep of the pier- Appeal by pursuers-No admission by pursuers as to expenditure of dues- Remedy for breach of grantees' obligations-Duty of grantees of "free port" towards general public.

BLOOR v. LIVERPOOL DERRICKING & CARRYING COMPANY, LTD.

(1936) 56 Ll L Rep 39

Fatal Accidents Act, 1846-Death of derricker employed on appellant company's barge-Fall into hold while tipping for foreman during his temporary absence - Derricker injured- Death while under an‘sthetic-Cause of death-Foreman in fact a director of appellant company - Derricker as volunteer-Volenti non fit injuria -Position of foreman considered- Appeal against award of damages to dependants under Fatal Accidents Act. Practice-Stay of execution-Award of damages under Fatal Accidents Act, 1846-Stay granted by learned Judge on terms that £300 should be paid over in any event-Grounds on which such an order should be made-Doyle v. White City Stadium, Ltd., [1935] 1 K.B. 110, at p. 128, followed.

THOMSON v. LOUIS DREYFUS & CO.

(1936) 56 Ll L Rep 44

Charter-party-Bagging of cargo (wheat in bulk)-Cost of bags-Charter of plaintiff's vessel to load at Sydney, N.S.W., "a full and complete cargo of wheat in bulk"-"9. Charterers must supply a sufficient quantity of cargo in bags required by the Commonwealth Navigation Department surveyor for safe stowage to comply with the grain regulations under the Navigation Act, 1912-1920, or any amendment thereof, but shall not be bound to supply more cargo in bays than required for this purpose. The charterers shall pay the cost of bagging cargo in bulk up to 15 per cent. of the entire cargo, if required under the preceding clause and the shipowners shall pay the cost of bagging any quantity in excess of 15 per cent. This provision shall apply only when cargo in bulk is shipped. If separations of bulk cargo are required the cost of such separations shall be paid by the charterers"-Vessel loaded with as much wheat in bulk as allowed by the grain regulations issued pursuant to the Navigation Act and with the requisite bagged cargo under Clause 9-Demand by master for further bagged cargo to bring vessel to safe trim and to bring her down to her marks-Contention by charterers that their obligation as to the supply of bagged cargo was limited by the terms of Clause 9 - Further quantity of bagged cargo supplied by charterers, without prejudice, to comply with master's request, the dispute to go to arbitration-Cost of bags and bagging paid by charterers and claimed by them from shipowner- Deposit by shipowner in joint names, pending arbitrator's decision-Agreement between parties that "(1) If the arbitrator finds that the master was not entitled to any more wheat in bags . . . then the [sum deposited] together with the accrued interest thereon . . . shall be paid out to [charterers]. (2) If the arbitrator finds that the master was justified in demanding more wheat in bags than supplied by the charterers . . . then the arbitrator shall determine how much of that sum shall be paid to [shipowner and charterers]"- Award that master was not entitled to demand more wheat in bags and that the sum deposited should be paid out to charterers-Bills of lading, presented by charterers and signed by master in conformity with charter-party terms, assigned by charterers to third parties-Delivery of cargo (including bags) by master to assignees in accordance with bill of lading terms- Claim by shipowner against charterers for value of bags.

THE "KAFIRISTAN."

(1936) 56 Ll L Rep 52

Salvage-Services rendered by steamship Beaverford to steamship Kafiristan in Gulf of St. Lawrence-Kafiristan badly damaged by collision with steamship Empress of Britain-Liability for collision settled on basis of Empress of Britain three-quarters to blame and Kafiristan one-quarter - Empress of Britain in same ownership as Beaverford-Services rendered under Lloyd's Standard Form of Salvage Agreement (No cure-no pay)-Arbitration-Case stated-Whether the fact that the Empress of Britain was partly to blame for the collision disentitled her owners, as owners of the Beaverford, to an award for the services rendered to the Kafiristan-Award of £600 to master and crew of Beaverford.

INTERNATIONAL TRUSTEE FOR THE PROTECTION OF BONDHOLDERS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT v. THE KING.

(1936) 56 Ll L Rep 59

Contract-Conflict of laws-Bonds issued by British Government in the United States of America-Repayment of principal - Payment of interest - Petition of right brought by holders of bond for 1000 dols.-Obligation of Government under gold clause providing (inter alia): "Such principal sum and the interest thereon will be paid at the option of the holder, either in the City of New York, State of New York, United States of America, at the office or agency which will be maintained in the said city by the obligor for the service of the bonds of this issue in gold coin of the United States of America of the standard of weight and fineness existing February, 1917, or in the City of London, England, in sterling money at the fixed rate of 4.8612 dols. to the pound." -Joint Resolution of Congress of United States, 1933, providing (inter alia): "Every provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby, is declared to be against public policy; and no such provision shall be contained in or made with respect to any obligation hereafter incurred. Every obligation, heretofore or hereafter incurred, whether or not any such provision is contained therein or made with respect thereto, shall be discharged upon payment, dollar for dollar, in any coin or currency which at the time of payment is legal tender for public and private debts"-Illegality of payment in gold in United States-Construction of gold clause- Whether reference to gold coin concerned mode of payment or measure of value-Law applicable.

BROOKS WHARF & BULL WHARF, LTD. v. GOODMAN BROS.

(1936) 56 Ll L Rep 71

Warehousemen-Negligence-Customs duty -Warehousing of defendants' imported furs in plaintiffs' bonded warehouse- Furs stolen from warehouse-Duty paid by plaintiffs on demand by Customs-Claim to recover from defendants amount of duty paid, also charges four landing and warehousing -Whether defendants responsible for payment of duty-Counterclaim for value of furs lost owing to plaintiffs' alleged negligence-Duty of warehousemen-Evidence of precautions taken by plaintiffs-Onus of proof-Customs Laws Consolidation Act, 1876, Sects. 82, 85, 87.

HOLLIS BROS. & CO., LTD. v. WHITE SEA TIMBER TRUST, LTD.

(1936) 56 Ll L Rep 78

Sale of goods-Short delivery (wood goods)-Sale of 30 standards of short lengths; 20 standards of long lengths- Printed clauses providing: "In the event of over-shipment of any item of the contract or of the total contract quantity buyers shall not be entitled to reject the entire shipment but shall have the option to be exercised without delay of taking up the bills of lading and paying for the whole quantity shipped or of taking up the bills of lading and paying only for the contract quantity rejecting the balance . . . If buyers elect to take the contract quantity only the sellers shall pay all extra expenses incurred by buyers in consequence of the over-shipment. In the event of under-shipment of any item, buyers are to accept or pay for the quantity shipped, but have the right to claim compensation for such short-shipment. Each item of this contract to be considered a separate interest"- Typewritten clauses providing (inter alia): "All the goods under this contract are subject to a variation of 25 per cent. more or less, in shippers' option. . . . This contract is subject to sellers making necessary chartering arrangements for the expedition, and sold subject to shipment: any goods not shipped to be cancelled"-Shipment of 834, standards of long lengths-Claim by buyers for allowance in respect of 614 standards short-delivered-Arbitration -Award in form of special case-Meaning of "subject to shipment: any goods not shipped to be cancelled"-Inconsistency between printed and typewritten clauses.

BEN LINE STEAMERS, LTD. v. COMPAGNIE OPTORG, OF SAIGON.

(1936) 56 Ll L Rep 83

Arbitration - Practice - Fresh evidence - Dispute under charter-party-Stevedoring charges-Vessel chartered for carriage of rice and maize from Saigon to Havre and Dunkirk-Dispute as to stevedoring rates payable by owners- "Charterers' agents to nominate stevedore at loading port and discharge ports, provided rates charged are not higher than captain can get the work done by other good stevedores"- Stevedores nominated by charterers- Stevedoring contract previously entered into between owners and J. & H. whereby J. & H. agreed to discharge owners' steamers at Havre and Dunkirk at a rate in fact less than that charged by charterers' nominees- Discharge effected by charterers' nominees under protest by owners- Contention by owners that they were entitled to refund of charges in excess of those provided by contract with J. & H.-Whether contract rate applicable-Award in favour of charterers -Case stated-Question for the opinion of Court: Whether owners were entitled to recover sums claimed -Case remitted to arbitrator by learned Judge for the purpose, if necessary, of taking further evidence and finding whether the owners could in fact have got the work done at Havre and Dunkirk at the particular time at a cheaper rate than that charged by the charterers' nominees.

THE "MUNGANA."

(1936) 56 Ll L Rep 87

Salvage-Services rendered by British steamship Nestor to British steamship Mungana between Melbourne and Adelaide-Mungana adrift with engines broken down and both anchors lost-South-south-westerly gale and high seas-Mungana in close proximity to lee shore-Difficulty encountered by Nestor in establishing connection- Possibility of other assistance - Mungana towed 170 miles to Adelaide. Award-Apportionment between owners and master and crew.

CANNING v. MARITIME INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1936) 56 Ll L Rep 91

Marine insurance - Loss - Sinking of British steamship Braedale off Isle of Wight - Claim by plaintiff under policy - Contention by defendant insurance company that vessel was wilfully cast away by plaintiff-Plaintiff on board vessel as first engineer- Discovery by plaintiff of inflow of water into engine-room-Allegation by plaintiff that water was admitted through stern tube owing to defect in stuffing box-Vessel abandoned two hours after first discovery of entry of water-Sinking two hours later-Evidence as to possible rate of inflow through stern tube-Reserve of buoyancy-Capacity of pumps-;Suggestion that plaintiff tampered with bilge injection valve by removal of non-return element-Untruthful evidence of plaintiff as to possibility of its speedy removal-Plaintiff only partly interested in any recovery under policy- Evidence of financial position.

COLLINGWOOD v. HOME & COLONIAL STORES, LTD.

(1936) 56 Ll L Rep 105

Negligence-Fire-Damage to plaintiff's premises-Fire originating in defendants' premises and spreading to plaintiff's premises-Source of fire- Finding that fire originated in the basement of defendants' premises and was in some way connected with the electrical wiring-Cause of fire accidental - No negligence - Contention that defendants were liable within rule in Rylands v. Fletcher-Ordinary and reasonable user of premises-Fires Prevention (Metropolis) Act, 1774, Sect. 86.

CONSTANTINE M. PROIOS v. NEILL & PANDELIS, LTD.

(1936) 56 Ll L Rep 114

Management of ship-Accounts-Dispute between owner and ship's managers- Managers also mortgagees-Motion by plaintiff shipowner for interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant managers, pending the trial of the action, from receiving and paying into their general accounts freights earned and to be earned by plaintiff's steamship; also for order to be made for the appointment of a receiver and manager to receive such freights and apply them in the payment of current disbursements in respect of the vessel - Relationship of parties -Whether, if no such motion was granted and the plaintiff obtained judgment in the action, that judgment was likely to be ineffectual.

BEN LINE STEAMERS, LTD. v. COMPAGNIE OPTORG, OF SAIGON.

(1936) 56 Ll L Rep 117

Charter-party - Discharging expenses - Stevedoring charges-Vessel chartered for carriage of rice and maize from Saigon to Havre and Dunkirk-Dispute as to stevedoring rates payable by owners - "Charterers' agents to nominate stevedore at loading port and discharge ports, provided rates charged are not higher than captain can get the work done by other good stevedores"- Stevedores nominated by charterers- Stevedoring contract previously entered into between owners and J. & H. whereby J. & H. agreed to discharge owners' steamers at Havre and Dunkirk at a rate in fact less than that charged by charterers' nominees- Discharge effected by charterers' nominees under protest by owners- Contention by owners that they were entitled to refund of charges in excess of those provided by contract with J. & H.-Whether contract rate applicable -Award in favour of charterers -Case stated-Question for the opinion of Court: Whether owners were entitled to recover sums claimed- Decision of learned Judge that charterers were not entitled to employ their stevedores if owners could get stevedoring done at cheaper rate-Case remitted to arbitrator for the purpose, if necessary, of taking further evidence and finding whether the owners could in fact have got the work done at Havre and Dunkirk at the particular time at a cheaper rate than that charged by the charterers' nominees-Decision of C.A. that if the facts which it was desired to prove were facts which the parties desiring to prove them had at the time of the arbitration reasonable opportunity of putting before the tribunal, they ought not to be allowed afterwards to have the case remitted to the arbitrator to find facts upon fresh evidence which was available at the time of the hearing of the arbitration, and that therefore the case must be remitted to the learned Judge for a decision without such further evidence-Onus of showing lower stevedoring rates - Whether on shipowners or charterers.

THE "KAFIRISTAN."

(1936) 56 Ll L Rep 123

Salvage-Services rendered by steamship Beaverford to steamship Kafiristan in Gulf of St. Lawrence-Kafiristan badly damaged by collision with steamship Empress of Britain-Liability for collision settled on basis of Empress of Britain three-quarters to blame and Kafiristan one-quarter - Empress of Britain in same ownership as Beaverford -Services rendered under Lloyd's Standard Form of Salvage Agreement (No cure-no pay)-Arbitration-Case stated-Whether the fact that the Empress of Britain was partly to blame for the collision disentitled her owners, as owners of the Beaverford, to an award for the services rendered to the Kafiristan-Award of £600 to master and crew of Beaverford.

THE "POLLY."

(1936) 56 Ll L Rep 129

Collision between motor barge Lady Day and steamship Polly in Erith Reach, River Thames, in fog-Both vessels inward bound, Polly ahead of Lady Day-Right-angle contact between port side of Lady Day and rudder of Polly-Lady Day sunk-Allegation by Polly that she was turning under starboard wheel preparatory to anchoring -Contention by Lady Day that the Polly swinging with her stern to the northward, came astern into the Lady Day - Look-outs - Sound signals- Duty of turning vessel to signal that her engines were astern-Lady Day not blowing her horn.

SCINDIA STEAMSHIPS (LONDON), LTD. v. LONDON ASSURANCE.

(1936) 56 Ll L Rep 136

Marine insurance-Inchmaree Clause- Breakage of tail shaft-Removal of propeller during repairs - Latent defect in shaft-Right to recover cost of replacement of shaft-"This insurance also specially to cover (subject to free of average warranty) loss of or damage to hull or machinery directly caused by accidents in loading, discharging or handling cargo, or in bunkering or in taking in fuel, or caused through the negligence of master, mariners, engineers, or pilots, or through explosions, bursting of boilers, breakage of shafts, or through any latent defect in the machinery or hull"- "Breakage of shafts"-Latent defect existing before currency of policy- Marine Insurance Act, 1906, Sect. 55 (2) (c).

PETROFINA, S.A., OF BRUSSELS v. COMPAGNIA ITALIANA TRASPORTO OLII MINERALI, OF GENOA.

(1936) 56 Ll L Rep 141

Charter-party-Unseaworthiness-Damage to oil cargo-Discoloration-Benzine shipped water white; part discharged superfine white-Liability of shipowners -"(1) That the steamer being tight staunch and strong and every way fitted for the voyage, and to be maintained in such condition during the voyage, perils of the sea excepted. . . . . (16) The captain is bound to keep the tanks, pipes and pumps of the steamer always clean, but at the expense of the charterers if they load in the tanks oils of different nature to those previously shipped. The steamer is not to be responsible for any consequences arising through charterers shipping different kinds of oil. The steamer is not to be accountable for leakage. (27) Steamer to clean for the cargo in question to the satisfaction of charterers' inspector" -No negligence on part of shipowners in making vessel fit to carry cargo-All reasonable steps taken by master to make the tanks clean and fit for the cargo-Inspection by charterers' representatives under Clause 27-Acceptance of vessel as fit to load-Owners' allegation that damage was caused by sea perils negatived by arbitrator-Award that shipowners were protected by charter-party terms from liability for discoloration -Case stated-Effect of Clause 27-Whether lessening shipowners' responsibility.

THE "ROCKABILL."

(1936) 56 Ll L Rep 149

Collision between steamships King Orry and Rockabill in River Mersey- Plaintiffs' vessel King Orry leaving Prince's Landing Stage bound north; first defendants' vessel Rockabill coming out of Prince's Half-tide Dock entrance into river-Whether King Orry under way before Rockabill started ahead from dock entrance-Information given to Rockabill by dockmaster, employee of Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, second defendants, that it was all clear for the Rockabill to proceed into river-Knowledge of master of Rockabill of instructions issued to Harbour Board's employees that information should be given to masters of vessels about to enter river of obstructions to the north-Duty of master to keep good look-out to south- Whether direction given by dockmaster amounted to an order to enter river- Failure of second defendants to observe the movements of the King Orry-Look-outs - Speeds - Claim by plaintiffs against both defendants-Counterclaim by first defendants against second defendants.

THE "MADRID."

(1936) 56 Ll L Rep 159

Practice-Writ in personam-Motion by defendants to set aside writ and to stay further proceedings-Collision between Greek steamship E C E (owned by plaintiff) and Argentine steamship M (owned by defendants) in Argentine waters- Service of writ at address in London where defendants had established a share register-D registered as person authorised to accept service-Effect of registration-Proper service of writ- Whether defendants carrying on business within the jurisdiction-Contention that jurisdiction was limited to claims connected with share register- Further plea by defendants of lis alibi pendens-Action in rem previously instituted by defendants against plaintiff in Argentina-Counterclaim by plaintiff subsequently withdrawn-Election- Whether present proceedings vexatious and oppressive-Convenience-Defendants' contention that, the M having been sunk by the collision, plaintiff's claim was groundless under Argentine law-Companies Act, 1929, Sects. 344, 349, 352.

MARSTRAND FISHING CO., LTD. v. BEER. (THE "GIRL PAT.")

(1936) 56 Ll L Rep 163

Marine insurance-Barratry-Claim by plaintiffs under policy with defendant underwriter for loss of their motor fishing vessel Girl Pat-Instructions given by plaintiffs to master to fish in North Sea and to return to Grimsby by Apr. 8-Sailing of vessel on Apr. 2 for fishing grounds off English coast- Call at Dover on Apr. 3, where full bunkers and five weeks' provisions taken on board-Engineer (only member of crew not appointed by master) purposely left behind at Dover-No further news heard for over six weeks- Notice of abandonment given to underwriters on Apr. 28-Not accepted by underwriters, but agreement to place owners in same position as if writ issued on that date-Information received by owners on May 11 that the master by fraud had incurred a bill for necessaries at Corcubion (Spain) and had left that port, corroborating the suspicion that vessel had been feloniously taken possession of by her master and crew-Notice of abandonment amended on May 18 by request that loss by barratry be substituted-Evidence of her further movements-Vessel eventually seized by authorities at Georgetown (British Guiana)-"Actual total loss"-"Constructive total loss" -Marine Insurance Act, 1906, Sects. 56, 57, 58, 60.

POOL SHIPPING COMPANY, LTD. v. S. J. MORELAND & SONS, LTD.

(1936) 56 Ll L Rep 175

Bill of lading-Freight-Shipment of round unbarked poplar and basswood logs from Montreal to Sharpness- Freight to be paid at the rate of "90s. per standard of 165 cu. ft. intake string measure, 144 divisor: all the conditions, terms and exceptions contained in which charter-party are herewith incorporated"-Provision in charter-party that "the usual custom of the wood trade of each port is to be observed by each party, in cases where not otherwise specially expressed"- Dispute as to freight payable-Claim by plaintiff shipowners against defendant consignees for balance of freight -Meaning of "intake string measure" -Evidence of custom-Whether custom should be applied in computing "intake string measure."

THE "VALVERDA."

(1936) 56 Ll L Rep 179

Salvage-His Majesty's ships as salvors- Services rendered by his Majesty's ships Frobisher (cruiser), Guardian (cruiser), Sandboy (tug), Creole (yard craft) and Orangeleaf (fleet auxiliary) to motor vessel Valverda in Atlantic- Vessel towed 900 miles to Bermuda- Admiralty Form of Salvage Agreement entered into between Admiralty and owners of Valverda-Salvage services admitted-Award-Case stated-Question for opinion of Court: "Whether . . . the Admiralty are entitled in law to salvage remuneration in respect of the services of H.M.S. Frobisher, H.M.S. Guardian and R.F.A. Orangeleaf"- Whether Admiralty's right to salvage remuneration under agreement limited by reason of Sect. 557 (1) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, which provides that "where salvage services are rendered by any ship belonging to [his Majesty] or by the commander or crew thereof, no claim shall be allowed for any loss, damage, or risk caused to the ship or her stores, tackle, or furniture, or for the use of any stores or other articles belonging to [his Majesty], supplied in order to effect those services . . ."-Merchant Shipping (Salvage) Act, 1916, Sect. 1-Ambiguity- Validity of agreement-Whether contrary to public policy.

UNITED BRITISH STEAMSHIP COMPANY, LTD. v. PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY. (THE "FRAMLINGTON COURT.")

(1936) 56 Ll L Rep 200

Negligence-Dock authority - Plaintiffs' steamship F C manoeuvring to leave Greenland Dock entrance, River Thames, stern first-Vessel attended by tug fore and aft-Entrance obstructed by flotilla of barges-Authority of dockmaster to remove such an obstruction -Tug at disposal of dockmaster to clear entrance-Orders given by dockmaster to F C to get under way and to cast off check rope-Subsequent order to put engines ahead-Collision between F C and barge K-Propeller damaged -Claim against dock authority-Duty of dockmaster-Statutory powers and remedies of authority against shipmasters who fail to comply with dockmaster's orders - Dual control-Contributory negligence-Evidence that damage would have been avoided had propeller been stopped earlier and that those in charge of the F C were warned in sufficient time to stop propeller before collision-Port of London (Consolidation) Act, 1920, Sects. 155 (8), 160.

FOSBROKE-HOBBES v. AIRWORK, LTD., AND ANOTHER.

(1936) 56 Ll L Rep 209

Negligence-Aeroplane-Accident - Claim by dependants of deceased passenger- Aeroplane chartered by V from first defendants (owners of airport) for carriage of V and his friends (including deceased) to and from Naval Review -Aeroplane and pilot supplied by second defendants-Crash at beginning of fight-Res ipsa loquitur-Whether first defendants agents or principals in transaction-Liability of second defendants - Whether exempt from liability by reason of charter conditions -Implied acceptance.

UNION-CASTLE MAIL STEAMSHIP COMPANY, LTD. v. HOUSTON LINE (LONDON), LTD.

(1936) 56 Ll L Rep 214

Contract-Regulation of steamship sailings - Agreement between steamship lines-Mutual co-operation in working South and East African shipping trade -Dispute between U.-C. Line and H. Line as to right of H. Line (1) in respect of outward sailings from U.K. and Continental ports; (2) in respect of homeward sailings - Distinction between London and West Coast lines -Whether agreement affected by subsequent Continental agreements concerning outward sailings (entered into between Continental lines and British lines, including parties to dispute)- Arbitration-Award-Case stated.

Lloyd's Law Reports